PDA

View Full Version : Angel & Faith # 19 Discussion Thread(Full Spoilers)



BAF
27-02-13, 03:04 AM
Leyki has posted her review of Angel & Faith # 19.It's spoiler heavy.

http://leykimayri.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/review-angel-faith-19-death-and-consequences-part-4/

Vampire in Rug
27-02-13, 03:25 AM
You sure that's the right link? I'm just getting some movie site with an interview speculating on a possible Justice League movie.

BAF
27-02-13, 03:31 AM
You sure that's the right link? I'm just getting some movie site with an interview speculating on a possible Justice League movie.

Eeep sorry about that.Corrected it.

Vampire in Rug
27-02-13, 03:57 AM
When is this issue released? I'll use spoiler-tags until I can read the issue for myself. The review sounds kind of disappointing. The Slayers and Alistair making their plan against Eyghon last issue then Spike showing up made it feel like it was building towards something big and epic. Seems kind of a let-down if Eyghon just shows up at the house out of nowhere. Also disappointed that Spike doesn't really seem to serve a purpose here. I would have thought that he'd be a total asset in taking down Eyghon. I always liked the mythology that Eyghon can't possess other demons and it seems pretty silly that this piece of mythology is being disregarded because "he's more powerful now". I hope we get some cool Alistair moments. I assume Giles corpse doesn't dissolve when Eyghon is killed. I do like it that it's Giles that kills Eyghon -although I know that won't stop some people from ignoring the story so that they can give Angel credit, then complain about it. I hope the continuity errors with Buffy and Dowling aren't as glaring as the review makes out. That kind of stuff should be easy to keep track of. Much as I hate resurrections, I am looking forward to hearing Giles speak again. If Angel is comatose, I do wonder what will stop Nadira from killing him.

shipperx
27-02-13, 04:05 AM
Given that review... :coffee: This issue sounds exactly like what I had expected...


Y'know, one day, someone should try to explain the blatant contradiction (but they never, ever will) of how there's an Angel and an Angelus (and a Liam too, I wonder...?) but there's only one Darla (human or vampire) and only Spike (albeit one who is written wildly differently by different people. But that's not mythology, that's just being sloppy. Sort of like their ever slipping timeline, the randomly possessed Twangel, and the way characters know things they were never told.

And I see there's expanded use of super-pale pigment with... it now becoming an absolute that Angel was possessed during the mass murder of Nadira's squad.

BAF
27-02-13, 04:10 AM
When is this issue released? I'll use spoiler-tags until I can read the issue for myself. The review sounds kind of disappointing. The Slayers and Alistair making their plan against Eyghon last issue then Spike showing up made it feel like it was building towards something big and epic. Seems kind of a let-down if Eyghon just shows up at the house out of nowhere. Also disappointed that Spike doesn't really seem to serve a purpose here. I would have thought that he'd be a total asset in taking down Eyghon. I always liked the mythology that Eyghon can't possess other demons and it seems pretty silly that this piece of mythology is being disregarded because "he's more powerful now". I hope we get some cool Alistair moments. I assume Giles corpse doesn't dissolve when Eyghon is killed. I do like it that it's Giles that kills Eyghon -although I know that won't stop some people from ignoring the story so that they can give Angel credit, then complain about it. I hope the continuity errors with Buffy and Dowling aren't as glaring as the review makes out. That kind of stuff should be easy to keep track of. Much as I hate resurrections, I am looking forward to hearing Giles speak again. If Angel is comatose, I do wonder what will stop Nadira from killing him.

It is released digitally at 3am eastern.So in a few hours

Vampire in Rug
27-02-13, 05:24 AM
It is released digitally at 3am eastern.So in a few hours

That feeling when I know I'll be at work while the rest of you are reading the comic.

That feeling when I'm wondering about soul-Giles and keep looking at the clock waiting for my shift to finish. You have no idea how excited I am to see soul-Giles.

That feeling when I finish work and instead of going to the gym, I go home to download the comic from Dark Horse, promise myself that I will go to the gym after, but never do because now I'm comfortable and at home.

That feeling when this issue turns out to be the very mediocre end to a very promising arc.

That feeling when I get told that I'm not the arbiter of canon... and I know deep in my heart that I never will be.

That feeling when this thread turns into a TOYL thread and fifteen pages of Future-Dark-Willow.

Feels bad, man.


Y'know, one day, someone should try to explain the blatant contradiction (but they never, ever will) of how there's an Angel and an Angelus (and a Liam too, I wonder...?) but there's only one Darla (human or vampire) and only Spike (albeit one who is written wildly differently by different people. But that's not mythology, that's just being sloppy.

My guess is (until I read the actual issue of course), the whole thing about Angel and Angelus being two different people is either a character in the story not understanding what they are talking about, or Leyki the reviewer possibly getting a detail wrong or choosing to interpret it a certain way. Because honestly, I doubt the writers will confirm it in concrete that Angel and Angelus are seperate people. Because that's just silly. I've never had a problem with the whole soul/no-soul thing. Whether or not you consider a vampire the same person that they were in life is a semantic game really, and one I've never been interested in discussing because really, what makes a person? Is it our memories, our soul, our personality, our genetics? All of these things are subject to change in the Buffyverse, so really, what is the defining thing that makes someone themselves? It's a matter of semantics, really.

Angelus is Liam turned into a vampire. Angel is Liam/Angelus as a vampire with his soul restored. Spike is exactly the same, only he doesn't change his name as frequently. There is no difference in the mythology and I've never had trouble with it. Angel and Angelus being treated as separate people was silly in AtS season 4 but even then I didn't really have trouble with the mythology because while the characters talking about Angelus as a separate guy was silly, there really was nothing in the mythology that explicitly debunked what was previously established. I hope the same is true for this issue of A&F.

That said, the soul and the demon are certainly two different metaphysical "objects" and Angel and Spike have both inside them. I have no trouble with the idea that a third "object" (Giles's soul) in there could cause problems.

I still think it's stupid that Eyghon can possess Spike. What was awesome about Willow and Angel's plan in In the Dark was that the demon inside Angel would make Angel's dead body uninhabitable for Eyghon. It was an awesome and creative way of defeating Eyghon and I think it's stupid that has been thrown out the window because "Eyghon is more powerful now so he can possess vampires". I really, really hate Power Creep in comics, perhaps even more-so than resurrections. Rules need to be laid down for what characters can and can't do and these rules should be adhered to. Again, Joss should never again complain about a vampire using sunscreen.


it now becoming an absolute that Angel was possessed during the mass murder of Nadira's squad.

When was that ever in question? We found out in issue #1 that Angel didn't remember Nadira's squad because he was in deep possession when it happened. That doesn't mean that Angel can't be blamed because he's the one who signed on with Twilight: even if he wasn't lucid for some periods, he's still accountable. He's also accountable for hiring the known psychopaths Nash and Pearl. He knew that they would likely be doing evil stuff even when he was lucid and yet he still chose to work with them. Just because he was asleep at the wheel when Nash and Pearl killed Nadira's squad, that doesn't mean that he can't still be held accountable for stuff that was very clearly his fault. I still fail to see where the "whitewashing" is here.

shipperx
27-02-13, 05:37 AM
Angel didn't remember Nadira's squad murder because it wasn't unique. He didn't know whether or not he was possessed that time because he couldn't identify the incident. Now it's certain.

Oh yeah he was specifically possessed that time... and every other identifiable incident. He's not guilty of anything specific just something ambiguously bad that took place sometime. Maybe. But they'll never give rhyme or reason or a way to know. It's just possession during anything that Twangel did that anyone might be capable of identifying or mentioning... which is terribly convenient for retroactive de-colorizing, is it not?

ubi4soft
27-02-13, 06:44 AM
Guess it's Gage' take on Dumb&Dumber as TGIQ is one of his favorites episodes, only this time is Dumb!Spike and Saint!Angel.

Vampire in Rug
27-02-13, 07:39 AM
Angel didn't remember Nadira's squad murder because it wasn't unique. He didn't know whether or not he was possessed that time because he couldn't identify the incident. Now it's certain.

I've got the issue in front of me. Angel's words: "I don't remember the incident that your friend mentioned. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. There were times, especially toward the end, when I was more under Twilight's influence than others." Faith then compares the situation to when Angel killed Giles, an incident where we know that Angel was possessed. I always took this to mean that Angel was possessed at certain times, much like Spike was in season 7 when the First was triggering him. Most of the time Spike could act of his own accord but every now and then he'd wake up in a strange place because the First had been driving around in his body. I imagine that the same was true of Angel sometimes with Twilight. Most of the time Angel was doing his Twilight stuff of his own accord, but on occasion the Big Cat would get bored and want to take Angel's body for a spin.

Also in issue #1 Angel mentions that he used Nash and Pearl to attack rival demons and tried to steer them away from human targets. He does mention that he's not surprised that they "went off the reservation", but prior to Faith telling him Nadira's story -Angel had clearly not heard of Nash and Pearl attacking Slayers. Because their job was to attack rival demons -if they attacked humans, that would be "off the reservation" and out of the ordinary for them. Earlier in the issue, we saw Twilight floating ominously in the sky while they butchered the Slayers. Angel specificity mentions that killing humans were not Nash and Pearl's job, therefore he should remember them killing Nadira's squad because that kind of operation should be out of the ordinary for them.

The fact that it was Nash and Pearl killing humans instead of demons, it wasn't their usual job, Angel saw it and doesn't remember it, and he mentions bouts of possession... to me that indicated from issue #1 that Angel was possessed in that specific incident. This is not new information. You say "now it's certain" as though it was previously ambiguous and maybe Angel just forgot...

And y'know what? Who cares that he was possessed in this once incident? Does that really lower Angel's culpability or whitewash him? No, it does not. Not any more than me falling into a drunken stupor behind the wheel and therefore unconscious when I drive through a kindergarten. Angel put himself in that position, it's established in issue #1 that he knew what kind of people Nash and Pearl were, and while he was unaware that they killed the Slayers, he couldn't pretend to be surprised when he heard about it. He knew that Nash and Pearl acting up was a very real risk and yet he still chose to hire them.

There was a panel where Angel also speaks about how he should have asked more questions or turned away from Twilight when he was in his right mind, yet he chose not to. I'm guessing that panel or that dialogue must have been missing from your issue of the comic? If so, that's unfortunate that you would miss out a chunk of the story like that, but you should still hang onto the issue because sometimes misprints can be worth something later down the line...


Oh yeah he was specifically possessed that time... and every other identifiable incident. He's not guilty of anything specific just something ambiguously bad that took place sometime. Maybe. But they'll never give rhyme or reason or a way to know. It's just possession during anything that Twangel did that anyone might be capable of identifying or mentioning... which is terribly convenient for retroactive de-colorizing, is it not?

Well, that's a complete and utter lie. I could make a whole list of incidents of Angel's crimes that he was aware of while committing and should still be held culpable for. I can think of two, count 'em, two instances where he was clearly possessed, and I could think of a dozen other crimes off the top of my head where he was in his right mind. I could list them, but really, why would I bother? You'd just ignore and continue to post the same complaints Every Single Month. I've said it before, the story is far from perfect and while I am ultimately enjoying the book, there are plenty of flaws and things that in the story that should have been improved upon. Why not critique the actual flaws of the book?


Guess it's Gage' take on Dumb&Dumber as TGIQ is one of his favorites episodes, only this time is Dumb!Spike and Saint!Angel.

Can we at least wait until the issue is released before the thread is bombarded by the usual sarcastic one-liner complaints? :rolling:

Morphia
27-02-13, 08:14 AM
A few scattershot observations, which I'm not spoiler tagging. This is a full spoilers thread.

Firstly, I can't believe that Nadira is willing to give Angel a second chance but not Faith. What the hell...?

Mind you, I'm now pretty certain Nadira's toast before the end of the series. A shame. She's my favourite character.

Spike has a few good lines (two of them very funny indeed), but otherwise his role in this issue seems to be 'class clown.' He seems to have no opinion on anything, certainly not on the merits or otherwise of resurrecting Giles (and how he knew that's what Angel was up to isn't explained of course). Also, where does Angel get off coming over all moral superior? After season 8, that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. But then, as Shipperx has stated several times, Spike was never going to be allowed to upstage Angel in his own book. If anyone does that, Giles does. Fair enough. It is, as mentioned, Angel's book, but yet more evidence that DH really don't know what to do with Spike. They took him out of Buffy's book because they didn't want him standing around doing nothing, yet that's all he does here, and worst of all, it was all he really did in his own book.

The so-called 'romantic chemistry' Gage talked about between Spike and Faith is nowhere in evidence. Going by this issue, all Faith feels for Spike is contempt. And not in the quippy Tracy/Hepburn way.

The shouting match between Spike and Angel over Buffy is weird. Spike didn't leave San Francisco because of Buffy/Dowling. When he left there was no Buffy/Dowliing. Yet that's what this conversation seems to imply. It's bad enough surely that they're retconning their story from season 8, now they're retconning season 9 while it's still happening.

Either that, or Gage hasn't read Buffy nos 7-10, for which I wouldn't blame him.

The Spangel shout out is quite amusing.

Couldn't they spare Ethan a single panel to show he's dead again? I was so looking forward to the return of that character. What a waste.

Maggie
27-02-13, 08:29 AM
When did Gage mention chemistry?

Somehow what bothers me most is Allie calling Spike and Faith the best bad guy and bad girl in the 'verse. Not that I think Allie sees them as villains or anything. More that it seems like their pasts are never to be forgotten, and is somehow defining. While Angel can kill as many as he likes without losing the basic position of being the hero.

And on my first read at least Leyki is right about Angelus being a whole other person....

Morphia
27-02-13, 09:28 AM
When did Gage mention chemistry?

It was in a recent interview he did with CBR. He said Spike and Faith had 'romantic chemistry.' I can't say I've seen anything 'romantic' about any of their interaction so far, whether in the show or the comic. Unless Gage thinks that if a woman and a man just speak to each other that's romantic.


Somehow what bothers me most is Allie calling Spike and Faith the best bad guy and bad girl in the 'verse. Not that I think Allie sees them as villains or anything. More that it seems like their pasts are never to be forgotten, and is somehow defining. While Angel can kill as many as he likes without losing the basic position of being the hero.

But that wasn't him. It was Twilight. :roll:

I've not seen that quote of Allie's but it doesn't surprise me. It's the facile read of both Spike's and Faith's characters. And also emphasises why IMO they wouldn't make a good romantic pairing. They'd bring out the worst in each other.


And on my first read at least Leyki is right about Angelus being a whole other person....

Yeah, I've just read Leyki's review (wasn't going to until I'd read the issue for myself) and I have to agree with her. That seems to be what they're saying here. If it helps, Eyghon distinguishes between Spike and his demon when he takes Spike over, so the same applies to him.

As I said, Spike has some funny lines, but otherwise, well.... . I had issues with Lynch's Spike too, but he was way more likeable.

Stoney
27-02-13, 10:39 AM
It was odd that Spike talked about Buffy getting chummy with a cop and not wanting to stick around because that just wasn't what was happening when he left, in fact he was the one spending the time liaising with Dowling. I just assume that they are linking in with what is really happening and just that we are supposed to accept that Spike was speculating/saying something to avoid getting into what was really happening because he doesn't want to discuss it with Angel.

I disliked the fact that Angel brought up Buffy to try and mock Spike. I know they have their competitive issues but considering everything that went off in S8 I don't think Angel would just bring her up like that to taunt Spike with what Angel sees as a predictable brush off, I just don't think he would feel that comfortable bringing up Buffy when the obvious retort happened. But then I thought the 'when can you get a word in' comment about Buffy to Willow was off as well, so perhaps it is just me and Angel is far more comfortable about what happened with Buffy than I think he would be.

Spike wasn't really relevant this issue, he was just there. The sexual side was a repetitive gag all the way through the issue to the clichéd extent of a kick to the balls then waking up on top of Faith. It was pretty painful really, practically a comedy sexbot role and totally in keeping with the reference to him having slept around earlier in the season. He has basically entered as the slightly dim/sarcastic/randy teenager or some such. I suppose it is setting up in some way whatever tomfoolery is coming next issue. But there wasn't any 'tension' built between anyone so I would put bets more at comedy or spell induced behaviour. It is a one-shot so they can pretty much do whatever they please. So, whatever, we'll find out next month.

I did only read it over quickly but I can't see why the way Angel avoided possession really worked personally. I also thought it was off of Nadira to be so definitely writing off Faith. I assume we are just supposed to feel that she is so personally hurt that she is overreacting to it. I thought it was a little lacklustre an arc personally, the best thing in this issue were the preview pages with Giles and his Gran imo.

I'm struggling to summon up much interest/enthusiasm I'm afraid.

KingofCretins
27-02-13, 10:54 AM
Triangle blather was a waste of panel space, frankly. It takes over every thread always, so really, what's the point in having characters rehash audience arguments?

My only objection to their obligatory verbal sparring is that Angel (and necessarily Gage and by implication Joss) felt it appropriate to still try to "one-up" Spike as though there is still any valid argument whatsoever about which of them is the more corrupt/corruptible and has the most questionable motives. Angel. Was. Twilight.

Spike acting petrified of Angelus was weak tea, but otherwise, I think fears that he was somehow going to come off as Angel's organ-grinder monkey were misplaced. I think his stature and use in the story matched what it was in Season 5, and instead of being sent to rescue the baby, he was assigned the kill shot on Eyghon. I think whatever that was all supposed to be with Faith came off less as a callback to Season 7 and more as just inexplicably awkward. Despite Gage's best intentions, I'm glad the characters turned out to have absolutely no chemistry in print whatsoever, though, since again, my mission statement is for Faith to stay unique from Buffy by never sleeping with either of these guys. If next issue is supposed to be some sort of romance tease, it'll just be painfully awkward. Not to mention cloying -- didn't we just do this with Spike for five issues?

Which, hey, I actually liked the "works in theory" twist of Eyghon being able to possess them after all, as though the problem he had with Angel back in "The Dark Age" was just an issue of interdimensional packet loss.

I would rather Nadira still wanted to kill Angel but spared him because she forgives Faith.

Y'know, for an issue that had all the moving parts working and resolved several plot points and was basically a major turning point episode, I found the whole thing oddly unfulfilling. Also not all that enthusiastic about it being "Spike and Faith" next issue, not because I don't buy the plot justification -- ish -- it's because it really is that transparent that the current plan is to treat Spike like he is Cowbell and to add more to everything. Comic continuations got a fever... and the only prescription... is more Spike.

Morphia
27-02-13, 11:41 AM
My only objection to their obligatory verbal sparring is that Angel (and necessarily Gage and by implication Joss) felt it appropriate to still try to "one-up" Spike as though there is still any valid argument whatsoever about which of them is the more corrupt/corruptible and has the most questionable motives. Angel. Was. Twilight.

Yep. Angel snapping at Spike that he's taking responsibility for his actions - something that Spike knows nothing about - was pretty mind-boggling after season 8.


I think whatever that was all supposed to be with Faith came off less as a callback to Season 7 and more as just inexplicably awkward. Despite Gage's best intentions, I'm glad the characters turned out to have absolutely no chemistry in print whatsoever

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that. I didn't think they had any chemistry in the show either.


I would rather Nadira still wanted to kill Angel but spared him because she forgives Faith.

Me too. I think it would've made a lot more sense too.


Also not all that enthusiastic about it being "Spike and Faith" next issue, not because I don't buy the plot justification -- ish -- it's because it really is that transparent that the current plan is to treat Spike like he is Cowbell and to add more to everything. Comic continuations got a fever... and the only prescription... is more Spike.

While I don't mind more Spike, I wish they'd actually give him something worthwhile to do. He didn't even get that in his own series.

sybil
27-02-13, 06:30 PM
I am amazed at how many comments reflect my own; but, for all the parsing of the definition of “human,” in complex and careful constucsts of body, the psychological mind of ego, id, superego, the world within, the world exterior to our “shell” by which we experience the world, our brains and networks to memory, to false memory and yet, deep and even overwhelming empathy, to boil things down to a “soul is me”….which covers any and all “material” or “spiritual” form, that may or may not have “animation,” and every possible definition that existed in the past or will exist in the future, “soul” shall be the word of “ identity” to define “human.” Soul =human= identity. So bits of Giles’ Giles’ are “conduiting” /overwhelming Angel's Angel i.e."identity"/soul "and vampire is where exactly?

For season 9 readers spoiler maybe: use cursor as I whited this on edit.

So, all that anguish, doubt, suffering, "argument" on Xander's face re Dawn--we now know soul only and "no demons exist," particuarly if you are "pure" and are non boogity, meaning if your name is "Xander. "

My gripe with this entire line is that Joss is essentially saying re Buffy or "Liam" your lousy Dad defines you. If you crumble to a father’s dictates you remain in his clutches. If you rebel against his dictates, then you remain in his clutches.

No one can ever grow beyond either and be their own person, as it were, despite what was shown in season eight, and despite Giles running around in Angel, who will "magically" have yet another set of "memories" --as this pure "Dad" boning his Love Child(e). (We went there in "canon," with A/S in season 5, as Dru's the great grandmum to her own mum and therefore to Angelus and therefore to Spike's making as a childe/brother to Angelus--for the A/S shippers, besides that "one time" of intimacy I saw meant that wasn't accepted/counted as one time in the "empathy" in Damages and "empathy" is what I see in the Angel/Giles dealio. But! soul is human is identity. Wow. Just wow.

I think Giles has been almost iinexplicable since he left Buffy in the midst of the worst crises of her life (tv); and my whole need for the scoobs to be united around Buffy keeps on souring because of it; even though it is Buffy herself who isn’t doing anything. Including dating Dowel, which was silly and weak in trying to hurt Angel.

I think that season 9 is a bust and the real "season 9" is in these satellite books, as this one, but the "world building" simply ignores what anima even is, let alone that no one can write a defintion of "human" in a single word.
HUGS!
sybil

Maggie
27-02-13, 07:36 PM
Yeah, I've just read Leyki's review (wasn't going to until I'd read the issue for myself) and I have to agree with her. That seems to be what they're saying here. If it helps, Eyghon distinguishes between Spike and his demon when he takes Spike over, so the same applies to him.

It doesn't help since nobody thinks that pre-souled Spike is a whole other person, whereas Angel gets to dodge responsibility for anything and everything that is Angelus (or Twilight).

***
Other thoughts about this issue. The reset to AtS 5 Spike/Angel snark bothers me a lot. It's another way of subtly saying that nothing happened in season 8 worth caring about. Last time these two were in the same panel, Angel was trying to murder Spike and was about to successfully murder Giles. That's after a year of consciously choosing to play the role of Twilight with all that entails. Spike *is* entitled to the moral high ground here, and that should entail a meaningful shift in their dynamic. But no -- Spike is certainly needling Angel, but in a way that isn't serious and doesn't suggest that Spike (or any one else in the book, or, presumably, the writers) has actually figured out that Angel is far more morally compromised than is Spike.

I agree with King and others that the line from Angel about how he takes responsibility for things. Angel even follows it up with an incredulous "He gets a pass"? If this were to be evidence about just exactly how clueless Angel is about the fact that his moral standing is far, far more problematic than is Spike's that'd be great. But, alas, I think it's exactly what the writers think too. Angel may have done some dubious things, but remains essentially a hero. But Spike is basically a bad guy that people put up with because he does helpful things from time to time.

Morphia, the Allie quote about Spike and Faith as the best bad guy and bad girl in the 'verse is the first thing he says in the letter col. It's not even in reply to a letter. That's just how he sees it.

The triangle banter, at least, wasn't as dreadful as it could have been. It's the first time anyone has said that Buffy hates Angel. I seriously doubt she does, of course. Allie has tweeted that as long as Buffy and Angel are alive the door will never be closed between them. Gage in his recent interview said that the reunion between Buffy and Angel is too important to squeeze into the story this season (a courtesy which was not extended to the reunion between Buffy and Spike). But it's nice to know that someone thinks that Buffy has reason to be a little miffed at Angel for the nonce. Even if it is just Spike that morally challenged hero-wanna-be who has never taken responsibility for anything.

Morphia
27-02-13, 07:53 PM
But, alas, I think it's exactly what the writers think too. Angel may have done some dubious things, but remains essentially a hero. But Spike is basically a bad guy that people put up with because he does helpful things from time to time.

That seems to be the standard comic book guy view. That view was what was used to justify Bill Willingham's take on the character.


Morphia, the Allie quote about Spike and Faith as the best bad guy and bad girl in the 'verse is the first thing he says in the letter col. It's not even in reply to a letter. That's just how he sees it.

I missed that. 'Bad guy' isn't the same as 'bad boy', is it? Or is it?


But it's nice to know that someone thinks that Buffy has reason to be a little miffed at Angel for the nonce. Even if it is just Spike that morally challenged hero-wanna-be who has never taken responsibility for anything.

:)

Jack Shaftoe
27-02-13, 08:18 PM
Of course Angel saves the day which makes Nadira give him a chance to live. A candidate for the world's most obvious plot twist maybe? Angelus, Twilight, goodness gracious, it's like the "real" Angel is literally an angel the way the y put everything bad on those two entities.

Eyghon sure died easily for such a supposedly massive threat.

Stoney
27-02-13, 08:52 PM
But it's nice to know that someone thinks that Buffy has reason to be a little miffed at Angel for the nonce. Even if it is just Spike that morally challenged hero-wanna-be who has never taken responsibility for anything.

The bit that always baffles me about this is that people behave as if there isn't a clear line for presoul/soul for Spike just because it isn't a screaming, shouting loud personality swing, but it is there. That is even before you get onto him fighting for the soul in reaction to his own actions. So, sure the 'tude stays, the snark but the swagger and the smirk die down, they become something he has to take out the box and shake off as needed, something he is aware of having changed. That some things were simpler then. He is quietly contemplative in S7 at times, and just now in the mini, in a way unsouled Spike didn't sit still long enough to really be. Sure he boozes and broods but he doesn't get totally trashed and try love spells etc etc. Spike unsouled is great but he is an immature shadow of the souled version and this is the case except when he is in the same title as Angel. It is deeply frustrating. And, you know, the things Spike is getting a 'pass' for he committed without a soul, the things that Nadira is angry with Angel for he got into with a soul even if at times he was possessed. There is no fair comparative here they are entirely different situations for the two.

Moscow Watcher
27-02-13, 08:55 PM
So, Spike outdid his season 6 trip to Africa on a motorcycle. Here he travels from Easter Island to London "walkin' the Earth".

Faith dated a cop?

The rules have changed. Now Eyghon can "outmatch" vampire demons, because he's "at the peak of his power".

Funnily, Spike repeats Angel's line "have we won?" when Eyghon possession is over. To nail down that Twilight was possession?

I wonder if Angel knew that the Tooth of Ammuth was a conduit, not a storage device. If Spike knows it then Angel most likely knew it too and lied to Faith.

I wonder if the next issue will be about Spike and Faith somehow entering Angel's head, the way Willow entered Buffy's head in "The Weight of the World".

Rihannon
27-02-13, 09:40 PM
And, you know, the things Spike is getting a 'pass' for he committed without a soul, the things that Nadira is angry with Angel for he got into with a soul even if at times he was possessed. There is no fair comparative here they are entirely different situations for the two.

Well, Angel is the one complaining about the "pass". We can assume that if Nadira knows about Spike's past, she probably also knows about his most recent actions, including helping (and probably saving) lots of Slayers at the end of season 8. I mean, attitude and all, she didn't hesitate to knowledge him as one of the good guys, even if it was the first time she ever saw him, and wasn't expecting him to be there either.
Angel has to complain if someone is giving Spike his place, even if he does (never says so aloud, though). Part of the dynamics, I suppose...



Faith dated a cop?

With Faith, one can never know for certain...:confused3:


Funnily, Spike repeats Angel's line "have we won?" when Eyghon possession is over. To nail down that Twilight was possession?

This can't possibly be a coincidence! :lol:


I wonder if Angel knew that the Tooth of Ammuth was a conduit, not a storage device. If Spike knows it then Angel most likely knew it too and lied to Faith.

Maybe Angel didn't know all the truth. But he could be lying to Faith also, it would be like him. Don't think the writers are going to explain this much further.


I wonder if the next issue will be about Spike and Faith somehow entering Angel's head, the way Willow entered Buffy's head in "The Weight of the World".

If Faith has to go into Angel's mind, she shouldn't be doing it alone. Well, in a second thought... Spike shouldn't go there alone either, for both vamps sake!:rolling:

BAF
27-02-13, 10:13 PM
I have my copy of Angel & Faith # 19.The conclusion of "Death and Consequences."

I really loved this issue and this arc.The resolution of the Eyghon plot was a surprise.I thought it would continue into the final arc but thinking about it,it makes sense to wrap it here so the last arc can deal with Whistler,Pearl & Nash and actually dealing with whether Angel and Faith can and will bring Giles back.

Speaking of which,while I still doubt Giles will actually be really brought back, that made his return through Angel in this issue very poignant for me.And it was very fitting for Giles to have such a big role during the taking down of Eyghon.

I enjoyed the Angel and Spike interaction.Very reminiscent of their interaction on the show and After The Fall including their pissing contest over Buffy.I could really hear DB and JM's voices in those scenes.I think Christos Gage has been good at this with the characters overall.

This issue seemed to be the Angel and Spike issue so I'm really looking forward to next issue which I assume will focus on the Faith and Spike dynamic since Angel is catatonic.

I also liked the resolution to the slayers here to.I do hope we see more of Nadira.And I did think it was a kick ass moment when Faith told her and the other slayers that Angel was off limits to kill and if they try they'll have to go through her.

And the art was great as always from RI.

I really can't wait to see how all this is resolved.

shipperx
28-02-13, 01:32 AM
It doesn't help since nobody thinks that pre-souled Spike is a whole other person, whereas Angel gets to dodge responsibility for anything and everything that is Angelus (or Twilight).

Nodding. Glad someone agrees with me on this.




Other thoughts about this issue. The reset to AtS 5 Spike/Angel snark bothers me a lot. It's another way of subtly saying that nothing happened in season 8 worth caring about.

After all how could Spike possibly take it personally that Angel tried to kill him as the follow-up to Spike walking into apocalyptic battle by Angel's side as stalwart ally during Angel's last dumb plan (to take down W&H)... Or it would be if anyone were allowed to remember that Angel did anything in season 8 except be possessed.

What is it about the comics that makes anything from the show that the comics wants to ignore and... well... ANYTHING in the comics fail to stick before being conveniently sucked down the memory hole?


Spike *is* entitled to the moral high ground here, and that should entail a meaningful shift in their dynamic. But no -- Spike is certainly needling Angel, but in a way that isn't serious and doesn't suggest that Spike (or any one else in the book, or, presumably, the writers) has actually figured out that Angel is far more morally compromised than is Spike.

Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. Let's see, Spike died saving Slayerettes in Season 7 and then he arrived backing them up in Season 8 versus Angel JUST having spent years causing literally hundreds of them to be slaughtered wholesale. But of course Angel-who-wasn't-Twangel gripes about Spike being cut marginal slack. Angel has dibs on all slack! :rolling:



alas, I think it's exactly what the writers think too. Angel may have done some dubious things, but remains essentially a hero. But Spike is basically a bad guy that people put up with because he does helpful things from time to time. Pretty much. Looks like these comics have an editorial caste system that will not be altered by time or events (current or otherwise).


Morphia, the Allie quote about Spike and Faith as the best bad guy and bad girl in the 'verse is the first thing he says in the letter col. It's not even in reply to a letter. That's just how he sees it. You're making me want to write a grumpy letter to Allie. This makes me feel grumpy things. I won't write however because its futile, possibly counterproductive, and rather too fitting to Allie's conceptual cliches about fandom.

Still, that Allie quote is :censored:


Gage in his recent interview said that the reunion between Buffy and Angel is too important to squeeze into the story this season (a courtesy which was not extended to the reunion between Buffy and Spike). Anything I'd say to this would just be repetition of things I've already said.


But it's nice to know that someone thinks that Buffy has reason to be a little miffed at Angel for the nonce.
I'm sure the miffing will be resolved off screen just like all other emotional fallout from that period when Angel was possessed and totally not Angel, because Angel is a hero and would never ever do anything bad. That's just his doppleganger. Everyone knows that. They know a hero when they see one (and will ignore their lying eyes when they think they're witnessing anything his dopplegangers do wrong).

I'm ready for these current seasons to be over, satisfying my morbid curiosity so that I can shelve the things and hopefully forget them. They're killing my love of the TV show characters.

I want to remember them as the characters I liked!

TimeTravellingBunny
28-02-13, 02:29 AM
I've just read the issue, and... God. I can't believe that this series has actually been getting praise everywhere except on this forum. Even now on Whedonesque, every comment except mine is about how "great" this issue is. I used to think that the "Family Reunion" arc was the absolute worst it can get, with the cheesy writing of Angel and Connor, telling each other "I love you and you're awesome" 10 times an issue, the "sexist but (un)funny and (un)true" jokes about that babbling Buffy having stopped TwAngel for telling her his genius plan (as if we haven't actually read issue 8.35 and don't know what really happened), Angel curing the lesbian witch of her evil with his manly orgasmic bite, and everyone singing Kumbaya. But this is even worse.

This time, what Gage wrote doesn't even make any sense.

- The Angel/Spike argument makes no sense. How the heck would Spike know that Buffy has been seeing a lot of Dowling? Is he psychic or something? When Spike left, Buffy barely knew Dowling, Spike was seeing more of Dowling than Buffy was, and it was Spike who was trying to encourage Dowling to date Buffy, while neither Dowling nor Buffy were showing any particular interest in each other. Hasn't Gage even been reading the Buffy title?

And what on Earth did Spike mean with "Did you know she thought..." What? I hope it's not supposed to refer to pregnancy. Surely not even Gage-written Spike, who's written as a useless idiot (predictable), wouldn't be so stupid to believe that Buffy believed she was an elephant with a 15-months pregnancy?

- So now everyone believes that Angel and "Angelus" are two different people? Really? Despite the facts that 1) nobody ever behaved as it that was the case on either BtVS or AtS, with the exception of AtS season 4, and 2) the Darla story, Angel's entire freaking show (looking for redemption), every flashback ever, the Angel/Spike relationship - none of it would make sense. It's as if Gage only watched season 4 of AtS and nothing else.

But let's say it's an open question since the characters themselves can't know metaphysical truths, and this is Gage's personal interpretation (which he's trying to enforce as canon); what certainly goes AGAINST CANON is Spike talking about "Angel" and "Angelus" as two separate people. Spike has NEVER done that and he's always talked about "Angel" as one person. I thought Gage actually watched season 5 of AtS? Maybe he should watch Destiny or Damage again?

Angel himself also always (with the exception of AtS season 4) talked about the things *he* did, not the things that some other guy did. (In fact, the name "Angelus" was never even used as a name for soulless!Angel in BtVS seasons 1 and 2; everyone called him simply "Angel" most of the time, everyone including Spike, Drusilla, Darla, the Master, Buffy, Giles, and Angel himself.)

Worst. Retcon. Ever.

- And then they play the "Nadira will want to slay Spike because he was a mass murderer in the past and killed two Slayers" fake-out. But wait - wasn't Spikelus the one who did that? :rolleyes: Gage can't keep his mythology halfway logical and consistent.

- And then to top it all all: Faith scolds Nadira, comparing Twilight!Angel to the Slayers possessed by Eyghon. I'm sorry, what?! Angel wasn't possessed when he agreed to work for Twilight, he wasn't possessed when he donned a mask and terrorized the Slayers for an entire year, bombed their headquarters and let Nadira's friends be slaughtered.

Maybe I was wrong - maybe this is the worst retcon ever.

Local Maximum
28-02-13, 06:17 AM
I called that the Eyghon possession/Twilight possession parallel was being set up last issue. If Faith were making that point about *Giles* and not one of the other slayers, there would be...well, I wouldn't agree that they are comparable, but at least Giles (and Ethan) have some responsibility for summoning Eyghon which is a little like a smaller version of Angel's responsibility for signing onto Twilight. The slayers possessed by Eyghon have...nothing resembling that kind of responsibility.

Anyway, I haven't read the issue yet. Maybe I'll like it. Sounds great.

Did Angel cure any slayers of their Eyghon possession by biting them?

ETA: And yes. Either Angel and Angelus are separate beings AND Spike and Spikeus are separate beings, OR Spike is Spike and Angel is Angelus. Or (most accurately), they are both mostly the same guy with a soul and without but the soul makes a big difference for their morality. For Spike to buy into such a dichotomy in Angel doesn't really make sense.

Anyway, I do doubt that this can actually be worse than the end of Family Reunion, but TTB makes a compelling case.

Vampire in Rug
28-02-13, 07:01 AM
When Faith says "if you wouldn't kill them when they were possessed by Eyghon... you've got no right killing him", I didn't read the scene to be explicitly drawing a parallel between the innocent Slayers being possessed by Eyghon and Angel's relationship with Twilight. I read it as more as Faith talking about Angel being a danger right now because he's shifting between Angel, Angelus and Giles. While I can sympathize with those who want to kill Angel as punishment for his Twilight crimes, I can sort of see where Faith is coming from in this scene if my reading of it is correct. Killing Angel because of Twilight is one thing and you could argue that Angel deserves it. But killing him because he's skipping tracks right now and one of them is Angelus is another thing. Angel can't really help what's happening to him right now. Nadira wasn't stepping in with her sword because of Twilight, she was stepping in because Spike was talking about Angelus. Not to mention that Giles soul is in there too and Faith still wants to be able to resurrect Giles.


ETA: And yes. Either Angel and Angelus are separate beings AND Spike and Spikeus are separate beings, OR Spike is Spike and Angel is Angelus. Or (most accurately), they are both mostly the same guy with a soul and without but the soul makes a big difference for their morality. For Spike to buy into such a dichotomy in Angel doesn't really make sense.

I didn't see anything in this issue that breaks the mythology any worse than what we've seen already in AtS season 4. I don't think that Spike suggests that Angel and Angelus are literally two separate and distinct people. However, the demon and the soul are certainly (and always have been) two different metaphysical "objects", and now Angel has a second soul inside him too.

And yes, the same "rules" that apply to the vampire mythology and souls apply for Spike too. There is no double standard here where Angel and Angelus are separate while Spike is the same person the whole way through.

Stoney
28-02-13, 07:47 AM
I have to say I read the Nadira threat to Angel the same as ViR, that it was because of his current potential to, at any moment, be Angelus than it being because of Twilight.

Morphia
28-02-13, 09:08 AM
-- So now everyone believes that Angel and "Angelus" are two different people? Really? Despite the facts that 1) nobody ever behaved as it that was the case on either BtVS or AtS, with the exception of AtS season 4, and 2) the Darla story, Angel's entire freaking show (looking for redemption), every flashback ever, the Angel/Spike relationship - none of it would make sense. It's as if Gage only watched season 4 of AtS and nothing else.

But let's say it's an open question since the characters themselves can't know metaphysical truths, and this is Gage's personal interpretation (which he's trying to enforce as canon); what certainly goes AGAINST CANON is Spike talking about "Angel" and "Angelus" as two separate people. Spike has NEVER done that and he's always talked about "Angel" as one person. I thought Gage actually watched season 5 of AtS? Maybe he should watch Destiny or Damage again?

Angel himself also always (with the exception of AtS season 4) talked about the things *he* did, not the things that some other guy did. (In fact, the name "Angelus" was never even used as a name for soulless!Angel in BtVS seasons 1 and 2; everyone called him simply "Angel" most of the time, everyone including Spike, Drusilla, Darla, the Master, Buffy, Giles, and Angel himself.)

Worst. Retcon. Ever.

- And then they play the "Nadira will want to slay Spike because he was a mass murderer in the past and killed two Slayers" fake-out. But wait - wasn't Spikelus the one who did that? :rolleyes: Gage can't keep his mythology halfway logical and consistent.

I think the only thing to be done is to go with the flow. From now on, when discussing anything to do with Spike pre-season 7, we should refer to him as Spikelus. After all, as you say, it wasn't Spike who was a mass murderer, killed two slayers, tried to kill Willow, tried to rape Buffy etc, etc. That was Spikelus.

About the worst thing Spike has ever done is hold hands with Buffy when his own hand was on fire. Bad him!

Artea
28-02-13, 12:37 PM
I think the only thing to be done is to go with the flow. From now on, when discussing anything to do with Spike pre-season 7, we should refer to him as Spikelus. After all, as you say, it wasn't Spike who was a mass murderer, killed two slayers, tried to kill Willow, tried to rape Buffy etc, etc. That was Spikelus.

About the worst thing Spike has ever done is hold hands with Buffy when his own hand was on fire. Bad him!That is pretty much what happened on the show, no? It's not as if anyone was ever all that upset about all those things you mentioned. He is invited for Thanksgiving the episode after he tries to rape and kill Willow, for example, and that's just the tip of the whitewashed iceberg.

Which is why I find the complete meltdown in this thread hilarious to witness. Even if they did change the rules, this is completely inconsequential, because Angel and Spike are always instantly forgiven and always evade punishment.

Stoney
28-02-13, 12:45 PM
Spike didn't try to rape Willow it was all innuendo as you are right, it was played as a comedy scene. What has Spike done since being souled that has been instantly forgiven? The trigger kills where he physically was not in control and couldn't remember? What has Angel done that is being ignored? People might not like how S8 is being handled but they are handling it, ha, even if it is to try and rewrite it a bit. Angel himself certainly doesn't behave as if he has done nothing even if he seems focussed on the wrong bits and not questioning how he got himself into it. I never can understand how people can enjoy the verse if they can't, to some degree, just accept the attempt at redemption of the two vamps. A lot of actions across the verse are ignored if it doesn't serve the plot/character to explore them and a lot of 'bad' behaviour is played as comedy.

Artea
28-02-13, 01:04 PM
Spike didn't try to rape Willow it was all innuendo as you are right, it was played as a comedy scene. What has Spike done since being souled that has been instantly forgiven?I thought you didn't believe in the rigid soul/no soul distinction? :) And way to miss my point. The point is that Angel or Spike (or any other recurring villainous character) is instantly forgiven, no matter what they do or if it makes sense. There's even instances where they were forgiven when they were in the process of trying to kill the people who forgave them. Some new retcon or rule about the vampire mythos isn't going to change that, nor will it have any real effect on their 'redemption' stories. Fans have always picked and chosen what they liked about the (contradictory) mythology about vampires, souls, etc.

Stoney
28-02-13, 01:26 PM
I thought you didn't believe in the rigid soul/no soul distinction? :)

What have I said that makes sense of this sentence? Of course there is a difference between Spike souled and unsouled and Angel souled and unsouled. That they have personality traits that are intrinsic to them whichever version of them it is makes sense. They are different with souls but they aren't 'new' people.


And way to miss my point. The point is that Angel or Spike (or any other recurring villainous character) is instantly forgiven, no matter what they do or if it makes sense. There's even instances where they were forgiven when they were in the process of trying to kill the people who forgave them. Some new retcon or rule about the vampire mythos isn't going to change that, nor will it have any real effect on their 'redemption' stories. Fans have always picked and chosen what they liked about the (contradictory) mythology about vampires, souls, etc.

All the characters do/have done things that are 'bad' which get brushed over or simply forgiven, to certain degrees, where and as needed, it is the way of the verse. That isn't a souled/soulless issue.

Local Maximum
28-02-13, 01:39 PM
I read the issue. I wrote a thing about it, but BF logged me out and I lost it. Fortunately I had little to say. I agree with most criticisms leveled at it so far.

Vampire in Rug makes a good point about what Faith's reasoning is when she tells Nadira not to slay Angel because she wouldn't slay one of the Eyghon-possessed slayers. Still, I think that it's still a poor analogy because Angel has responsibility for Twilight and he...kind of is Angelus (in most versions of the show's mythology), whereas Eyghon is a totally separate being that the slayers have no responsibility for and weren't working for for a year. So Faith's argument still falls flat for me, though it may be in character.

Unless the slayers return as the cavalry at the 11th hour, the Faith/slayers split should have been one of the key emotional moments of the season, maybe the central one for Faith's character. Did Faith's loyalties to Angel drive her slayers protegees away? Nah, they would have left anyway, it's totally cool. So.

Nadira will probably be back, I'm thinking.

I think Allie meant "bad boy" and not "bad guy" with Spike (and "bad girl" as the female equivalent of "bad boy," not of "bad guy") -- which is more about his and Faith's look/attitude than moral status. That's still gonna be contentious of course, but I do think that what he meant was not quite as extreme as what it sounded like.

I disagree with TTB that this is worse than the last issue of Family Reunion, but it might be more boring, which is its own accomplishment. I think Gage is a writer who does good beginnings and poor endings -- the best issues of the first arc, Family Reunion and this one were the first issues, and the weakest of FR and this were the last ones.

Morphia
28-02-13, 02:01 PM
I disagree with TTB that this is worse than the last issue of Family Reunion, but it might be more boring, which is its own accomplishment. I think Gage is a writer who does good beginnings and poor endings -- the best issues of the first arc, Family Reunion and this one were the first issues, and the weakest of FR and this were the last ones.

I'd agree with that assessment. The first issue of this arc has been my favourite issue of the whole A&F series. I did enjoy the first issue (was it?) of the Drusilla arc too, though. This was mainly because it was so peppered with clues as to the identity of 'Mother Superior' and Angel just kept not getting it, that I found it hysterically funny.

BAF
28-02-13, 05:06 PM
Some tweets from Christos Gage.Also will be doing a Slayalive Q/A for Angel & Faith # 20 next month.

https://twitter.com/Christosgage/status/307145903947542529

Christos Gageþ@Christosgage

Sorry you didn't like Spike's portrayal, @Morphiauk . I was going back to their Angel Season 5 dynamic. Lots of posturing. More Spike in 20.

Christos Gageþ@Christosgage

I'm gonna do a Q&A with @SlayAliveForum after Angel & Faith 20, prepare your Spike questions for that. Some answers in issue 20

Christos Gageþ@Christosgage

Some who didn't like Spike's portrayal in 19 will like 20 better. Others may be even madder. Like Shaft, Spike is a complicated man.

Christos Gage‏@Christosgage

One last thing, issue 19 never says Angelus is a "soul." He's an amalgam of a demon and Angel's worst qualities. A unique persona.

Christos Gage‏@Christosgage

@Morphiauk Angel was no more use than Spike. It was Giles who won the day.


Rebekah Isaacs will also be doing a Q/A next month.

http://slayalive.com/showthread.php/9-Buffyverse-Season-9-News-Nexus/page100

FYI, we're doing a Q&A with Christos Gage and Rebekah Isaacs for the release of A&F #20. I had thought about doing one for the release of #19 but given their schedules this week (Gage is off to ECCC and Isaacs just got back from a trip and needs to catch up on work), we determined that after #20 would work better for logistic reasons. But also, because some of the questions that fans may have right now will be answered in the next issue, as tweeted by Gage today.

TimeTravellingBunny
28-02-13, 05:24 PM
I missed that. 'Bad guy' isn't the same as 'bad boy', is it? Or is it?

Bad guy is a man who does bad things. Bad boy is a man who smokes and wears leather. :)


That is pretty much what happened on the show, no?
No.

This really doesn't deserve a further explanation, but if you really badly need it... There is no scenario in which any of Spike's story in season 7 makes a lick of sense with the assumption that Spike is not the same person pre and post ensoulment, and nobody ever treats him as two different people.

But hey, the same is true of Angel in any TV season of BtVS and AtS other than season 4 of AtS.



Which is why I find the complete meltdown in this thread hilarious to witness. Even if they did change the rules, this is completely inconsequential, because Angel and Spike are always instantly forgiven and always evade punishment.
Neither Xander nor anyone else ever seemed to be upset about Faith having tried to rape and murder him. Maybe it wasn't really Faith who did it, it was some other girl called Fides...



I didn't see anything in this issue that breaks the mythology any worse than what we've seen already in AtS season 4.

How does that make it better? They screwed up before, so it's OK if they screw up again?


[QUOTE=Vampire in Rug;658095]When Faith says "if you wouldn't kill them when they were possessed by Eyghon... you've got no right killing him", I didn't read the scene to be explicitly drawing a parallel between the innocent Slayers being possessed by Eyghon and Angel's relationship with Twilight. I read it as more as Faith talking about Angel being a danger right now because he's shifting between Angel, Angelus and Giles. While I can sympathize with those who want to kill Angel as punishment for his Twilight crimes, I can sort of see where Faith is coming from in this scene if my reading of it is correct. Killing Angel because of Twilight is one thing and you could argue that Angel deserves it. But killing him because he's skipping tracks right now and one of them is Angelus is another thing. Angel can't really help what's happening to him right now. Nadira wasn't stepping in with her sword because of Twilight, she was stepping in because Spike was talking about Angelus.

If the idea was that Faith was saying that Slayers possessed by Eyghon and Angel being... "Angelus" is the same thing, this comparison is also made of fail.

Local Maximum: I'm not sure if this is worse than Family Reunion. They're both awful. It's like one of those "do you prefer the plague or the smallpox" choices.

norwie
28-02-13, 06:00 PM
Local Maximum: I'm not sure if this is worse than Family Reunion. They're both awful. It's like one of those "do you prefer the plague or the smallpox" choices.

Well, why are you mad about it? With the comix, you don't have to choose: You get both. :p

shipperx
28-02-13, 06:38 PM
All the characters do/have done things that are 'bad' which get brushed over or simply forgiven, to certain degrees, where and as needed, it is the way of the verse. That isn't a souled/soulless issue.

And because there's no reason to bring up hyenna curses or singing happiness wishes. Or attempted murder of several friends because of erroneous belief that the world is real. That's because there are rules within the verse as to why these things count differently than other things... much like the rules of souling.


Neither Xander nor anyone else ever seemed to be upset about Faith having tried to rape and murder him. Maybe it wasn't really Faith who did it, it was some other girl called Fides...
Or maybe it was hyenna her. I could understand if it was.


It does strike me as odd and mercurial what's forgiveable, what is instantaneously forgiveable, and what doesn't even count in the verse versus what is held against other characters forever. There seems to be a variety of slide rules.

I'm still remembering Gage talking something about the way that Angel had made up for the deaths attributable to Twangel before he even committed those crimes because...um...er... I'm still rather hazy on how that works.

I mean, joking aside, I get the posession, the souling, and the hyenna curse (the incendiary happiness singing is slightly different, but -- eh -- I give Xander a pass on that because it seemed like plot contrivance.). It's just retro-posession after Allie was walking around claiming the heightened 'maturity' of the comic because Angel wasn't posessed until they go 'Er, yeah, we're changing that. He totally was' that makes me irritable. (That and Connor going full-up sacchrine on Angel despite Allie proclaiming in Season 8 that Twangel wasn't thinking about Connor. Seriously, that was quite a sugar high for a pairing that had never been half so sweet before.)

Stoney
28-02-13, 08:11 PM
Christos Gageþ@Christosgage
Some who didn't like Spike's portrayal in 19 will like 20 better. Others may be even madder. Like Shaft, Spike is a complicated man.


I love it when they give teasing statements like this because it tells nothing but hypes things up, ha.

Obvious bet is Spike/Faith, but you never know... Allie said the way Spike deals with things changes the Buffy/Spike dynamic and then we have Spike coming over to A&F just on the back end of the Eyghon/Giles story, talking about Buffy moving on with a regular Joe, asking what their plans were to resurrect Giles beyond sticking a soul in a dead body... maybe Maggie will be getting her wish after all. :D

(could be both if his reaction to becoming human again is anything like suddenly becoming corporeal!! :confused3:)

sybil
28-02-13, 08:25 PM
First, my mythology on Angel “makes sense” when it comes to who Buffy is. She. Is. It. That’s all, folks!

So, when it comes to Angel and his focus on all the wrong bits, I do agree, when seen in the mythical context of Shiva and Kali, which was repeated with Spike, and why “the Gift”—Buffy’s “internalization of her lessons” (and importantly why her consort was not there when she killed herself, but showed her own transcendent and glowy “birth” through the portal between the worlds, on the way to heaven. (which many of you will affirm could be the “approach of Jasmine—the kill ya with love Goddess—aka Isis whose consort Osiris also doesn’t exist.

As for the “seeing Angelus fight Angel” scenario, the entire thing is Faith’s POV, and her own struggle with “wanting to give up the endless struggle” which is why Angel shows her his own “internal struggle” when “death” looks promising as “some kind of peace.” Angel and Angelus are the aspects of struggle that is immortal and neither has a bead on the real cost of “how to transfigure” as a mortal man. The last primal fear of “non existence” has yet to be met.

We also know in these “altered states” of poisons, spells, and worlds with “walking dead—not metaphor” that “between worlds” states of consciousness also exist in which people can walk around in each other’s heads, and act as guides, or converse, for us to even see how rational and emotional information is “processed,” especially in conflicts of understanding.

As for why Angel became embroiled in Twilight, he is the figure being used to show whether we choose to act or choose not to act, we act. That Angel’s greatest fear is non existence, he tries to do what he watched his mirror shows him: he tries to “save the world.” This is not his journey, it is the opposite of his journey.

In his “trip” in ATF, he saw himself, “shanshu” but the cost was this: he destroyed the world, and he was transfigured, but utterly and completely alone—the self—on the surface of the empty earth, “the tabula rasa,” or “empty table.” This is correct and what he must do.

“Whuhhhhh! “ he shivers and says “that can’t be right.” So…he listens to other voices that also serve to keep his deepest, primal fear at bay, and he jumps on board to do whatever it takes to “save the world”—which also called for the union with his very soul “reflected” in Buffy to accomplish. And their love makes perfect peace and paradise, but you gotta also “not be”/die to stay there and you gotta “let the world burn”—which you may recall is exactly what Spike did—for you can’t be/not be in a world that no longer exists and be a self that never was.

http://www.smartpopbooks.com/what-it-means-to-mourn/

this is about Dollhouse and is about aporias, which is very much what Angel’s story talks about, but is never quite achieving. When he was brought back to Buffy in Becoming, he was “lost and confused” so naturally he saw “Buffy is his soul through love” but she said “close your eyes” and thus, his confusion, and lack of mirror to see himself meant he was “not there” and off to hell he went for he was “stuck”; and thus Buffy killed him and he was in hell, which is what suffering looks like and why “stuck” means: hell. And there you stay until you get yourself out of it, without bootstraps, for you are wretched, naked, cold and alone, burning forever for your deepest illusion of fear. Whatever it is.

Spike figured it out. Buffy was his mirror. He disappeared. (and was trapped in the necklace so we can have him do more lessons/illumination—for his jealousy is insecurity and is still a fear he wrestles.

That is why Spike ever “carries the fire,” but keeps being shown “doing nothing.” He actually is acting, but I also think that what he knows is something you might show a person, but nothing you can “tell” a person. There are only lessons to internalize and then release. You can’t stand on chains and call that height growth. Which is why I don’t agree with Joss, but die for Angel’s suffering that he doesn’t “get it,” even as Spike shows Joss is wrong, too. Hee hee.

HUGS! :kiss:
sybil

KingofCretins
28-02-13, 08:30 PM
Well, Gage will get old waiting for himself to write Spike in a way that won't get enough vocal criticism to make him think he has angered a majority, whether he actually has or not. Just comes with the territory.

Maybe they'll still have Giles just take over Angel's body completely, which is frankly something I'd probably still be open to, no offense to Angel. I just can't imagine they are going to actually bring Giles back as a present, apparent character, though.

Morphia
28-02-13, 09:08 PM
I love it when they give teasing statements like this because it tells nothing but hypes things up, ha.

Obvious bet is Spike/Faith, but you never know... Allie said the way Spike deals with things changes the Buffy/Spike dynamic and then we have Spike coming over to A&F just on the back end of the Eyghon/Giles story, talking about Buffy moving on with a regular Joe, asking what their plans were to resurrect Giles beyond sticking a soul in a dead body... maybe Maggie will be getting her wish after all. :D

(could be both if his reaction to becoming human again is anything like suddenly becoming corporeal!! :confused3:)

Personally, after Gage's Shaft comparison, I'm expecting Spike to have sex with Faith, both the aunts and any other female on hand. :)

KingofCretins
28-02-13, 09:11 PM
Personally, after Gage's Shaft comparison, I'm expecting Spike to have sex with Faith, both the aunts and any female passerby. :)

Which is probably consistent with what they might think that it takes to please his fan base. He is sort of the Sawyer -- when in doubt, let Sawyer have sex with attractive Island inhabitant. It's about the only coherent explanation for "Entropy" I can think of, and it certainly was a guiding principle in IDW published books.

Still hoping Faith never sleeps with Angel or Spike. In fact, I'll go ahead and say that if Spike has sex with Faith in this guest appearance, after her well-catalogued disinterest in him as a person at all this season, I'm going to go with "loathesome, contemptible fanservice BS".

Dipstick
28-02-13, 09:31 PM
I think the only thing to be done is to go with the flow. From now on, when discussing anything to do with Spike pre-season 7, we should refer to him as Spikelus. After all, as you say, it wasn't Spike who was a mass murderer, killed two slayers, tried to kill Willow, tried to rape Buffy etc, etc. That was Spikelus.

About the worst thing Spike has ever done is hold hands with Buffy when his own hand was on fire. Bad him!

When Spike was souled, he threatened to kill Wood and totally trashed Nikki Wood as a bad mother without a hint of guilt. He turned a leadership dispute with Faith into a violent fight. He was incredibly nasty to the Scoobies for deposing Buffy- and he's generally rude to the Scoobies (no magic that doesn't come from a joke shop, etc.).

Spike used Harmony for sex, knowing that Harmony's not smart enough and doesn't have enough self-respect to take a hint that Spike will never love her. Spike didn't call Buffy, his Big Love, to tell her that he's alive because it would be, like, an uncomfortable conversation. He joined in Angel's miserable, egotistical, foolish plan to bait a fight with the Senior Partners. He's used and abused his bug crew pretty badly on a bunch of occasions.

What's more, I don't think the text has EVER called out any of Souled!Spike's douchy behavior. He doesn't regret any of the above. No one called him out on any of the above- except for Buffy on the not calling her. And she was incredibly morally compromised when she made that allegation and in the context of the scene, it felt like Buffy weakly throwing mud to distract from her bigger wrongs. And I think Angel (in his S5 squabbling with Spike that is hard to take seriously) side-eyed his treatment of Harmony.

However, I do believe that Souled!Spike has been the only Buffyverse character to never visibly regret a bad action he performed while souled or to never have been completely righteously lectured or attacked by another character for doing something bad while souled. Where pretty much all of Spike's IMO bad acts when souled seems to be authorially put down to bad ass chivalry (beating on Faith), plain ole bad assery (his treatment of Wood in LPTM), funny jokes that Spike has a right to make because he's the Big Shot Champire and everyone is beneath him (his assorted insults to the Scoobies, his treatment of Harmony, his treatment of the bugs), him being a woobie (not calling Buffy) or Excused Because He Was Just Following Orders (Not Fade Away).

That's pretty unbelievable when you stop and think about it. I agree with folks that Angel hasn't been held responsible enough for Angelus or Twilight and that sucks. However, Spike gets plenty of special moral treatment. I seriously can't think of another Buffyverse main-credits character who wasn't totally righteously lectured for doing something crappy or didn't plainly feel bad about their crappy actions.

Stoney
28-02-13, 09:48 PM
Which is probably consistent with what they might think that it takes to please his fan base.

I don't know what fan base that is apart from MikeB.

Dipstick Harmony herself calls him for his behaviour in Harm's Way. I don't think that Spike gets vastly more leniency for his general shitty behaviour/wrong doings overall than the average BtVS character does tbh. But this feels a step away from devolving into competitive character bashing so I'm not going to start listing all the things Willow gets freebies on or Xander, Buffy herself etc etc. When it serves the plot/character people are picked up on things, when it isn't felt relevant they are written to suit the mood of the episode/bounce of other characters as needed etc. BtVS plays pretty loose with this kind of thing, always has.

KingofCretins
28-02-13, 10:06 PM
I don't know what fan base that is apart from MikeB.

Well, I'm not accusing it of being sophisticated, but instinctively, if your fanbase has -- if not as a chief complaint, certainly a widespread one -- that Spike is too much hung up on Buffy and not autonomous etc... move him from title to title to title like he's on a worldwide stadium tour and give him lots of sex.

Morphia
28-02-13, 10:16 PM
Still hoping Faith never sleeps with Angel or Spike. In fact, I'll go ahead and say that if Spike has sex with Faith in this guest appearance, after her well-catalogued disinterest in him as a person at all this season, I'm going to go with "loathesome, contemptible fanservice BS".

I'd agree, except I'm not sure which fans they'd be servicing.

ETA: Ah. I see Stoney beat me to it.

Dipstick
28-02-13, 10:30 PM
Dipstick Harmony herself calls him for his behaviour in Harm's Way.

I don't know whether it was much of a call-out. Harmony never righteously took Spike to task for how he treated her. She grumbled about small stuff in an ep where Spike isn't as mean to her as usual in an ep that focuses on how Harmony is *generally* put down and *generally* fails at getting what she wants. It focuses on Harmony's ineptitude and general lack of attention and consideration from those around her and puts the Spike/Harmony stuff in the background.


I don't think that Spike gets vastly more leniency for his general shitty behaviour/wrong doings overall than the average BtVS character does tbh. But this feels a step away from devolving into competitive character bashing so I'm not going to start listing all the things Willow gets freebies on or Xander, Buffy herself etc etc. When it serves the plot/character people are picked up on things, when it isn't felt relevant they are written to suit the mood of the episode/bounce of other characters as needed etc. BtVS plays pretty loose with this kind of thing, always has.

I don't think Angel gets nearly enough authorial criticism and punishment for the gravity of his actions as Twilight. I think he benefits from the Velcro soul/unsoul dichotomy. A lot of his bad stuff may be acknowledged as bad but the text still kind of gives him a pass for displaying admirable manly virility. There are small things where he's a douche but it goes so unacknowledged by the text that one may only see it on rewatch.

However if I had to choose between who the writers seek to present as positively as possible in their souled incarnations and who gets to come out smelling the most like a rose and who's been righteously yelled at and challenged the least, it would definitely be Spike over Angel. No doubt about it.

I feel like the writers generally tilt towards writing a darker Angel who deals with the devastation that he creates and spends time humiliated by his own actions. However, invariably, the writers swerve away at a certain point of Angel's darkness because they want to protect an ostensible hero/protagonist and they want to maintain some favorite relationships of Angel. (They've been swerving a lot this season to maintain the Angel/Faith relationship even though there's an inclination to trash it.) Nevertheless, there are times before the swerving happens when Angel clearly does wrong, the text acknowledges it and he's schooled by his own guilt and/or the anger of people around him.

Once Spike was souled, I think the writers generally tilt towards writing him as the Ultimate Charming Roguish Hero. However, ME loves them some really mean sarcasm and some comedy in using bugs/demons to fight. ME loves superpowered people fighting each other. Most fiction is geared to love the heroic rogue that just bangs the useless bimbo like the moronic slut she is. They love Spike as the iconoclast rebel that puts little shits like the Scoobies in their place. ME generally has trouble assigning moral culpability to the assistants of the main persons with the disliked plan. (Buffy owns her attempted murder of Faith; Willow owns the resurrection.) So Spike does a bunch of stuff that *I* don't like and thinks reflects negatively on him as a person in the manner that I judge people, but I don't think ME thinks they are writing anything other than color and dynamism for Spike.

vampmogs
28-02-13, 11:28 PM
I do agree with Dipstick about Spike. I am struggling very hard to think of any time after S6 where Spike gets called out on his behaviour aside from, maybe, some tough love by Buffy in Never Leave me. I do think Damage works as a second act to LMPTM where Spike finally looks back on the victim but the connection is never explicitly made. It's one of the big reasons I think Spike's best years are behind him (S4-S7) as not only do I think they'll never be able to match his 'soulless monster to heroic champion' arc but they just seem unwilling to get down and dirty with the character. Being the "most evolved character in the verse" is a bit of a double-edged sword in that regard. They wanted to turn him into a hero after being a villain and now that they have there's a general reluctance to show him as flawed, or at the very least, examine the flaws he still does have.

I'm not thrilled that this issue seems to have come down on the side of Angel/Angelus being two different people. I say "seems" as I am yet to have read the issue for myself yet. However, I just can't muster much anger about it when this has been one of the major inconsistencies of the entire verse and it has flip flopped on numerous occasions. Do I wish the issue had avoided this? Yes. But soon enough we'll be back to treating them as the same person because the only way Angel makes sense is if they are. The only way you can explore his need for atonement is if they are. So it's annoying but it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again. As Angel would say, I just can't seem to care ;) :lol:

Maggie
01-03-13, 12:23 AM
When Spike was souled, he threatened to kill Wood and totally trashed Nikki Wood as a bad mother without a hint of guilt. He turned a leadership dispute with Faith into a violent fight. He was incredibly nasty to the Scoobies for deposing Buffy- and he's generally rude to the Scoobies (no magic that doesn't come from a joke shop, etc.).

None of these bother me, nor do I think any of them rise to the level of being worthy of *moral* reproach. The Wood/Nikki thing was in the context of having been ambushed by Wood, who deliberately pulled up Spike's demon so that he could assassinate him. If he just randomly walked up to Wood and threatened to kill him, you'd have a point. But he didn't, so I don't think you do. Also, notably, he did NOT try to kill Wood despite the fact that Wood had just tried to kill him.

Rudeness and fighting are perhaps unpleasant traits, but they aren't morally bad.


Spike used Harmony for sex, knowing that Harmony's not smart enough and doesn't have enough self-respect to take a hint that Spike will never love her.

I agree that this is blameworthy, and I also agree that the story never made a deal about it. He kind of makes amends at the end of her episode, but not really enough.


Spike didn't call Buffy, his Big Love, to tell her that he's alive because it would be, like, an uncomfortable conversation.

Also not in the category of morally blameworthy. Especially since his plan was to tell her at some point -- which he thought he did in TGIQ.


He joined in Angel's miserable, egotistical, foolish plan to bait a fight with the Senior Partners.

Yes. But the text is never going to hold Spike accountable for going along because it's never going to hold Angel responsible for setting it up. Much as I hate it, the story wants to say that it was admirable to do that plan -- though I share your opinion of it and think both Angel and Spike ought to be held responsible for their respective parts in it.


He's used and abused his bug crew pretty badly on a bunch of occasions.

I was very disappointed in Spike with this. I think we will never get a good resolution on this because at the end of the day they are "just" bugs. (Much like we are never going to get resolution on the responsibility Angel and Buffy bear for the people who died as a result of their considered choice to give into the unholy glow. Red shirts don't count any more than bugs do, it seems).

I would add to your list that Spike is never held accountable for torturing the doctor. But again, unfortunately, I think the text sees that as OK, so it's not a plot point that Spike failed to take responsibility for that.


However, I do believe that Souled!Spike has been the only Buffyverse character to never visibly regret a bad action he performed while souled or to never have been completely righteously lectured or attacked by another character for doing something bad while souled.

The problem with this is that the things he *should* take responsibility for are not things that the story thinks are bad things. It's not part of the plot that Spike did something that the story thinks is bad that he failed to take responsibility for. The closest we come to that is Harmony, but the story doesn't take Harmony very seriously as a rights-bearing agent. Everyone treats her like dirt, and that's just the way things are for her.

The real test case will be if Spike ever gets enough story to do something that actually is morally problematic from the perspective of the text. Then we'll get a chance to see if he responds well and/or is held accountable from others. But I can't think of a clean test case for this that's the equivalent of Faith having to take responsibility for murder. Angel has done things with the soul that are presented as morally bad (lawyers, black magic, etc.). Because they were treated in the text as morally problematic, there is room to complain that nobody ever held Angel seriously accountable for them or for the fact that Angel never showed remorse for such actions.

I'd add that if fan bellyaching does influence where the story goes, it's unlikely we will get such a test case. They aren't interested in Spike's story in its own right and they aren't going to tee off the fans by having him do something that's seriously problematic. I'd like to be wrong about that. But at this point he really is drifting through the story for show and not as a character with a story of his own that anyone wants to tell. So we probably never will find out what happens when Spike screws up in a way that the story sees as a screw-up.

Local Maximum
01-03-13, 12:23 AM
In addition to the points Dipstick lists (not all of which I take too seriously as bad stuff), Spike tortures Dr. Sparrow -- another "just following orders" bit. In the ep where Wesley stabs Gunn and shoots Knox, it gets overlooked though I know Maggie has talked about it as a big problem before. I'd actually put torturing Dr. Sparrow as the worst thing Souled!Spike did.

ETA:

I'm taking March off from these discussions (though I might come back for Willow #5). However, it's not March for another 4 hours 19 minutes.


None of these bother me, nor do I think any of them rise to the level of being worthy of *moral* reproach. The Wood/Nikki thing was in the context of having been ambushed by Wood, who deliberately pulled up Spike's demon so that he could assassinate him. If he just randomly walked up to Wood and threatened to kill him, you'd have a point. But he didn't, so I don't think you do. Also, notably, he did NOT try to kill Wood despite the fact that Wood had just tried to kill him.

I can't get that far. He bit into Wood, telling Wood that he was in the process of killing him. He told Buffy that he was going to kill Wood if Wood ever looked at him funny. I can't accept that that doesn't rise to the level of moral reproach. Wood ambushed him and that was Very Bad but it doesn't make it okay for Spike to kill him or to begin the process of killing him.

Also, whether it's rudeness or not, I do consider it to be a moral failing for Spike to claim to know that Nikki, whom he murdered, didn't love her son. I think murderers don't get to make claims about those they murdered in point-scoring when they don't have real information to back up those claims and I do think that is a moral issue. Spike continues to keep Nikki's coat which means he's continuing to be benefit from his armed robbery causing death, after it's been pointed out to him that she has survivors. If Spike thinks it's really true that Nikki didn't love Robin that's bad; if he is just saying that to rile Robin up that's even worse. (Probably it's somewhere between the two.) It doesn't matter whether Spike says this to Wood or to Buffy or to Holden Webster or to whoever -- spreading around "Nikki Wood doesn't love her son the way my mother loved me" is bad.

It's not as bad as torturing Dr. Sparrow and I agree that it's not as bad as what Wood does in the episode and it's understandable because of what Spike had just gone through, but I can't accept that he does nothing morally objectionable in LMPTM.

norwie
01-03-13, 01:00 AM
ETA:

I'm taking March off from these discussions (though I might come back for Willow #5). However, it's not March for another 4 hours 19 minutes.




You're cheating with the time zones! March has begun 2 hours ago! :hf2:

(I have nothing constructive to add: "Your character is worse than my character" never gets good on this forum... ;) )

Take care! :hug:

Local Maximum
01-03-13, 01:15 AM
You're cheating with the time zones! March has begun 2 hours ago! :hf2:

(I have nothing constructive to add: "Your character is worse than my character" never gets good on this forum... ;) )

Take care! :hug:

Tee-hee! Alas, to paraphrase Popeye I yam where I yam and that's all where I yam.

I guess I should add, that I do think that while I have a moral problem with Spike's behaviour in LMPTM, I don't think it's worse than other characters' souled behaviour -- just pointing out that there *exists* behaviour I think is morally poor on the guy.

shipperx
01-03-13, 01:25 AM
Personally, after Gage's Shaft comparison, I'm expecting Spike to have sex with Faith, both the aunts and any other female on hand. :)



Shut yo mouth. :D

Though I wonder if it had been Spike beneath Twilight's hood if rather than complaints that some aren't being 'forgiving enough' by being grumpy ( because that's all it is. No one is calling Angel unredeemable or asking that he be jailed or crucified) whether there would have been a cadre of roughly similar voices demanding off with Spike's head (and meaning it as literally as one can for a cartoon character).

As it is we're reduced to debating whether Spike being an a$$h0le is the equivalent of Angel ordering an army to finish off several hundred girls. If being an obnoxious, selfish a$$ is equal to that, I wonder what'll happen if/when Spike ever again screws up on a macro scale. That could really get ugly.

Dipstick
01-03-13, 01:56 AM
None of these bother me, nor do I think any of them rise to the level of being worthy of *moral* reproach. The Wood/Nikki thing was in the context of having been ambushed by Wood, who deliberately pulled up Spike's demon so that he could assassinate him. If he just randomly walked up to Wood and threatened to kill him, you'd have a point. But he didn't, so I don't think you do. Also, notably, he did NOT try to kill Wood despite the fact that Wood had just tried to kill him.

I think it's morally wrong to bash the mother of the child that you orphaned, even if Wood was trying to get vengeance/protect people from what Wood felt was, at root, a dangerous, evil vampire. It's very bad to tell an orphan, who already must have felt alone and abandoned, that his mother never loved him. It's as discriminatory (and thus morally wrong) to say that a slayer doesn't love her child because she continues slaying as to say that a working mom doesn't love her child because she continues working.

And two wrongs don't make a right- it's morally wrong to threaten murdering a human being no matter what.


Also not in the category of morally blameworthy. Especially since his plan was to tell her at some point -- which he thought he did in TGIQ.

I think it's morally blameworthy. It's not a big crime. It's a cousin of how Oz didn't call or write while on the road in S4. It's selfish and self-centered of the guy to not call in a timely fashion. We didn't really see Buffy's initial pain at Spike dying. However, I brought up the Willow/Oz example that the moral failings of the guy not calling are brought to fore when you consider how their lack of calling needlessly hurts the girl left behind, who the guy was sharing everything with before he "died"/left.


Yes. But the text is never going to hold Spike accountable for going along because it's never going to hold Angel responsible for setting it up. Much as I hate it, the story wants to say that it was admirable to do that plan -- though I share your opinion of it and think both Angel and Spike ought to be held responsible for their respective parts in it.

Well, Angel is a tough case. I thought making Angel Twilight was supposed to be a final step in Angel's spiral of increasingly bad decisions. I thought that Twilight was supposed to be climax and Not Fade Away was a stepping stone on that path. I have to keep training myself that the writers weren't writing that story, based on how they treat Angel's choice to be Twilight as one, well-intentioned bad choice.


The problem with this is that the things he *should* take responsibility for are not things that the story thinks are bad things. It's not part of the plot that Spike did something that the story thinks is bad that he failed to take responsibility for. The closest we come to that is Harmony, but the story doesn't take Harmony very seriously as a rights-bearing agent. Everyone treats her like dirt, and that's just the way things are for her.

But that's my problem. The writers sometimes think that they're just making Spike funny or bad-ass but I, at least, find it objectionable behavior. It's the same problem that 90 percent of the board has with Angel.

The readers have a humongous Pol Pot-sized problem with Angel thinking that it was okay for him to decide what humans get to ascend to the new dimension. The writers think that it wasn't exactly *good*- but Angel was well-intentioned in his damage-control Twilight plan.

That's my problem with most of the times the Buffyverse passes moral judgements. It's just that there's not an effective punishment or an effective lecture to the miscreant-Scoob or Fang Gang member in question. The writers don't see how they painted the character to begin with.


The real test case will be if Spike ever gets enough story to do something that actually is morally problematic from the perspective of the text. Then we'll get a chance to see if he responds well and/or is held accountable from others. But I can't think of a clean test case for this that's the equivalent of Faith having to take responsibility for murder. Angel has done things with the soul that are presented as morally bad (lawyers, black magic, etc.). Because they were treated in the text as morally problematic, there is room to complain that nobody ever held Angel seriously accountable for them or for the fact that Angel never showed remorse for such actions.

As I said above, I think Spike gets to tip-toe around all of these questions because nothing that he ever does while souled is treated as problematic by the writers. Even though if other characters did some of the stuff he did, I think it would be more likely that the writers would treat it as bad.

He doesn't even get to the stage where we start asking whether he's been sufficiently reprimanded by a righteous character or felt enough remorse. There's just been, point blank, little acknowledgement that Spike's done wrong.

Now, Souled!Spike also hasn't killed a person and he didn't master-mind Not Fade Away. Nor does he have to in order to be a valid character. In a lot of ways, it's best that he doesn't do that junk. As a rule, I don't think that ME and certainly Dark Horse do a great job with stories about their main ostensibly heroic characters doing heinous things- in the story and and the follow-up. They can do a good job about characters doing morally gray or some bad stuff but the writing always flip-flops like a dead fish when they push the main "heroic" character to utter heinousness, with the exception of BtVS S2 Angelus.


I'd add that if fan bellyaching does influence where the story goes, it's unlikely we will get such a test case. They aren't interested in Spike's story in its own right and they aren't going to tee off the fans by having him do something that's seriously problematic. I'd like to be wrong about that. But at this point he really is drifting through the story for show and not as a character with a story of his own that anyone wants to tell. So we probably never will find out what happens when Spike screws up in a way that the story sees as a screw-up.

Probably. I don't quite think the writers are uninterested in Spike. They sure feature him a lot, of late. I do think, though, that they're don't have ideas on how to tell a new story about him. I think the writers are also a little intimidated by fandom re: Spike.

I think Gage's cowed Tweet that the fans will probably enjoy next issue's Spike more was revealing. It's not like Spike will any new story in the next issue. In the long run, it will be an unimportant issue for Spike. We heard Gage on how he considered Willow's role in Family Reunion- he's interested in using these guest stars to prop up *his* story and *his* character. The thing that Gage is hoping with mollify Spike's fan is that Spike will be the Master of the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBU1PCIqO-8) with Angel catatonic.

Master of the House, keeper of The Angel's Body
Ready with the stature of a hero who's still kinda naughty
Tells a saucy tale, makes a little stir
Readers appreciate a bon-vivuir

Whatever, I just listen to the music. I don't write it.

TimeTravellingBunny
01-03-13, 02:54 AM
This discussion has taken a rather odd turn, since now it seems that it's about people (not) being called out on any more-or -less jerkass thing they do - because apparently being rude and insensitive is on par with mass murder - and not about people being completely absolved of any responsibility for their actions with a nice little "oooh, but you are not the same person when you do those bad things, it has nothing to do with you".

If the subject has now switched to characters not being called on acting like jerks, I agree that Spike didn't get called on his jerkass behavior lots of times, but we could now go through every episode of both shows and every comic issue and list every insult the Scoobies or the Fang Gang and others have said to each other and other people, every time they've been insensitive or rude or callous, and haven't been called on it, or it was treated as charming or funny. But that would take a lot of time.


I don't know what fan base that is apart from MikeB.
:lol:


Dipstick Harmony herself calls him for his behaviour in Harm's Way.
Actually, she calls him in Destiny, right after or rather in the middle of said sex, after she bites him. Sure, she wasn't in her normal state, but it only allowed her to express what she really felt. There's no doubt in Destiny that we're supposed to see it as really shitty behavior from Spike and to sympathize with Harmony.

ETA: Spike's treatment of Harmony was called about as much as (spoiler tagged for Stoney, since it's about season 2/3 of AtS) Angel's treatment of Darla in season 2. Spike used and mistreated Harmony, but she's an airhead and a comic character, so it's not such a big deal. Angel used Darla (in a scene that Tim Minear, the writer of the episode, controversially characterizes as rape) and threw her out in the morning, but she was evil and soulless, and, well (the text doesn't say explicitly but heavily implies) a former prostitute, therefore it's not a big deal. Lorne is there to tell us that it's completely OK to look at what's lying in bed next to you and go "ugh". Later Darla does call him on it, and Cordelia takes her side, but then she gets to see the error of her ways, since Darla is evil. Still, both Spike and Angel get called on it, but it's all very "eh, it's not so bad considering who the woman is".

And then there's Wesley, who doesn't get called at all on his behavior to Lilah But again, that's OK since she's evil and he's just a good guy going through a rough patch.

Compare any of those three examples, however, with the way the text itself, not to mention the fandom, treats Buffy's using/mistreatment of Spike in season 6.

Dipstick
01-03-13, 03:24 AM
This discussion has taken a rather odd turn, since now it seems that it's about people (not) being called out on any more-or -less jerkass thing they do - because apparently being rude and insensitive is on par with mass murder - and not about people being completely absolved of any responsibility for their actions with a nice little "oooh, but you are not the same person when you do those bad things, it has nothing to do with you".

No one ever said that being rude is the same thing as mass murder. I assume you directed that bit of snark at me. Please find the quote where I said snark = mass murder. The quote that *I* was responding to was Morphia's.


Originally Posted by Morphia
I think the only thing to be done is to go with the flow. From now on, when discussing anything to do with Spike pre-season 7, we should refer to him as Spikelus. After all, as you say, it wasn't Spike who was a mass murderer, killed two slayers, tried to kill Willow, tried to rape Buffy etc, etc. That was Spikelus.

About the worst thing Spike has ever done is hold hands with Buffy when his own hand was on fire. Bad him!

So, I disagreed with that. A lot. Spike did do some bad stuff with a soul.

I folded into my response my general feelings that I disagree with much of this forum that Angel has a pass from the writers to do whatever and still be loved while Spike has to pay and pay and pay for what he did soulless.

I stand by what I said:

The writers' problem with Angel is that they have him do this bad stuff but they're unsure over how dark they want to interpret it (especially after the fact) so his coming back from his crimes is weak.

The writers' problem with Spike is that they're too afraid to give him full-on screw-ups but they want him to be snarky and violent and counter-cultural. So Spike comes across as mean when the writers want to paint him as heroic.

Angel's and Spike's crimes, with souls, are totally different. Angel's are way way worse. However, the writers do need to go back to the drawing board on both vamps and re-consider what they want to do with them. Because, from a writing perspective, both are ticking me off.


And then there's Wesley, who doesn't get called at all on his behavior to

First, Wesley and Angel were absolutely called on the text for how they treated Darla and Lilah. That's their DARK patch. It's not a rough patch. It's a "locking lawyers up with vampires and keeping Justine the closet" patch. You're telling me that ATS didn't acknowledge that Wesley and Angel were hardcore cracked then? As opposed to S5 Spike who is presented as the funny, lovable rogue. A thorn in Angel's side and kind of annoying but ultimately the threat to Angel's hero crown because Spike is so good. Darla and Lilah are both big puzzle pieces in the deconstruction of Wesley and Angel that was going on then.

Second, Darla and Lilah totally knew everything that was going on. Darla was smart and Lilah was brilliant. Harmony is out of it. Darla and Lilah manipulated the guys just as much as the other way around.

Third, Angel and Wesley, at least, were confused about their feelings. Part of them really did love Darla and Lilah. They were unsure and uncomfortable over which parts. They both tried rescuing Darla and Lilah. They weren't just banging those chicks because they need some slut to spread her legs and to treat like dirt around the office so they feel like a big man. Spike was not confused. He didn't love or respect Harmony at all. He really was enjoying banging her and treating her as insignificant around the office so he can get his own back.

TimeTravellingBunny
01-03-13, 03:28 AM
The writers' problem with Angel is that they have him do this bad stuff but they're unsure over how dark they want to interpret it (especially after the fact) so his coming back from his crimes is weak.

The writers' problem with Spike is that they're too afraid to give him full-on screw-ups but they want him to be snarky and violent and counter-cultural. So Spike comes across as mean when the writers want to paint him as heroic.

Angel's and Spike's crimes, with souls, are totally different. Angel's are way way worse. However, the writers do need to go back to the drawing board on both vamps and re-consider what they want to do with them. Because, from a writing perspective, both are ticking me off.
That's true. But I'm not sure that the writers currently know what to do with any of the characters.

Tennyoelf
01-03-13, 03:44 AM
Hi guys! (no, I'm not back, but...can I say something?)

I came here to check on the latest rurrah of these comics and I found this mildly interesting if not frustrating discussion.

First off, I'm a Spike fan (obviously). I do not like, nor do I approve of, all of souled!Spike's actions. I'm put off by Spike's dealing with Wood (Spike was being presumptuous but his words had double/triple meanings, I'm more putt off by the killing thing) but I understand his motive for this and I also did not like Wood's actions either (but I understand them). I'm not too put off by it, even though I think it's crude-y thing to say and do. Never cared that Spike continued to be a jerk to the scoobies, I hated the Harmony thing and I do think it wasn't right for Spike not to call. But all those things are a drop in the bucket in the moral grayness of Buffy characters.

A plethora of characters dealing with murder, rape, mind control, and other horrible things get an easy pass (including Spike's torture of that person in AtS5). I don't think the writers should get a pass on that and it doesn't sit well with me either.

Of course Spike has done bad things while souled. No one is saying that Spike is a saint. He's not. Morphia was just making fun of the mistreatment and the obvious un-equalness of treatment.

But the point of this thread and Angel & Faith seems to be about (and unfortunately only, I miss Faith having a story) Angel's story. But Spike is in this issue and he was treated pretty badly. And some of it by Angel, who a lot of us see as getting off too easy (and not because we are Spike fans and not because we are bitter shippers). And can we not compare the two vamps? These two have their own story. So Spike fans complain and I think we have every right to. As do Xander fans, and Buffy fans, and even Willow fans (really, Willow already forgives Angel...little forced and out of no where and really holds no benefit to Willow's story). This whole season has been about how great and heroic Angel is and how we are bad to see him in any other light. Those who are not already inclined to Angel are going to feel a bit insulted by this. It's not just that. But those of us who were open and willing to look past season 8, those who may not have been inclined to Angel but were open to a greater story about redemption, are reasonably upset. The narrative is not asking the right questions and it most certainly not facing any sort of darkness in Angel.

(If Spike had his own series, or were an actual important side character, I would expect them to explore his darkness. However his darkness is not the same as Angel's so it would be different and should be.)

Coming from season 8 the writers should have been asking the why's and the what's and then tackle them, confront them. They should have taken the mistakes of season 8 and grabbed it by the balls and said "I'm going to own you". Instead, they covered the balls, patted it and said you don't exist. And this is hurting Angel's character, I think, more than season 8. He victim blamed Buffy, showed no real remorse for his decisions, or for anything other than killing Giles. He has not been taking responsibly and is consistently trying to make excuses. He has become completely unsympathetic to those who are not already heavily inclined to the character.

And Angel didn't need to be! If they just asked "why did Angel do this", "what is the root of his issues, his darkness", "how can we show that", and "how can he overcome it" and then actually went through with it instead of falling back on how heroic Angel is and how perfect he is, I think the story would have been powerful and beautiful and Angel would have gotten my thumbs up and he'd raise in the ranks. It would have a beautiful exploration of the human condition. And I see that they tried, but honestly their Angel bias has ended up hurting Angel more than season 8, more than the carelessness of having Angel be Twilight.

Angel has father issues (still!), and a god complex, and he wants to save people so bad that he can't help but want to control everything and everyone. Because of guilt, because of care, because that's not who he wanted to be. He wanted to make his father proud. He wanted to be able to be one of kind, and special (like so many of us). Had they stuck with that, showed us his dark passions and the root of it and maybe made an effort to resolve some of it, then it would gotten my approval. Simply put, they shied away from making Angel look any more darker in season 9 because they were so worried about losing more people (the reaction!) and they ended up shooting themselves in the foot.

Those of you who already like Angel, are not going to see it that way. You are probably going to feel insulted by this post and get riled up (I'm sorry). You guys already were ready to forgive and hand wave Angel's actions (just like any Spike or Buffy or Xander fan would do if their favorite messed up). But those of us who are not Angel fans need to be convinced. We need to see Angel wade through hardship to be redeemed from the massive screw up of season 8.

Look, some people think Spike got off too easy. And I think they could have explored Spike's impulses and dark side a bit more in season 7. Spike fought and went through trails to gain his soul, dealt with mental illness, complete ostracization (until Buffy and only Buffy tried to help him), was humble and silent (ish) for a time, heavy torture, possession, extreme self-doubt and self hatred, people trying to kill him, and finally (slow) death before some of us could forgive him for the AR. Even then, those who don't like Spike still haven't and probably never will. Angel has had nothing but everyone say that his season 8 crimes weren't that big a deal and that he is a hero and that it's okay and that they love him and that he's just the best vampire with a soul to have ever souled. Only one that did not fall to his feet, wasn't portrayed in a nice light (Nadira).

So some people are going to have issues with Angel getting off too easy for something some think was the worse crime any character has ever done in the verse.

I get that DH tried. They had a father's arc and darkness arc, but both of those fell completely flat. They did not explore Angel, not really. There was no metaphor, no theme, and they backed out on any opportunity to explain Twilight. That speaks volumes to me, because if they don't get why Angel did Twilight, then you probably shouldn't be writing for the verse. The Arcs that tried ended up serving no purpose other than make Angel look good. And no, again, they are not sitting in their office, twirling evil mustaches. There is no conspiracy or anything. If Spike never existed this problem would still exist.

Angel had a wonderful and powerful story to tell coming from season 8. But it never materialized. And that is a pity. I'm mad at their treatment of Spike, but I expected it, I knew that was going to happen. No, I feel worse for Angel, who is being completely destroyed by writers who have said they are big fans of his. And that is sad.

But my last bit, is to say, that it's not only Angel. It's almost all the characters who have almost become unrecognizable. Is Xander's issues currently tied to the Zeppo? What happened to the years of Xander development. Does he feel useless because he couldn't stop Giles from bieng killed and the Seed from breaking? But he knows he is useful, season 8 was wonderful to Xander, and the seasons before, Xander knows his strength, why should he suddenly lose it? Buffy? She's been in a loop and learning the same lessons, but I don't recognize her, she's been written so...well, you all know. Willow, I don't have much to say about her. But I know things haven't been perfect and I felt they've missed on some of her potential story arcs as well. So all this, doesn'tt just apply to Angel. It applies to all the characters. They've tried but no, this isn't a team that should be handling these characters. And we as fans, have every right to complain.

Maggie
01-03-13, 04:45 AM
I think it's morally wrong to bash the mother of the child that you orphaned, even if Wood was trying to get vengeance/protect people from what Wood felt was, at root, a dangerous, evil vampire. It's very bad to tell an orphan, who already must have felt alone and abandoned, that his mother never loved him. It's as discriminatory (and thus morally wrong) to say that a slayer doesn't love her child because she continues slaying as to say that a working mom doesn't love her child because she continues working.

And two wrongs don't make a right- it's morally wrong to threaten murdering a human being no matter what.

I think we have different notions of moral blameworthiness. I don't think anybody is morally blameworthy (in any serious sense) for hurting other people's feelings with words. They may be jerks, but not in the same category as those who murder, rape, mindwipe, etc.

And I'm sorry, I can't work up any negative feelings about what Spike did after being ambushed. Wood actively tried to kill him. Spike did not return the act. He finished the encounter by showing he'd won -- that he could have killed him. I view that as a round of combat, one in which Spike exercised moral restraint.

As for using harsh words about Nikki -- sorry, you get a free pass to say whatever you want to the person who is trying to murder you in my book. You don't have any obligation of any variety to try to be nice to the guy who's just deliberately brought out your monster so that he can try to kill you.

We'll never get to see what Spike would have done if Wood had confronted him honestly about his past. If Wood had revealed himself to Spike and demanded an apology, I'd like to think Spike would have given it, and freely. And I'm sure he'd have tried to find better things to say about Nikki. But we will never know because Wood didn't respect Spike enough to let him express remorse. He went to murder him.

(Honestly -- if someone tried to murder you, would you feel morally responsible for being mean to him while he was doing it? If you would, then it's fair to say you see Spike morally responsible here -- but I really don't see it at all. If Spike had risen above his anger and been more decent with Wood, I'd have counted it as a big plus. But the fact that he didn't do that isn't a demerit for me. It's a wash.)


I think it's morally blameworthy. It's not a big crime. It's a cousin of how Oz didn't call or write while on the road in S4. It's selfish and self-centered of the guy to not call in a timely fashion. We didn't really see Buffy's initial pain at Spike dying. However, I brought up the Willow/Oz example that the moral failings of the guy not calling are brought to fore when you consider how their lack of calling needlessly hurts the girl left behind, who the guy was sharing everything with before he "died"/left.

Again, I don't think of either of them as morally blameworthy. People in relationships hurt each other all the time. It's part of the deal. Not calling is not calling. It's not lying, or cheating, or stealing, or murdering, etc. People are allowed to choose not to be in contact with the people they don't want to be in contact with -- especially when the relationship is officially "off".



Well, Angel is a tough case. I thought making Angel Twilight was supposed to be a final step in Angel's spiral of increasingly bad decisions. I thought that Twilight was supposed to be climax and Not Fade Away was a stepping stone on that path. I have to keep training myself that the writers weren't writing that story, based on how they treat Angel's choice to be Twilight as one, well-intentioned bad choice.

Happily, we are of one mind on this point. It's been very hard getting over the hope that they were going to tell the compelling story about Angel taking one step to another towards this kind of darkness so that they could work on a compelling story of how he figures out why these acts are not heroic, but rather quite dark. But alas, it is not to be.


But that's my problem. The writers sometimes think that they're just making Spike funny or bad-ass but I, at least, find it objectionable behavior. It's the same problem that 90 percent of the board has with Angel.

I share this concern with the 'verse in general. I'm just trying to make an important distinction. There are a bunch of things that the show simply doesn't treat in a morally serious fashion: Xander's spell in OMWF (and his complete lack of remorse about the people who died), Angel's plan in NFA and Spike's participation in it, Spike's torture of Dr. Sparrow. But once it's clear that the show isn't treating the act as serious, I don't think it's fair to bash the characters for failing to show remorse. They can't be remorseful for something that in the context of the universe they inhabit is not morally bad. The gap between my moral sensibilities and that of the writers is a real problem. It's easiest in the case of Xander, because I just write it off as a plot contrivance. NFA is harder because if the story hadn't gone forward, I think we could legitimately think that the writers intended it to be deeply morally problematic. But not since the story has continued, alas.


The readers have a humongous Pol Pot-sized problem with Angel thinking that it was okay for him to decide what humans get to ascend to the new dimension. The writers think that it wasn't exactly *good*- but Angel was well-intentioned in his damage-control Twilight plan.

Yup. We're in the exact same camp. I've even invoked the Pol Pot comparison. I *really* wish they'd had the stones to follow up on that, but ...


That's my problem with most of the times the Buffyverse passes moral judgements. It's just that there's not an effective punishment or an effective lecture to the miscreant-Scoob or Fang Gang member in question. The writers don't see how they painted the character to begin with.

Yup. I expect we wouldn't have identical lists on this sort of thing -- but it happens a lot.


As I said above, I think Spike gets to tip-toe around all of these questions because nothing that he ever does while souled is treated as problematic by the writers. Even though if other characters did some of the stuff he did, I think it would be more likely that the writers would treat it as bad.

He doesn't even get to the stage where we start asking whether he's been sufficiently reprimanded by a righteous character or felt enough remorse. There's just been, point blank, little acknowledgement that Spike's done wrong.

Yes - but because the writers don't think it was wrong. The stuff you mention would only make a useful parallel to Angel if the writers didn't think all of Angel's stuff is also not wrong. But they clearly do -- even if they then refuse to explore what exactly was wrong, or hold Angel responsible. See, e.g. lawyers, black magic, and Twilight.


Probably. I don't quite think the writers are uninterested in Spike. They sure feature him a lot, of late. I do think, though, that they're don't have ideas on how to tell a new story about him. I think the writers are also a little intimidated by fandom re: Spike.

A lot of panel time, but no real story. But as Tenny says in her post, that's hardly unique to Spike.

So much potential, so much waste. I grow more bitter about all aspects of season 9 every day. :sadwalk:

TimeTravellingBunny
01-03-13, 04:48 AM
Those of you who already like Angel, are not going to see it that way. You are probably going to feel insulted by this post and get riled up (I'm sorry). You guys already were ready to forgive and hand wave Angel's actions (just like any Spike or Buffy or Xander fan would do if their favorite messed up). But those of us who are not Angel fans need to be convinced. We need to see Angel wade through hardship to be redeemed from the massive screw up of season 8.
I agree with 99% of your post, but I disagree on one thing: I don't think it's about Angel fans vs people who didn't like him that much. The crucial question is why exactly fans liked Angel. There is indeed a significant portion of fans who like him because they think he's the perfect 100% good unblemished manly hero and white knight and man of everyone's dreams who isn't guilty of anything, but accepts the responsibility for some other guy's actions because he's just so noble. But these are not all Angel fans, and I doubt that it's even the majority.

Angel was not my #1 favorite character in Buffyverse, but he was top 5 for sure, and for most of AtS he was my favorite character, other than Darla. I liked him because he's complex, and has a lot of darkness in him, and has father issues and real guilt (rather than imaginary) and who's heroic because he has to fight dark urges every day and try to do good. Angel was never meant to be a white knight (they are dull anyway), but a very, very dark knight. I liked him because the show acknowledged his darkness and the times when he failed and gave away to dark impulses. I also liked him because he was goofy, and could make stupid mistakes, and the show could make fun of him for his vanity and pettiness or self-ironically mock his Vampire Batman image.

But this comics Angel is someone that's really hard not to intensely dislike. I don't recognize the character from AtS, or even BtVS. This guy is dull, sanctimonious and lacking in any self-awareness, he's callous about his recent souled crimes, but he has everyone telling him how awesome he is that he even feels guilty for anything bad he ever did, although he barely ever did anything bad - and it feels like Gage is actually using those characters as mouthpieces. When I think of the ending of season 8, that was the time I felt sorry for Angel, and Gage had the perfect setup to make Angel sympathetic: we knew that nearly everyone hated him, and he seemed to feel horrible about what he had done, since he was catatonic for a long time. But Angel & Faith has really made Angel unbearable - as you say, it's even worse than season 8. We talk about Spike being badly treated by the writers, but it's Angel's character that this series has ruined the most.

shipperx
01-03-13, 05:31 AM
Is my memory wrong or was Spike's participation in Angel's dumb plan...
1. Well after said plan was already in motion and Angel way too far deep to back out.
2. The scope of Spike's active participation: rescuing a human infant and standing with friends facing down a goon hit squad.

I could understand some need for apologetic remorse had Spike's going along with the plan (or not) made any difference. But it didn't. His not going along wouldn't have either. The plan was already in motion with its inevitable trajectory fait accompli regardless of Spike. He couldn't recall that thing. All he could do was choose whether to strand Angel out on the limb that Angel had climbed out on or whether being an ally meant sticking with someone to the bitter end... and maybe saving a baby.

I'm not saying it was a good plan, or even that Spike should have agreed to it. But even if it wasn't a good plan I'm still not sure what Spike would need to apologize for. Not voting no when it was too late to actually matter? Okay. Now who exactly is he supposed to apologize to? Angel? The baby? The dragon?

(If someone said Drogen I'd agree but it was already too late. Angel had already killed him. And if someone said Lindsay I'd agree but I don't think anyone but Lorne and Angel knew about that execution.)

Tranquillity
01-03-13, 06:41 AM
You guys already were ready to forgive and hand wave Angel's actions

Big Angel fan here, love him next to Buffy and Spike, but man do I need to see that guy acknowledge and deal with what he's done and the choices he's made. This "hero who can do no wrong" comic thing is an aberration and just because the comic keeps telling me that he's still a hero, it wasn't his fault and that he's atoned already, doesn't mean I'm gonna believe it. I won't, not until they write some good, in-depth and complex stories for him that have him actually dealing with stuff. I think I might be waiting for a while....


If they just asked "why did Angel do this"

Exactly!

Morphia
01-03-13, 09:38 AM
Of course Spike has done bad things while souled. No one is saying that Spike is a saint. He's not. Morphia was just making fun of the mistreatment and the obvious un-equalness of treatment.

Thanks for this. I'm glad someone realised my comment was meant in a half-joking way. The discussion had gone way, way off at a tangent before I realised, and it seemed a bit late then to put my hand up and say, 'Guys, I was joking,' or trying to make a point with levity:)

I'd also like to say, what a great comment. Agree with every word.

Dipstick
01-03-13, 01:19 PM
Hi guys! (no, I'm not back, but...can I say something?)

I came here to check on the latest rurrah of these comics and I found this mildly interesting if not frustrating discussion.

....

A plethora of characters dealing with murder, rape, mind control, and other horrible things get an easy pass (including Spike's torture of that person in AtS5). I don't think the writers should get a pass on that and it doesn't sit well with me either.

Of course Spike has done bad things while souled. No one is saying that Spike is a saint. He's not. Morphia was just making fun of the mistreatment and the obvious un-equalness of treatment.

I took Morphia at face value that she thinks Souled!Spike really made no mistakes. I mean, why wouldn't I take Morphia at face value? As I said, *I* may have a problem with Spike's actions that I named the writers are apparently cool with it.

I'm kind of reacting to the fact that whenever I turn my head on this forum I see a chorus of posters complaining that Angel is especially woobified and treated so specially by the writers but Spike is treated like shit. It's emphatically not what I see. Angel occupies his own class of working on a year-long term plot to intentional genocide but he gets to be treated like a long-suffering the year after. Ridiculous. Souled!Spike occupies his own class of never being morally challenged or made to feel like he's morally screwed up even though he's done bad stuff. Bad writing.


I think we have different notions of moral blameworthiness. I don't think anybody is morally blameworthy (in any serious sense) for hurting other people's feelings with words. They may be jerks, but not in the same category as those who murder, rape, mindwipe, etc.

I never said they were in the same category. There are lots of moral wrongs that don't fall into the murder/rape category and IMO, hurting and threatening to kill the guy that you orphaned is one of them, even if he tried to get vengeance.


As for using harsh words about Nikki -- sorry, you get a free pass to say whatever you want to the person who is trying to murder you in my book. You don't have any obligation of any variety to try to be nice to the guy who's just deliberately brought out your monster so that he can try to kill you.

Spike threatening to kill Wood, assaulting him in self-defense, and insulting Nikki as a bad mother to excuse Spike for killing her and orphaning Wood is very similar to Warren threatening to kill Willow so she "joins her little girlfriend" and saying that all women suck and saying that Katrina and Tara deserved to die. Like, identical.

IMO, one can't "say whatever they want" to the person exacting vengeance without zero moral ramifications. The audience can still judge characters by what they said, even if they've just been wronged or are in the process of being wronged. What's more, I take particular note of what characters say when they think they may die or were just in moral peril. I think people tend to say what they genuinely feel.


(Honestly -- if someone tried to murder you, would you feel morally responsible for being mean to him while he was doing it? If you would, then it's fair to say you see Spike morally responsible here -- but I really don't see it at all. If Spike had risen above his anger and been more decent with Wood, I'd have counted it as a big plus. But the fact that he didn't do that isn't a demerit for me. It's a wash.)

It's a little complicated. If I killed someone's mother and their child went after me in vengeance, I can't imagine anything other than feeling so horrible about my murder that I would be apologetic and kind of door-matty about the whole thing. I can't envision myself killing someone's mother but if I did, I really can't picture myself giving their child speeches about how their mother never loved them and biting them- even if their child tried to kill me for revenge.


Again, I don't think of either of them as morally blameworthy. People in relationships hurt each other all the time. It's part of the deal. Not calling is not calling. It's not lying, or cheating, or stealing, or murdering, etc. People are allowed to choose not to be in contact with the people they don't want to be in contact with -- especially when the relationship is officially "off".

See, I do. I don't live in the Buffyverse where the big moral potatoes are rape and murder. However if my friend's boyfriend just ran away and didn't call for months and she was really hurt, I'd totally be calling the boyfriend a jerk.

Buffy and Spike's relationship wasn't over. It wasn't "off". Right on the finish line, they were cuddling, meaningfully gazing into each other's eyes, Buffy spoke about how Spike was a Champion and she had faith in him, Spike was jealous and angry that Buffy kissed Angel because Spike thought that he should be Buffy's interests, and they were doing Flamey Hands of Lurve. Based on Buffy's S7 actions through to the end, Spike had every reason to believe that Buffy would be incredibly sad about Spike dying and Spike left Buffy in that pain when she didn't need to be. It's not rape or murder. But it's morally wrong.

I guess it's because the Buffyverse often has genocide and murder as the stakes, these other moral failings drift into insignificance. However on a very human real life show like Mad Men, it is presented as a horrible moral failing for Don Draper to run away to his new identity while never telling his brother that he's alive, all the while, Adam was told that he was crazy for insisting that his brother Dick was still alive.


I share this concern with the 'verse in general. I'm just trying to make an important distinction. There are a bunch of things that the show simply doesn't treat in a morally serious fashion: Xander's spell in OMWF (and his complete lack of remorse about the people who died), Angel's plan in NFA and Spike's participation in it, Spike's torture of Dr. Sparrow. But once it's clear that the show isn't treating the act as serious, I don't think it's fair to bash the characters for failing to show remorse. They can't be remorseful for something that in the context of the universe they inhabit is not morally bad. The gap between my moral sensibilities and that of the writers is a real problem. It's easiest in the case of Xander, because I just write it off as a plot contrivance. NFA is harder because if the story hadn't gone forward, I think we could legitimately think that the writers intended it to be deeply morally problematic. But not since the story has continued, alas.

Depends. If I'm evaluating the show in a Watsoninan way, I will bash characters for not being remorseful over actions that I think people should be remorseful over. If I'm evaluating the show in a Doylist way, I'll chalk up the lack of remorse to the wacky Buffyverse moral system.

Still, I do think that there's something unfair about refusing to criticize characters who fail to show remorse if the story glosses over how bad their actions were entirely but being welcome to criticizing characters if the story acknowledges that their acts were bad but doesn't punish them enough. I.E One can't criticize Xander for putting a love spell on Cordelia to make her want him so he can put her in horrible emotional pain because Cordelia thought that was romantic and awesome. However, one can criticize Willow for mind-wiping Tara into submission because Tara was greatly offended and left Willow and made the topic an object of Willow's failings. But because Tara used the word "violation" and not "rape" and ultimately came back to Willow, it's still open-season on Willow.

However if Tara pulled a Cordelia and said that it was so romantic that Willow mindwiped her to make sure that they didn't fight, no one should get angry at Willow for mindwiping. Because the text doesn't acknowledge it as bad.

This is all why I usually stay on the Watsonian side when it comes to this. And when I use the Doylist side, it's just to critique the writers instead of shielding the characters as still worthy or defending them from fannish criticism. I find the Buffyverse writers' moral standards awful. It's one of my favorite shows but it's probably the most ridiculous show that I've ever seen when it comes to calling characters out on misdeeds or in rarer cases, overdoing moral criticism of a character when I didn't feel it was merited.


Yup. We're in the exact same camp. I've even invoked the Pol Pot comparison. I *really* wish they'd had the stones to follow up on that, but ...

Absolutely. I think Pol Pot is the most accurate meglomanical madman comparison to Twangel. Even though the most infamous dictators came from a place of "kill everyone so I can choose the new world and the new humanity to my liking". Tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme.


So much potential, so much waste. I grow more bitter about all aspects of season 9 every day. :sadwalk:

Absolutely. I liked the Willow Wonderland 5 preview pages but this issue of A&F and the latest BtVS preview pages made me even more bitter.


Is my memory wrong or was Spike's participation in Angel's dumb plan...
1. Well after said plan was already in motion and Angel way too far deep to back out.
2. The scope of Spike's active participation: rescuing a human infant and standing with friends facing down a goon hit squad.

I could understand some need for apologetic remorse had Spike's going along with the plan (or not) made any difference. But it didn't. His not going along wouldn't have either. The plan was already in motion with its inevitable trajectory fait accompli regardless of Spike. He couldn't recall that thing. All he could do was choose whether to strand Angel out on the limb that Angel had climbed out on or whether being an ally meant sticking with someone to the bitter end... and maybe saving a baby.

The plan wasn't finalized. Angel couldn't do it without a team. Angel said so. And Spike was the first to support him, before Lorne, Wesley and Gunn.


ANGEL: No, you don't. 10-to-1, we're gone when the smoke clears. They will do everything in their power to destroy us. So...I need you to be sure. Power endures. We can't bring down the senior partners, but for one bright, shining moment, we can show them that they don't own us. You need to decide for yourselves if that's worth dying for. I can't order you to do this. I can't do it without you. So we'll vote. As a team. Think about what I'm asking you to do, think about what I'm asking you to give.

SPIKE: Kill 'em all... burn the house down while we're still in it.

ANGEL: Something like that.

Everyone's got a serious look on their faces.

SPIKE: Huh. (raises his hand) I'm in.

WESLEY: (looks at Angel) I'm in.

As the camera zooms out slowly, show Gunn and finally Lorne raise their hands.

Then before this speech, Spike was still the first to throw support behind Angel:


ANGEL
We are weak. The powerful control everything... except our will to choose. Look, Lindsey's a pathetic halfwit, but he was right about one thing. Heroes don't accept the way the world is. The senior partners may be eternal, but we can make their existence painful.

WESLEY
You wanna take them on.

ANGEL
We're in a machine. The Black Thorn runs it. We can bring their gears to a grinding halt, even if it's just for a moment.

SPIKE
About time we got our hands dirty.

So, Spike is hearing the plan. He knows that if they provoke the Senior Partners, they'll rain down hell on them and LA. Spike is the one to describe it as "burning the house down while they're in it". The House is Los Angeles. And yet, Spike is the first and the most enthusiastic about supporting Angel. IMO, that's real moral culpability.

Now, Spike may have gotten the nicest assignments (IMO, because Angel prioritizes Spike over Lorne and Wesley). However, I still hold him responsible for being the first to agree to the plan that Spike knows full well is inciting the Senior Partners to burn down LA so they have their one shiny moment of standing up.

sybil
01-03-13, 04:32 PM
That's my problem with most of the times the Buffyverse passes moral judgements. It's just that there's not an effective punishment or an effective lecture to the miscreant-Scoob or Fang Gang member in question. The writers don't see how they painted the character to begin with.


DIPSTICK
Ya know, I think I am more than guilty in howling about the comic stories as “just more,” raising questions, do a plotty reveal that completely leaves a reader * unsatisfied * in “not taking a stand” for any real “plotty direction” that organically seems some sort of “cause and effect” to increase “draaahma” or “surprise” that just isn’t in some forever loop of “it was X all along,” itself yet another “raised question” to hold no real consequence. WHEW.

I don’t know about you, but waking up a robot would be more than a bit surprising to me, in “WTF and who did this to me” than some objectified search and argument in what does it mean to be “human,” which is probably why my shock re Angel in “identity=soul=human”—the idea of a single word “soul” defining something I don’t think many words can describe, especially when “what is human” is still evolving.

And p..s. where is the magey-evilness of Giles as a person? In the "power creep" are we to understand what is "all along," is some opposing triumvirate of Eyghon, Spikelus and Angelus to the soul identity human of Angel, Spike, Giles?

Enjoyment be yours in your time "off" from " all the thinky" and "gnashing."


Angel has father issues (still!), and a god complex, and he wants to save people so bad that he can't help but want to control everything and everyone. Because of guilt, because of care, because that's not who he wanted to be. He wanted to make his father proud. He wanted to be able to be one of kind, and special (like so many of us). TENNYOELF
And thank you, "Superior/inferior" which actually ruined all the characters to me, made things more simplistic in what that even means or looks like, or why these feelings arise e.g.without naming the 'underlying' root--which all and I mean all of ATS was saying in "father issues" in the Oedipus' myth and psychological struggle, itself a Freudian and "simplisitic or outdated" argument, (and aren't we bored by this as his defining characteristic after years and years of it, in having actually psychologically "moving on" to the "lover" of his own, not a sister, mother?) as well as god-complex in "big picture" is not the same as "you are god" of the enlightenment story they actually told, mythically, before turning Angel into the "serpent" in Eden, or even the "meaning of the path" to it, no different than that of Christians having their path to God and being brought to "paradise" through Jesus.

As for the evil side of Spike. Well, Oedipus arise, as well, in Mommy/sister issues--which is where the Faith sex will arise in my POV and won't work, not to mention his own version of pedophilia, and let's throw in the rapist dynamic which isn't even about sex, despite showing him endlessly engaging in it, as if some addict trying to find that "sweet spot" to end his pain. IMO, his story is in the insecurities of jealousy, not to mention the nature of the poet, a very gutted/bloody affair, whenever failed.
HUGS!
sybil

vampmogs
01-03-13, 10:24 PM
I never said they were in the same category. There are lots of moral wrongs that don't fall into the murder/rape category and IMO, hurting and threatening to kill the guy that you orphaned is one of them, even if he tried to get vengeance.

I also think Spike steps beyond just reasonably defending himself in that scene. I hate what he says about Nikki but my biggest problem is that he takes the coat back. He knows Robin wanted it because it belonged to his mother (hence stripping it off Spike before he went to dust him) but Spike takes it back and then continues to wear it in front of Robin for the remainder of the season. So not only has he orphaned Robin, told Robin his mother never really loved him, told him he doesn't give a piss about murdering Nikki, but then he flaunts Nikki's clothes for the remainder of the season. There's no way that's OK.

It belonged to Robin's mother. Robin wanted it back as a keepsake. And the guy who murdered her refuses to give it back. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to love about Spike in S7 but that's heinous. Indefensible.


IMO, one can't "say whatever they want" to the person exacting vengeance without zero moral ramifications. The audience can still judge characters by what they said, even if they've just been wronged or are in the process of being wronged. What's more, I take particular note of what characters say when they think they may die or were just in moral peril. I think people tend to say what they genuinely feel.

Yep. I mean, isn't this exactly why Buffy was getting so much criticism for her behaviour in Sanctuary? Faith clearly wronged her in a major way and Buffy was a victim but no one was giving her a free pass to behave however she liked in that episode. Even I greatly sympathise with her and can understand why she acted like she did but it still doesn't make it right.

Spike had every right to defend himself and I don't expect him to necessarily care about Wood's feelings but that doesn't mean he had to go out of his way to hurt the guy. Especially when Wood, like Nikki, was a victim of Spike's atrocities so even if his vengeance was very, very wrong Spike still has to respect that. It was not necessary whatsoever to terrorise Wood by pretending he was going to kill him or trash the woman he murdered.


So, Spike is hearing the plan. He knows that if they provoke the Senior Partners, they'll rain down hell on them and LA. Spike is the one to describe it as "burning the house down while they're in it". The House is Los Angeles. And yet, Spike is the first and the most enthusiastic about supporting Angel. IMO, that's real moral culpability

Totally. Spike believed in what they were doing. The text was clear -- "So we vote, as a team, if this is something worth dying for" And Spike was the first to raise his hand followed by Wesley smiling and raising his hand. Angel may be more responsible as it was his plan and he came up with it but they are still very responsible and, like Angel, believe in the plan and what it stands for.

The one thing I actually disagree with people about is that I think the text totally treats Spike's torture of Dr Sparrow as dark. True, it doesn't spend time exploring the consequences of what he did but at the very least it's played as very dark when Spike is shown rubbing the blood off his fingers. Certainly in comparison to the 'humorous' scene in You're Welcome when Cordy scoffs at Angel as if he's a pansy for being uncomfortable with torturing Eve.

Maggie
01-03-13, 11:28 PM
Yep. I mean, isn't this exactly why Buffy was getting so much criticism for her behaviour in Sanctuary? Faith clearly wronged her in a major way and Buffy was a victim but no one was giving her a free pass to behave however she liked in that episode.

We are never going to agree on this stuff -- but this parallel doesn't work, because Faith wasn't trying to murder Buffy in Sanctuary when Buffy said what she said, whereas Wood was in the process of trying to murder Spike when Spike said what he said. To make my point clear: If Spike had walked up to Wood a week later while Wood was actively repenting for having tried to kill Spike and said those things about his mother, I'd think Spike was clearly in the wrong. Then and only then would I think a word like "heinous" applicable.

Generally speaking, the reason I often give short shrift to the concerns you and Dipstick raise is because you guys tend to present them as though the context didn't matter at all. It doesn't enter into the narrative that Spike did those things in a scene where Wood had ambushed Spike, taken steps to recall the monster (thereby actively refusing Spike's major act of repentance) and was doing his level best to kill him. If you could acknowledge that clearly, I'd have much more sympathy for the point that Spike had a nobler path available to him in response than the one he took.

But as it is, you guys are basically saying that Robin Wood's feelings matter more than the fact that Wood was trying his level best to murder Spike -- a 100% premeditated and cold-blooded act on his part. Or at least that's how it comes across to me when Dipstick brings up Spike's reaction without mentioning what it was he was reacting to, or when you try to compare Spike's words to Buffy's without noticing at all that the situations were very different.


The one thing I actually disagree with people about is that I think the text totally treats Spike's torture of Dr Sparrow as dark. True, it doesn't spend time exploring the consequences of what he did but at the very least it's played as very dark when Spike is shown rubbing the blood off his fingers. Certainly in comparison to the 'humorous' scene in You're Welcome when Cordy scoffs at Angel as if he's a pansy for being uncomfortable with torturing Eve.

I don't recall that gesture -- but granting it's there, it's a fleeting moment on a subject that is never brought up again. In an episode when much is being made of Gunn's decision and his moral responsibility therefor.

A last word on the coat: my impression is that Spike continues to wear that coat because Buffy wanted that side of him in play for the war. But I haven't seen season 7 in a while, so maybe that's not the whole story.

shipperx
02-03-13, 12:09 AM
Angel said they had a choice about participating, HE was going through with his plan and said plan had been in motion for weeks. Nice that he gave them a pro forma vote and an opportunity to walk, but that was all it amounted to based on the circumstances. Angel could frame it as diplomatically as he wants, but those were the circumstances.

And I'm with Maggie in understanding being a b@$tard to someone after they ambush you to murder you.

I don't expect Wood to apologize for trying, he had motivation.

And I don't expect Spike to be meek and concilliatory when someone just used a brainwashing trigger and tried to murder him, because it's natural to be royally pissed off when someone brainwashes, steals your free will, and tries to murder you. It would be like expecting Game of Thrones Tyrion Lannister to not behave like a bastard to his sister after her attempt to have him killed. That's just not the way people tick. You tend to take nearly being murdered rather personally and with something less than objective aplomb.

I also can't help but notice that somehow any discussion of what Angel does wrong somehow turns into arguments about what an a$$hole Spike is. This isn't a contest. They both can be jerks. They both can be wrong. Not every discussion of one's transgressions needs to be met with competitive accusations of the other's moral turpitude. It's not an either/or game. How 'evil' you perceive Spike to be has no bearing on what Angel did in Season 8.

Rihannon
02-03-13, 01:19 AM
I don't expect Wood to apologize for trying, he had motivation.

And I don't expect Spike to be meek and concilliatory when someone just used a brainwashing trigger and tried to murder him, because it's natural to be royally pissed off when someone brainwashes, steals your free will, and tries to murder you.


Yes, I always thought the behavior of both men was understandable. Personally (all my love for Spike considered) I liked Wood as a character, a lot. I think he had a lot of potential. I think their confrontation was needed and also I think it was handled very well.

About LMPTM, Spike being a jerk, and the coat:

Maybe it's because I'm a daughter of playwriters, that can't help but trying to understand things from the perspective of: what does the development mean to the characters and the story that is being told?

Spike's behavior with the child of the woman he murdered shocked me, won't say it didn't. Still, I think it had to be done that way. Angel probably wouldn't let himself be so cruel given the same situation (not because he can't, but he would be way to remorseful to do much). I think that point in the series, the writers had to state how clearly Soul!Spike was not anything like Angel. Quite the opposite, if fact.
Spike never denied his evil self. He embraced his sins as the chains he would have to bear for as long as he lives (not-lives?), as part of his new persona. The coat was the reminder of what he did (like the scar), a bitter and horrible trophy to the monster he was, and why he has to make amends or die trying.

The coat is part of him (how could the writers let Wood keep it? Spike's fans would have tried to set the TV network in fire, or something!:D), like all his past is part of him, of his darkness.

Of course, Wood had the right to claim the coat, and he could... if he had killed Spike. It would be his trophy. But he didn't, he failed, so he doesn't get to keep the coat. Spike is, at that moment, holding to what is left of him, probably trying to conciliate demon is soul in order to remain sane and useful to Buffy. But he is still Spike, and Spike loves Spike. He won't let somebody else punish him and take away his hard earned right to do so. Thank the Powers for that.

Stoney
02-03-13, 01:56 AM
I am entirely with Maggie on LMPTM. I didn't want to get into the general good/bad behaviour comparisons because I just don't think Spike is 'worse' than others in the things that the verse accepts but I do realise that this episode is very significant. I don't have an issue with how he conducts himself personally because Robin intentionally takes the man he knows he is and violates his control to reduce him to something he no longer is and I give a hell of a lot of leniency to Spike for that. I think he believed some of what he said to Robin but I think he was equally verbally going for 'the pain' and I don't mind, I really don't and I applaud him for controlling himself and not succumbing to the same level of physical violence in retribution when he is undoubtedly still learning to manage control of the soul against the demon.

The only thing, as I have previously said, that I think is questionable is the coat. But even then it is complicated as it has explicitly been linked with his ability to fight when he is taking little pleasure in it and struggling with his soul to 'get it done'. For 'the fight' Spike needs some armour to be what he must and he gains that through the coat. It is still something that I can really see the issue with, I think it is callous and awful that Robin has to endure seeing him continue to parade around in it but, at the same time, I can see why he is and why Robin's feelings in the grand scheme don't matter to him.

But, for me, pretty much everything else that people have mentioned has an equivalent which can be drawn for the other characters in the show and, as I think Maggie said, we aren't led to expect them to be answered as the writing doesn't intend them to be. There really isn't the time in the day to draw all the equivalents for each main character on this level of 'bad' behaviour and I honestly feel there is little point. But I also think it is fair to say that Spike gets noted for the more antisocial/unfair basically everyday BtVS 'bad' behaviour than most main characters do and that probably comes from having been the bad guy and the troublemaker/dissenter.

Maggie
02-03-13, 03:41 AM
I don't have an issue with how he conducts himself personally because Robin intentionally takes the man he knows he is and violates his control to reduce him to something he no longer is and I give a hell of a lot of leniency to Spike for that.

This is the thing that so many people overlook (IMO). Robin knew Spike had repented of his past and was trying to be a better man. It's explicitly stated in the shooting script. He has to strip Spike of the soul (or at least suppress it) in order to kill the "animal" (also in the shooting script) that killed his mother. Which is to say that Robin removed Spike's most obvious sign of repentance in order to exact revenge. And then folks line up to complain that Spike said is obviously insufficiently repentant since he says some mean things while fighting for his life to the guy who has just done his best to undo Spike's effort towards redemption.


I think he believed some of what he said to Robin but I think he was equally verbally going for 'the pain'

Also key. In the first part of the fight, Wood has the upper hand because Spike is wrestling with his memories of his mother issues. Wood forced Spike to confront his mother issues by deliberately triggering him and that's what nearly allows Wood to kill Spike. Spike comes to a resolution on his mother issues though and the tables turn, with Spike taking Wood's mother issues to him. And that's when Wood starts losing -- because what Spike is saying is true. Spike is dead on right that Wood's real anger is with his mother and not with Spike. That's why Wood loses the fight.

If Spike hadn't killed Nikki, some other vampire would have. But it's unlikely in the extreme that whatever vampire that might have been would then have gotten to a place where he'd go off to fight for a soul and then offer his services (and ultimately his life) to the very mission Nikki herself was fighting for. Wood is the one who is disrespecting his mother in LMPTM -- by trying to take out an important fighter in his mother's own mission. To his credit, he obviously gets over his Mommy issues because he goes on to function as an effective member of the team, with Spike right there with him. So I give him props for getting back on the mission. I genuinely believe that Nikki would have been horrified by what her son did, and would have said to him much the same things that Buffy did.

None of that's to say it wasn't very hard for Robin to grow up without a mother. It's just to say that he was a very grown man by the time we meet him, and had more than enough time to think about what his mother really stood for, rather than seeing everything through the prism of his own personal pain.

hayes62
02-03-13, 10:28 AM
This is the thing that so many people overlook (IMO). Robin knew Spike had repented of his past and was trying to be a better man. It's explicitly stated in the shooting script. He has to strip Spike of the soul (or at least suppress it) in order to kill the "animal" (also in the shooting script) that killed his mother.
But Robin also (this time in the actual script) has this exchange with Buffy


BUFFY: I'm preparing to fight a war, and you're looking for revenge on a man that doesn't exist anymore.

PRINCIPAL WOOD: Buffy, don't delude yourself... That man still exists.
Like you Robin doesn't believe that Spike and Spikelus are seperable entities. It's not that simple. Similarly with Robin being angry at his mother and not with Spike. He's angry with both. Some other vampire may have killed Nikki eventually but Spike sought her out as a trophy killing and made sure it happened when Robin was only 4 years old. Robin's attack on Spike was the act of that 4 year old boy and 4 year old morality is no code to live by. But that doesn't make what Spike said and did to Robin after the fight was already over and Robin defeated, defensible. It made Spike feel better to rub the salt into Robin's wounds and convince himself that (by comparison with Nikki) his mother was still the Victorian angel of his hearth, full of nothing but love for him. He bought that comforting illusion with one of his former victim's blood and humiliation. It's very human of him but still wrong.

Stoney
02-03-13, 02:05 PM
But the person that would choose to do what Spike did to Nikki categorically does not exist anymore. Robin is trying to kid himself because he knows he will have to strip away Spike's choices to try and make him operate as a monster and that is a false reality, that person doesn't exist or he would have just been able to goad him somehow into behaving like that. Heck, it isn't even presouled Spike he is attacking there either, he just wants a demon in a Spike suit so his punches hit the face of his mother's killer.

Unless I'm misremembering he didn't know she had a son so I can't see how that played any part and I don't see why Robin's age would have meant anything to him even if he did. I suspect killing a slayer is a trophy kill for any vamp, or at least would be treated as something to brag about. Spike was unusual, from what we are led to believe, by seeking out slayers but that doesn't really make the blindest bit of difference to Nikki who was out looking to fight vamps every night anyway.

As for what Spike said, I think you are right that there is a great degree of rubbing salt in to make himself feel better. I take your point that what he is saying to Robin is at Nikki's expense, which certainly isn't respectful. Towards Robin it isn't kind but I really just don't have a problem with him doing it after what he was subjected to, not one bit.

Dipstick
02-03-13, 03:47 PM
Angel said they had a choice about participating, HE was going through with his plan and said plan had been in motion for weeks. Nice that he gave them a pro forma vote and an opportunity to walk, but that was all it amounted to based on the circumstances. Angel could frame it as diplomatically as he wants, but those were the circumstances.

This is silly. I understand people having different opinions on the Spike/Wood thing. But I don't understand someone writing a different AtS S5 and declaring that there was nothing Spike/Wes/Gunn/Lorne could do and they were forced into Angel's plan.

Angel formulated the plan and acted like an evil guy to get in good with the Black Thorn, by this point. He hadn't done anything to incur the Senior Partner's wrath. As of this moment, the Senior Partners thought Angel was cool with them and their plan was working and things were quiet.

Angel's plan to take out the Black Thorn and really upset the Senior Partners to the point that the Senior Partners rain down hell on earth was what he was proposing. Now, I don't know if Angel would have desisted if members of his team cried out, "We can't incur the Senior Partner's wrath. They are stronger than the six of us, including Illyria, and they'll take out our shiny moment on innocent people" or "What is the point of this plan other than to get our shiny moment?" Angel *did* say that he won't do it without the agreement of the team.

However, I do know that Angel did open the question to the gang. Spike did vote first and the most enthusiastically and pretty much said that LA burning down was worth them having a chance to get their hands dirty. And Spike did not feel guilty that LA was sucked into hell and he had the opportunity to have the big vote stand shoulder to shoulder with Angel positive moment instead of being painted with the grey in his deeds than the other characters.


I also can't help but notice that somehow any discussion of what Angel does wrong somehow turns into arguments about what an a$$hole Spike is. This isn't a contest. They both can be jerks. They both can be wrong. Not every discussion of one's transgressions needs to be met with competitive accusations of the other's moral turpitude. It's not an either/or game. How 'evil' you perceive Spike to be has no bearing on what Angel did in Season 8.

I can't help but notice that almost every conversations about Angel's problems often turns into a comparison with Spike where Spike-fans cry out that Spike is treated so much more harshly for his crimes and Angel comes out smelling like a heroic rose while Spike isn't and blah blah blah. Like Chicago's Can You Imagine? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJCa7-BPGbY) but with 100 percent less irony*.

I mean, that's what I was reacting to. I didn't bring up Spike v. Angel comparisons. The litany of posts kvetching about how Angel is treated worse by the writers did. For one, let me introduce you to you.

Y'know, one day, someone should try to explain the blatant contradiction (but they never, ever will) of how there's an Angel and an Angelus (and a Liam too, I wonder...?) but there's only one Darla (human or vampire) and only Spike (albeit one who is written wildly differently by different people. But that's not mythology, that's just being sloppy.


We are never going to agree on this stuff -- but this parallel doesn't work, because Faith wasn't trying to murder Buffy in Sanctuary when Buffy said what she said, whereas Wood was in the process of trying to murder Spike when Spike said what he said. To make my point clear: If Spike had walked up to Wood a week later while Wood was actively repenting for having tried to kill Spike and said those things about his mother, I'd think Spike was clearly in the wrong. Then and only then would I think a word like "heinous" applicable.

I also don't think Spike v. Wood is like Buffy/Faith in Sanctuary for that reason. However, I do think it's directly applicable to Warren/Willow in Villains, as I stated above. To put things out of the Spike-controversial zone, Willow did hunt Warren down for a day and through the woods and now had Warren strung up to a tree and Willow was ready to kill him.

Warren was still heinous in saying that all women are the same and play stupid mind games. Warren was still heinous in saying that Katrina was "asking for it". Warren was still heinously unrepentant in threatening that he'll make Willow "join her little girlfriend" and saying that Willow shouldn't be on his case because he wanted to kill *Buffy*, not *Tara*. And I judge what Warren says as what he feels because:

a) he said it and;
b) I think that what people say when they're confronted with the possibility of dying and meeting Their Maker and confronted with the person that they deeply hurt is very reflective of what the speaker believes. It's a raw Moment of Truth.

Spike was roughly in the same situation as Warren. So, I judge on him a similar rubric. Spike was still heinous in threatening to kill another human, after taking a bit of Wood, when Spike knew that his danger was over. Spike was still heinous in bashing an innocent victim of his like Nikki as a bad mother who wasn't missed as a mother just like Warren was heinous in bashing his own innocent victim in Katrina.

Because this is what Spike said when confronting with a true victim's of his anger and in a To to the Death Moment of Truth, I think that Spike really feels that he didn't rip up a family when he killed Nikki. As Spike's said before, slayers, as a rule, are a class with a death wish who just want to die.


A last word on the coat: my impression is that Spike continues to wear that coat because Buffy wanted that side of him in play for the war. But I haven't seen season 7 in a while, so maybe that's not the whole story.

Buffy did ask for the bad Spike that tried to kill her to fight. However, that doesn't mean that Spike has to wear the skin of his victim. He can work on being a badass without being completely cruel and insensitive to his past crimes and victims around him. That's a struggle for most every BTVS character.

Spike had worn the same coat through S5 until The Girl in Question and then whined when the coat was destroyed:




SPIKE
Civilized country? Look what that squeaker did to my jacket.

ANGEL
After everything we've been through, you're pissed about a jacket.

SPIKE
No, not a jacket. My jacket. You have no idea what I went through to get this.

ANGEL
You stripped it off a body of a dead slayer.

SPIKE
Well, which gives it great sentimental value. Besides, I've been wearin' it for over 30 years. It's like a part of me.

ANGEL
Get over it. Buy a new one.

SPIKE
It's my second skin. It's who I am. It's just one more thing he's taken away that I'll never get back.



*Yeah, it's pretty sad that the best Youtube version of that song I could find was from a high school production.

Maggie
02-03-13, 06:40 PM
I also don't think Spike v. Wood is like Buffy/Faith in Sanctuary for that reason. However, I do think it's directly applicable to Warren/Willow in Villains, as I stated above. To put things out of the Spike-controversial zone, Willow did hunt Warren down for a day and through the woods and now had Warren strung up to a tree and Willow was ready to kill him.

Warren was still heinous in saying that all women are the same and play stupid mind games. Warren was still heinous in saying that Katrina was "asking for it". Warren was still heinously unrepentant in threatening that he'll make Willow "join her little girlfriend" and saying that Willow shouldn't be on his case because he wanted to kill *Buffy*, not *Tara*. And I judge what Warren says as what he feels because:

a) he said it and;
b) I think that what people say when they're confronted with the possibility of dying and meeting Their Maker and confronted with the person that they deeply hurt is very reflective of what the speaker believes. It's a raw Moment of Truth.

A fair analysis of Warren. Though I disagree with the meet your maker rule. In general I think you take rules like that that have some validity and push them too far. Though in this case, I think Warren was, in fact, speaking his plain mind, so I don't disagree with your particular point here.


Spike was roughly in the same situation as Warren. So, I judge on him a similar rubric.

NO. He wasn't. And the fact that you don't get that bugs me more than it should. Warren was completely unrepentant of the murders he had just committed. There is no doubt that if he'd gotten away from Willow he'd have carried on as a bwahaha villain. His words come out of that place of active villainy and that is why they are heinous.

To get your analogy right, you'd have to have Warren face a major moral crisis after realizing he'd become a murderer. Go off on some huge quest that exacted a huge change in his being which among other things compounded the pain he felt at the guilt of what he'd done. Come back and offered to work with the Scoobies to save the world, and clearly place himself at their mercy in terms of whether they'd accept him and on what terms (including insisting on being chained up like a dog so that people could trust him not to kill again). Have Willow come in and work to undo whatever it is that Warren had sought out on his quest to restore him to his villainous state so she could kill him with a clean conscience (at the prodding of the first), and then have Warren say to her words about Tara that were, in fact, largely true.

If in that situation you'd take those words of Warren and call them heinous, then you'd be consistent.

But the fact that you don't see all those differences between Warren and Spike just leads me to not take you seriously on this point. You want to look at the bits of what Spike said and take them completely and 100% out of context. In other words, you don't want to understand Spike, you just want to condemn him. So have at it. You have plenty of company. But our conversation ends here.

Dipstick
02-03-13, 08:00 PM
But the fact that you don't see all those differences between Warren and Spike just leads me to not take you seriously on this point. You want to look at the bits of what Spike said and take them completely and 100% out of context. In other words, youWdon't want to understand Spike, you just want to condemn him. So have at it. You have plenty of company. But our conversation ends here.

Fine, the conversation can end. But I thought I was being very fair. You came up with a general benchmark that people can say what they want to those threatening to kill them without being morally implicated.

As for using harsh words about Nikki -- sorry, you get a free pass to say whatever you want to the person who is trying to murder you in my book. You don't have any obligation of any variety to try to be nice to the guy who's just deliberately brought out your monster so that he can try to kill you.

This was your consistent point. I strongly disagreed. For clarity, I brought up the circumstances of Warren's ambush and Spike's ambush to prove that point that people don't have a right to say awful things and make terrible threats to people who just ambushed them without being judged on their morals. Especially if they're being ambushed by a victim of theirs.

Evidently, we're now on the same page that Warren, for starters, can't say what he said without being judged even though he was saying to a Willow who chased him, tied him up and was about to kill him without being morally wrong. Being threatened isn't an all-access-pass to say whatever you want without being reasonably judged by the audience.

We had been arguing this, IMO, narrow point. Now, you're pivoting and arguing a new point that because Spike made amends and showed repentance in other contexts while Warren hadn't, Spike is untouchable from being morally judged by the audience for what he said while Warren should be judged as a villain for what he said.

Fine, I'll bite and engage with the entirely new point. (Even though, I said that Spike's word in LMPTM were a moral failing. I never said he was a bwahaha villain for saying them. In fact, I distinguished them from real horrors like murder and rape twice now.

Without further ado- How To Evaluate Spike Broadly, Given His Repentance But Also Given What He Said in Lies My Parents Told Me Because What You Say Under Lethal Duress Counts.


To get your analogy right, you'd have to have Warren face a major moral crisis after realizing he'd become a murderer. Go off on some huge quest that exacted a huge change in his being which among other things compounded the pain he felt at the guilt of what he'd done. Come back and offered to work with the Scoobies to save the world, and clearly place himself at their mercy in terms of whether they'd accept him and on what terms (including insisting on being chained up like a dog so that people could trust him not to kill again). Have Willow come in and work to undo whatever it is that Warren had sought out on his quest to restore him to his villainous state so she could kill him with a clean conscience (at the prodding of the first), and then have Warren say to her words about Tara that were, in fact, largely true.

That you think Spike's insult of Nikki as a bad mother so it was unimportant Spike broke up a family is "mostly true" bugs me more than it should.

This analogy is a little challenging because Warren couldn't just get a soul to give him Insta-Redemption Credibility. Either way, lets say Warren went into deep therapy and opened himself up to the judgment of the Scoobies and worked to save the world and Willow still tried to kill him. And then, Warren's response was to say what he said in Villains- Katrina was asking for it, he didn't even try to kill Tara so Willow shouldn't get on his case and women play mindgames, and to say, stab Willow and threaten to kill her so she joins her little girlfriend on leaving. I'd STILL find Warren reprehensible in that moment.

I'd struggle with trying to fit such a bad moment into his S7 redemption. I wouldn't think that Warren was a bwah ha ha villain because he showed significant other signs of repentance- going to therapy, working with the Scoobies, etc. That stuff can't be brushed aside or ignored when trying to analyze the overall person (as opposed to the moral action itself, which was what I was doing before).

However, I'd still think Warren was deeply morally wrong for looking into the face of the woman who lost the love of her life because of him and saying all of those horrible things. I'd still have serious doubts about whether his therapy cured a lot of his problems. I'd infer that Warren gained some sense of personal responsibility and commitment to the world based on his other signs of repentance but, at a crucial moment, Warren lacked sufficient remorse for the victim, casts a negative light on the victims to comfort himself, and even as he's walking to safety, he has anger management issues.

I make similar judgments about Spike. He showed repentance in getting a soul. He showed bravery in working to fight for the broader world. I disagree that he placed himself at the Scoobies' mercy- he placed himself at BUFFY'S mercy. He certainly didn't place himself at Wood's or Giles's mercy, obviously. And his tone implies that he thinks Dawn's threat was unreasonable.

However, Spike looked into the face of the man that he orphaned and left without a mother for most of his childhood and basically told Wood that this slayer that he killed at 19 was trash and a bad mother anyway. He bit Wood and threatened to kill him. And then walked around with Nikki's coat in front of Wood and referred to it as sentimental value after many months.

So I think that I can judge that while Spike is broadly repentant enough to go crazy for awhile and specifically repentant towards Buffy, he indicated that he lacked empathy to really delve into his other victims from long-ago and feel sorry about them on a one-on-one basis. I judge that Spike still clings to his general idea that slayers are looking for their death wish and aren't creatures of family and thus, their families are less important- except for Buffy because Spike really believes in Buffy-Exceptionalism.

I think Spike has a vested interest in continuing to believe that any slayer who didn't stop slaying (except for Buffy) for her family is a bad family member because it comforts him in his past role as a Slayer of Slayers. That does indicate that part of Spike DOES feel contrite enough to keep telling himself that story to comfort him- although it's still kind of cold comfort on that point.

Spike does have a breakthrough in Damage on those points, although it was insufficiently followed up on.

I still judge that Spike resolves way too many conflicts with violence against humans. It's a problem that Spike bites and threatens Wood after he's escaped and that he throws the first punch against Faith. Then again, it's somewhat trained into Spike. Spike's spent years and years resolving all conflicts with violence. He's only had a soul for a very short time. On that level, I feel for him. I do think that we've seen Spike resolve less inter-personal conflicts with violence over time. But then again, Spike's been in less inter-personal conflicts after AtS S5.

In some ways, it's good that Spike focuses so much on himself and his role in the wider world. It's allowed him to see himself as the Champion-Key in Chosen, it allowed him to be unbeholden to Angel's team's corruption in S5 for some time, it allowed him to go off and captain his own bug ship. However, Spike's focus on himself and his role as a hero can come with a lack of empathy and a lack of thinking about other's feelings and a lack of teamwork. I think that encapsulates Spike's decision to wear the coat. On one hand, he's wearing the coat because he's looking for any symbol to allow him to fight past mental illness and First triggers and trauma to be the bad-ass that Buffy and the world needs. He focuses on his needs to achieve his broader goals and that's good.

On the other hand, Spike continues to wear the coat because he's not thinking about how Robin feels watching Spike wear his mother's coat every day and Spike continues to wear the coat because he doesn't dwell on Nikki but instead focuses on himself and his identity. I think the section that I quoted from The Girl in Question really spoke to that.

That's a quick version of how I find Spike, generally. I think it's very fair and engages directly with the text. I'll acknowledge that the show doesn't connect these dots between Spike's good acts and his bad acts to advance a broader reading of Spike...but then, I count that as one of the show's failings.

dorotea
02-03-13, 08:09 PM
To get your analogy right, you'd have to have Warren face a major moral crisis after realizing he'd become a murderer.

But Spike did not face a major moral crisis because he suddenly realized he was a murderer. He had a major moral crisis after realizing he just blew his chances with a woman he wanted to continue to have sexual relationship with - by trying to rape her. There was nothing in his pre-quest reminiscences about the century or so of murders. And even later already with a soul he admits that 'I got a soul for you' and insists he went to get a soul 'to be hers'. Soulless or soul-ful, the murders part is never brought as a reason for his crisis, quest, or change. Only the attempted rape and desire to 'be hers'.


Go off on some huge quest that exacted a huge change in his being which among other things compounded the pain he felt at the guilt of what he'd done.

But once again - the guilt for the murders of innocents while a soulless vampire never ever enters Spike's reasoning for getting a soul, and is never ever exclusively expressed in any of his monologues through the rest of S7. He never expresses feelings of guilt either for the past crimes as a soulless being , or even for the kills he later commits under the First control. Not does he ever express feeling guilty for killing Nikki. So, the Warren analogy is quite appropriate.


Come back and offered to work with the Scoobies to save the world, and clearly place himself at their mercy in terms of whether they'd accept him and on what terms (including insisting on being chained up like a dog so that people could trust him not to kill again).

But this offer is also the only way to get himself near the woman he tried to rape, and besides it makes no sense whatsoever - because he is already quite literally chained - by the chip in his head, that is only removed later in the season. So the offer is neither genuine , nor breaks any ground from his previous situation with the Scoobies. Spike was at their mercy and was getting his blood supply from the Scoobs since two years past. As such the offer was an dramatic exaggeration - and I don't see how it differentiate him from Warren, who was very capable of such theatrics when he wanted to make an impression.


Have Willow come in and work to undo whatever it is that Warren had sought out on his quest to restore him to his villainous state so she could kill him with a clean conscience (at the prodding of the first), and then have Warren say to her words about Tara that were, in fact, largely true.

Honestly , this part is especially puzzling. Do you mean that berating late Nikki as a bad mother and mocking her son while at the same time insisting the murder was justified - because Nikki was a Slayer and therefore 'fair game' is a s justifiable as Warren's berating late Katrina ?
Fair enough, I guess.

Skippcomet
02-03-13, 08:16 PM
In other words, you don't want to understand Spike, you just want to condemn him.

In fairness, though, that happens with a lot of characters and the audience members who don't like them. I've seen it happen with Xander and those who hate him (though not necessarily all), as well as with Willow, Buffy, Angel, Cordelia, Tara, Wesley, and more. Once somebody decides that they dislike a character, for whatever reason or motivation (i.e., they don't like something that character said or did, or they perceive that character as a threat or obstacle to their preferred 'ship or an enemy of their favorite character, and therefore that character must be punished or destroyed), context doesn't matter, the story the writers are trying to tell doesn't matter. Their anti-woobie (is there a better term?) *must be condemned*.

I'm not necessarily saying this is where Dipstick is coming from, but I did want to respond to this point.

Maggie
02-03-13, 10:09 PM
Fine, the conversation can end. But I thought I was being very fair. You came up with a general benchmark that people can say what they want to those threatening to kill them without being morally implicated.

As for using harsh words about Nikki -- sorry, you get a free pass to say whatever you want to the person who is trying to murder you in my book. You don't have any obligation of any variety to try to be nice to the guy who's just deliberately brought out your monster so that he can try to kill you.

This was your consistent point. I strongly disagreed. For clarity, I brought up the circumstances of Warren's ambush and Spike's ambush to prove that point that people don't have a right to say awful things and make terrible threats to people who just ambushed them without being judged on their morals. Especially if they're being ambushed by a victim of theirs.

If you read my quote, you'll notice I said the bit about the guy who's "just deliberately brought out your monster so he can try to kill you." That was a pointer at the whole context -- but you are anxious to avoid the context, so it makes sense that you would not have caught the import of what I was saying there. That clause rules out your Warren comparison. That's where I've been coming from this whole time.


We had been arguing this, IMO, narrow point. Now, you're pivoting and arguing a new point that because Spike made amends and showed repentance in other contexts while Warren hadn't,

As I said, I'm not pivoting. I've been insisting on the whole context the whole time. But again, you have been systematically ignoring the context -- because the context is quite inconvenient to your desire to portray Spike as a heinous unrepentant monster guy.


Fine, I'll bite and engage with the entirely new point. (Even though, I said that Spike's word in LMPTM were a moral failing. I never said he was a bwahaha villain for saying them. In fact, I distinguished them from real horrors like murder and rape twice now.

But then you keep using the word "heinous". Heinous is an adjective that marks out the noun it describes as being in a particularly offensive moral realm. Not all murders are heinous, but Spike's words are (to you).


hei·nous (hns)
adj.
Grossly wicked or reprehensible; abominable: a heinous crime.


Without further ado- How To Evaluate Spike Broadly, Given His Repentance But Also Given What He Said in Lies My Parents Told Me Because What You Say Under Lethal Duress Counts.

The last principle is still too simplistic, so I don't grant it the standing you grant it.


That you think Spike's insult of Nikki as a bad mother so it was unimportant Spike broke up a family is "mostly true" bugs me more than it should.

Let's analyze these "heinous" words.



SPIKE: I'm sorry.

(Cut to past. William/Spike stakes his mother; back to present)

PRINCIPAL WOOD: Sorry? You think sorry's gonna make everything right?

SPIKE: I wasn't talking to you. (Spike starts fighting, and from now he has the upper hand)

SPIKE: I don't give a piss about your mum. She was a slayer. I was a vampire. That's the way the game is played.

PRINCIPAL WOOD: Game?

SPIKE: She knew what she was signing up for.

PRINCIPAL WOOD: Well, I didn't sign up for it.

SPIKE: Well, that's the rub, innit? You didn't sign up for it, and so now it's my fault.

First, this is the point where Spike finally starts fighting back. Don't forget that Wood had set him up to be murdered by deliberately triggering him. Spike has been flooded with his own painful issues with his own Mom. This is not exactly a context where you'd expect someone to ALSO be worried about where his assailant is coming from and how he feels about it. (Well, you would, at least when it comes to Spike, who apparently has to be a saint in your book to avoid being charged as being a heinous villain).

Second, what has Spike said that is wrong? Nikki decided to carry on with her mission as a slayer which involves doing battle with vampires and the sure knowledge that the battle will at one point go the wrong way. That IS what's eating at Robin. We know this because if Spike hadn't existed, Robin would still have ended up as an orphan. Nikki chose to continue as a slayer after becoming a mother, and slayers get killed. Spike happened to be the instrument of that, but that doesn't change the fact that with or without Spike intervening, Robin was going to be an orphan -- a casualty in a cause that his mother signed up for, but not him.


PRINCIPAL WOOD: You took my childhood. You took her away. She was all I had. She was my world.

SPIKE: And you weren't hers. Doesn't that piss you off?

PRINCIPAL WOOD: Shut up. You didn't know her.

SPIKE: I know slayers. No matter how many people they've got around them, they fight alone. Life of the chosen one. The rest of us be damned. Your mother was no different.

PRINCIPAL WOOD: No, she loved me.

SPIKE: But not enough to quit, though, was it? Not enough to walk away... for you.

All Spike is saying is that when your mission is to save the world, you cannot prioritize your loved ones the way civilians might. Spike does not deny that Nikki loved Robin, he's just saying the straight up truth of the matter -- she didn't love Robin more than the world. She didn't love him enough to quit.

As we now know -- she actually did try to quit. But she went back to the fight of her own free will.

Spike is telling Wood EXACTLY the thing that Wood needs to get in order to move on with his life. He's not saying it with charity or kindness. Buffy does that. But Spike and Buffy are giving him the same message. Recognize that your mother had important priorities that don't coincide with your best interests; appreciate the sacrifice she made; spank your inner moppet and get with the program.


This analogy is a little challenging because Warren couldn't just get a soul to give him Insta-Redemption Credibility. Either way, lets say Warren went into deep therapy and opened himself up to the judgment of the Scoobies and worked to save the world and Willow still tried to kill him. And then, Warren's response was to say what he said in Villains- Katrina was asking for it, he didn't even try to kill Tara so Willow shouldn't get on his case and women play mindgames, and to say, stab Willow and threaten to kill her so she joins her little girlfriend on leaving. I'd STILL find Warren reprehensible in that moment.

The problem with this is that it refuses to listen to what Spike was saying, which is not that Nikki deserved to be killed, but rather that she chose a mission that necessarily would issue in her death. I can't think what the analogue would be for Warren/Katrina. But that's kind of my point here. You can't tell the difference between a truly heinous villain (Warren) and the thing Spike is talking about.


However, Spike looked into the face of the man that he orphaned and left without a mother for most of his childhood and basically told Wood that this slayer that he killed at 19 was trash and a bad mother anyway.

You've introjected a lot into what Spike said, and I think missed his point entirely.


He bit Wood and threatened to kill him. And then walked around with Nikki's coat in front of Wood and referred to it as sentimental value after many months.

He refrained from killing the man who had just done his level best to kill him. I'd call that morally good, not *heinous*.

The remark about the coat having sentimental value in TGIQ happened in a comedy episode. I am not sure how to read it. But I don't think there's anything inconsistent with the thought that Spike wears that coat not as a trophy but as a reflection of everything he is about -- the slayer killer who is now the willing and devoted servant of the slayer (and her mission).


So I think that I can judge that while Spike is broadly repentant enough to go crazy for awhile and specifically repentant towards Buffy, he indicated that he lacked empathy to really delve into his other victims from long-ago and feel sorry about them on a one-on-one basis.

He turns the angel figurines away from him in Him, indicating his feeling of deep guilt. He tells Buffy that the thought of him adding to the pile of dead is unbearable. He practically cries when he tells Buffy about raping and torturing young girls. He doesn't walk around broadcasting it like Angel -- but it's all there. He's deeply burdened by his past. But that doesn't mean that he was wrong to tell Wood that Wood's problem is with his mother and not with him.


I judge that Spike still clings to his general idea that slayers are looking for their death wish and aren't creatures of family and thus, their families are less important- except for Buffy because Spike really believes in Buffy-Exceptionalism.

No. He shares with Buffy and everyone else in the verse the expectation that slayers will be killed (with a 100% fatality rate) in the line of duty -- sooner rather than later. When Nikki opted to stay on as a slayer that's what she opted into. It may be politically incorrect to note that slaying is not compatible with taking steps to insure that a slayer's son will have a mother for his whole life, but there it is. The same is true of mothers who go into combat. They are putting their children at risk for growing up motherless. It doesn't make them horrible heartless people. It just means that they are making a choice that entails not only personal sacrifice, but also sacrifice on the part of their children. If that's done for the greater good, the children should grow up being PROUD of their mothers, not wallowing in self-pity about being abandoned at a young age.


I still judge that Spike resolves way too many conflicts with violence against humans. It's a problem that Spike bites and threatens Wood

I continue to find it ridiculous that a person who has just nearly been murdered doesn't have a right to reassert himself when he finally has regained an upper hand in the fight. If Spike HAD killed Wood -- or even seriously injured him you'd have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.


after he's escaped and that he throws the first punch against Faith.

Slayers and vampires punch each other all the time. Buffy has been punching Spike gratuitously for years. It doesn't have the same valence it would have if Spike had walked up to Xander and punched him first.


Then again, it's somewhat trained into Spike. Spike's spent years and years resolving all conflicts with violence.

A trait he shares with Faith and Buffy. And I think they're all pretty careful to only gratuitously punch slayers or vampires. This is another place where you ignore important distinctions in order to paint Spike in a bad light.

If you want to tear into Spike here are the things I think he bears responsibility for (post soul):

* Being uncooperative when Giles tried to de-trigger him. He didn't want to delve into his dark matter with his mother, but in doing so he was allowing the problem of the trigger to continue. In this respect he is like Wood -- putting his own personal issues ahead of the mission.

* The Harmony hop. Even though she's "just" a soulless vampire, he's always treated her very, very badly. This has parallels with his treatment of the bugs. Spike can be very contemptible to people who don't register with him as "real", which is particularly bad when the beings in question are actually remarkably devoted to him.

* The torturing of Dr. Sparrow. The text doesn't treat it as a crime, so it's in that zone where we can't say the text is intentionally showing him as unrepentant for something he should be repentant. But it is very dark -- and I do think it is meant as part of the general darkness in Angel and his team at the end of AtS 5 -- a darkness which unfortunately has been dumped as an important thematic issue. But still.

* Going along with Angel's plan. See above. And yes, he was the first to sign on, and that gives him even more responsibility (as compared to Gunn, or Lorne).

I might have missed something. But those are the things that bother me. The standing character flaws are (a) being truly callous to folks he disrespects and (b) having an insufficiently developed moral compass of his own -- which is why he's completely in the flow of the darkness at the end of AtS 5. Loyalty trumps judgment for Spike, and if we were going to tell his story for its own sake - that's the issue I'd come back to. That's where Spike needs to grow.

Dipstick
02-03-13, 10:15 PM
In fairness, though, that happens with a lot of characters and the audience members who don't like them. I've seen it happen with Xander and those who hate him (though not necessarily all), as well as with Willow, Buffy, Angel, Cordelia, Tara, Wesley, and more. Once somebody decides that they dislike a character, for whatever reason or motivation (i.e., they don't like something that character said or did, or they perceive that character as a threat or obstacle to their preferred 'ship or an enemy of their favorite character, and therefore that character must be punished or destroyed), context doesn't matter, the story the writers are trying to tell doesn't matter. Their anti-woobie (is there a better term?) *must be condemned*.

I'm not necessarily saying this is where Dipstick is coming from, but I did want to respond to this point.

It's not where I'm coming from. I'd like to make that very clear. If I was just coming from a place of favorite character-protectionism, I'd more easily accede to shipperx's point that Not Fade Away is All.Angel's.Fault and say m'boy Wes could not have derailed Angel's choo-choo to crazytown. Instead, I charge Wesley with responsibility for voting for it.

I'd probably try to use Sanctuary to compare Buffy v. Faith with Spike v. Wood as vampmogs did instead of looking for the, IMO, more accurate parallel in Willow/Warren where I described twice how horrifying Willow was in her imminent threat of Warren so I could directly compare it to how horrible Wood's imminent threat to Spike was. To make as accurate a comparison of the two moments as possible.

I also just judged Spike on things that I saw him do and say that I had an instinctive negative reaction to and I explained (IMO, thoughtfully) why I felt that way. Lies My Parents Told Me was one of them.

Here's what I haven't done. I haven't said that the death of an important, beloved Scooby gang member was Spikes' fault even though that was never stated in text because Spike was so grossly negligent that he (apparently off-screen?) didn't read the fine print of some unknown, never stated on the show warning label?/contract?/How To Guide on Resurrections?/who knows? announcing that the death of a person as important as Buffy would happen in exchange for the resurrection.

I wasn't so determined to charge such an atrocity to Spike's record even if it vitiates the specific on-screen choices of the three actors in the shooting (Warren, Buffy, Tara) to be in a particular place at a particular time that we all saw them arrive at with full-agency and no predestination. A specific choice for Warren that was the climax to a season of escalating violence and a major story of S6.

When I say anti-Spike stuff, it's because I'm referring to a specific action that he did which upset me onscreen.

Plus while I agree with some of dorotea's points, I disagree with others.


But once again - the guilt for the murders of innocents while a soulless vampire never ever enters Spike's reasoning for getting a soul, and is never ever exclusively expressed in any of his monologues through the rest of S7. He never expresses feelings of guilt either for the past crimes as a soulless being , or even for the kills he later commits under the First control.

Spike expresses guilt in S7, over the girls that he attacked that were just like Dawn. He refers to all of his past victims torturing him in his head in Beneath You. Spike *does* feel guilt.

My concern about Lies My Parents Told Me and Spike wearing the coat and his Girl in Question whining is that Spike doesn't feel enough specific guilt about Nikki. That's a definite concern of mine. It's also concerning that Spike takes Dawn's threat as Dawn became scary. He doesn't feel guilt when he sees Willow and remembers how he tried to kill her multiple times, twice with rape overtones, once with a threat to shove a broken bottle through her face. There's no guilt on remembering how he brained Xander with a microscope and kidnapped him. His initial reaction to seeing Dana is "not my victim, not my moral responsibility"- but he does have a break-through over families that he ruined.

It leaves me with the impression that Spike *does* feel generalized guilt- enough to make him crazy for awhile and to make him a better person. However, he lacks guilt about anyone specifically other than Buffy. I don't know if it's because it's too much for Spike to think about or because his pride necessitates that he doesn't repent in front of anyone other than Buffy or a lack of empathy. I tend to go with all three. But ti's a thing that I've observed from Spike's behavior.


Spike was at their mercy and was getting his blood supply from the Scoobs since two years past. As such the offer was an dramatic exaggeration - and I don't see how it differentiate him from Warren, who was very capable of such theatrics when he wanted to make an impression.

I don't think the Scoobies gave Spike his blood supply. There were some deals where Spike made money off of the Scoobies in S4-5. The Scoobs fed him blood when he was chained up in Giles's bathtub. Other than that, I don 't recall the Scoobies ever giving Spike blood. Also, butcher shops, apparently throw out good blood. Spike could get his blood from there. Spike did not put his unlife on the line fighting evil in S7 and coming back to a hostile group for the blood. Plenty of easier, less painful ways to get blood.

I will probably respond to Maggie's latest post later.

hayes62
03-03-13, 12:20 AM
PRINCIPAL WOOD: You took my childhood. You took her away. She was all I had. She was my world.

SPIKE: And you weren't hers. Doesn't that piss you off?

PRINCIPAL WOOD: Shut up. You didn't know her.

SPIKE: I know slayers. No matter how many people they've got around them, they fight alone. Life of the chosen one. The rest of us be damned. Your mother was no different.

PRINCIPAL WOOD: No, she loved me.

SPIKE: But not enough to quit, though, was it? Not enough to walk away... for you.

All Spike is saying is that when your mission is to save the world, you cannot prioritize your loved ones the way civilians might. Spike does not deny that Nikki loved Robin, he's just saying the straight up truth of the matter -- she didn't love Robin more than the world. She didn't love him enough to quit.
But this isn't all Spike says. He goes on to say

I'll tell you a story about a mother and son. See, like you, I loved my mother. So much so I turned her into a vampire... so we could be together forever. She said some nasty bits to me after I did that. Been weighing on me for quite some time. But you helped me figure something out. You see, unlike you, I had a mother who loved me back. When I sired her, I set loose a demon, and it tore into me, but it was the demon talking, not her. I realize that now. My mother loved me with all her heart. I was her world.
That's the context for all his other suppositions about what Nikki did or didn't feel. None of which give any indication that he's gone beyond thinking of her killing as part of a game that he (even now) bears no responsibility for. Other murders, other atrocities sure but where slayers are concerned he still seems to have a massive blind spot right up until Damage. When he first meets Dana he dismisses her channelling of Xin Ron with the same cruel indifference he showed the original "Sorry love, I don't speak Chinese". She begins to channel Nikki putting Robin before the mission and the penny finally begins to drop:

DANA: Please don't. I have to get home to my son... to my Robin.

SPIKE: Robin? Oh. Hey, you're talkin' about Nikki, the slayer I offed back in— (realizes) Uh, yeah. You probably don't want to think about that, pet.
By the end of the episode Dana has hurt him far more than Robin ever could and all in an attempt to take revenge on a man who Spike not only no longer is but never was. This time however Spike has grown enough that rather than trash-talking her family or threatening to kill her if she so much as looks at him, he's finally able to take responsibility for all that he did and failed to do.


SPIKE: No. I did (deserve what Dana did). The lass thought I killed her family. And I'm supposed to what, complain 'cause hers wasn't one of the hundreds of families I did kill? I'm not sayin' you're right... 'cause, uh... I'm physically incapable of saying that. But, uh... for a demon... I never did think that much about the nature of evil. No. Just threw myself in. Thought it was a party. I liked the rush. I liked the crunch. Never did look back at the victims.

If he were already ready to admit he'd done something terrible in killing Nikki and orphaning Robin in LMPTM he seems blissfully unaware of that one season later.

Vampire in Rug
03-03-13, 01:10 AM
There are a lot of interesting posts in this thread that I'd like to reply to when I get more time. Unfortunately, that's not right now. I am a little disappointed that this thread has become about Spike's actions from the show when really, it should be about A&F issue #19. I never thought I would say this about an issue that has both Angel and Spike in it, but I'm actually *looking forward* to MikeB's bullet points post to bring us back on topic. Here's hoping he posts at some point within the next month.

Maggie made one point earlier that I'd like to respond to though, because I completely disagree with it and I'd like to play devil's advocate here:


As for using harsh words about Nikki -- sorry, you get a free pass to say whatever you want to the person who is trying to murder you in my book.

Look, I get that Spike was pissed about being betrayed and ambushed and he had every right to be. I still don't think that gives Spike a blank cheque to say whatever he likes to Wood and not be judged for it. To play devil's advocate, would you be comfortable if Spike started throwing racial slurs at Wood, and started saying nasty stuff about Nikki based on her race? I mean, Wood is trying to kill Spike, so he should get to say anything, right? Wood tried to kill Spike, and if that entitles Spike to a free pass, why should racist comments be off limits? Note that Spike doesn't actually need to be a racist in order to say racist things if the purpose is to indulge in a free pass to hurt Wood's feelings. Would you be comfortable with Spike insulting Nikki's race instead of her parenting skills?

When Holtz is trying to kill Angel, should Angel be allowed to say disrespectful things about Holtz's family? How do you think the fandom would react if Angel started talking about how tasty the baby was, or how much his wife enjoyed being raped? In my eyes, Holtz has morally worse things than Wood by far in the name of his vendetta against Angel. Yet when Angel gets a chance to speak with Hotlz, he's remorseful. Should Angel have instead chosen to disrespect the family after it had been established that Holtz was trying to kill him?

Whenever Spike or Drusilla are trying to kill Angel, would it be okay for Angel to start making light-hearted comments about his torture and possible rape of Drusilla? We've seen Angel taunt Spike about his previous relationship with Drusilla, but I'm talking about taking it a step further, and taunting Drusilla about how crazy she is because of all those dumb nuns he killed, about how she belonged in hell even as a human, about the rape she probably suffered at his hands. This example could be applied to either Drusilla or Spike, because I doubt Spike wants to hear Angel gloat about all the stuff he did to Dru.

In Destiny, Spike wanted to get under Angel's skin and it was very possibly going to be a fight to the death. What if instead of talking about his sex with Buffy, Spike decided to upset Angel by saying disrespectful things about Cordelia or Fred? Maybe make some joke about how Cordelia was in a coma because she couldn't keep her legs closed. Would that be okay because it's a combat situation and "anything goes"?

In After the Fall, Gunn was a vampire and was trying to kill them all. Would it have been appropriate for any of the fang gang to make a racial slur against Gunn because now he's officially a bad guy trying to kill them?

How about Jasmine? Do any of the characters have a free pass to make racial slurs against her? Realistically this should be the least offensive of all considering that she's not even human and never was, and her "race" is likely just a costume she picked out of a wardrobe of possible human disguises.

Racial discrimination is obviously something of a sore point for Mr. Trick and is one of the few instances where we get a deeper look into his character. Again, in the heat of battle would it be okay for Buffy or Faith to make racist remarks?

Would it be okay to make homophobic remarks to Andrew while he's doing something evil/questionable? Would it be okay to make homophobic remarks to vamp-Willow or Dark-Willow while they are trying to kill you?

When Buffy is holding a blade to Andrew's throat over the Hellmouth Seal, would it be okay for Andrew to use what he considers to be the last moments of his life to start saying disrespectful things about Joyce?

Was it offensive of Lindsey to use Doyle's name? Was it offensive of Hamilton to bring up Doyle, Cordelia and Fred in front of Angel while they were fighting to the death? Was it offensive of Vail to mock Wesley in front of a weeping Fred/Illyria? Would it ever be appropriate for someone to meet Illyria these days, and talk about what a pathetic loser Wesley was?

When Cordy and Skip are eavesdropping on Angel when he's bargaining with the PTB (can't remember the name of the episode), Angel calls Cordy weak and says other things that I've seen the fandom judge him for even though Angel is trying to save her life and doesn't even know that her spirit is in the same room listening to his rant.

Many have speculated that Faith was sexually abused in the past. If this is true, would it be okay for Buffy or Angel (or any of the scoobies, really) to bring this up and make light of it while she's trying to kill them?

...

I realize that not all of these examples are exact parallels to Spike disrespecting Nikki in front of Wood. In fact I deliberately made some of them several degrees more offensive because I wanted to highlight how much I disagree with your assertion that when someone is trying to kill a character, that character has a free pass to say whatever they like, up to and including mocking the dead relatives that YOU killed. I think that sometimes, especially in fiction, a good person should be expected to take the moral high road, and in my eyes that doesn't simply mean letting Wood live (after drinking from him). I will never be comfortable with the way Spike spoke about Nikki and treated Wood, even if I do sympathise with Spike for being the guy who got ambushed. I don't think Spike should get a free pass to say whatever he likes about the woman he murdered, unless you think that all my examples above should also get a free pass to say whatever nasty thing that comes to mind.

I think this issue would be easier for a lot of fans to get past if there was any sort of follow up to suggest that Spike did indeed "give a piss" about Nikki's life and that he was just lashing out at Wood in the heat of the moment and regretted some of the stuff he said later. I think it would be easier for fans to get past if he didn't continue to wear Nikki's coat in front of Wood for the remainder of the season. I think it would be easier for fans to get past if Spike didn't continue to make light of Nikki in AtS season 5 and arguably BtVS season 9.

SporkKitten
03-03-13, 01:17 AM
And, um, how does this all compare to the crimes commited by season 8 Angel?

Being a serious a$$ somehow equals premeditated murder, torture, and planning to destorying the world?

vampmogs
03-03-13, 01:27 AM
And, um, how does this all compare to the crimes commited by season 8 Angel?

Being a serious a$$ somehow equals premeditated murder, torture, and planning to destorying the world?

I gotta ask, have you even read all the posts? Because its been repeated over and over again that NOBODY thinks LMPTM is as bad as Twilight. NOBODY. How many times does that need to be said? :s

Goyt
03-03-13, 01:46 AM
I gotta ask, have you even read all the posts? Because its been repeated over and over again that NOBODY thinks LMPTM is as bad as Twilight. NOBODY. How many times does that need to be said? :s

Judging by some of the adjectives used to describe Spike's actions here you wouldnt think so.

vampmogs
03-03-13, 01:51 AM
Judging by some of the adjectives used to describe Spike's actions here you wouldnt think so.

Why? Must people censor their opinions on Spike's -- or any other character's -- actions from now on because they can't compete with the Twilight atrocity? Since no one was even comparing the two AT ALL it shouldn't be remotely necessary. Thinking Spike's actions were "heinous" =// = thinking they were as bad or as worse as Twilight.

Why fuss over semantics when people have stated, repeatedly now, that they don't think LMPTM and Twilight are in the same league at all? It's a strawman argument rather than actually dealing with the criticisms directed at Spike's behaviour in that episode.

Emmie
03-03-13, 02:21 AM
I'd probably try to use Sanctuary to compare Buffy v. Faith with Spike v. Wood as vampmogs did instead of looking for the, IMO, more accurate parallel in Willow/Warren where I described twice how horrifying Willow was in her imminent threat of Warren so I could directly compare it to how horrible Wood's imminent threat to Spike was. To make as accurate a comparison of the two moments as possible.

Prefacing this by saying I haven't really landed on either side of this debate, I can understand both sides.

That being said, the Willow/Warren comparison doesn't work for me since Warren is spouting off while in abject terror. Whereas once Spike's been made free from his trigger and then he starts spouting off, the threat's gone. He dominates Wood so utterly that it's pretty clear Spike's not feeling the imminent threat.

So that goes against the argument that people looking in the face of death become more honest. Instead, once Spike has his realization that his mother loved him, he's... well, he's at peace, centered, in a way which completely undercuts the threat of imminent death.

Instead, I think he's more pissed off by Wood's brazenness and the way in which he took away Spike's control by forcing him to change. But that which pisses Spike off also motivates Spike to pardon Wood, since forcing that change brought Spike through to the other side where he got back his control.

Basically, I think by the time Spike's lighting into Wood with the verbal insults, Spike's going for the hurt because Wood just became his abuser -- to fight back, Spike's trying to strip Wood of his own self-control, rather his means of self-sustainment.

It's eye-for-an-eye emotional and psychological fighting. And once Spike delivers the "your mother never loved you" blow, then Spike's done. Killing Wood isn't important; making Wood feel as out of control by the very same trigger that made Spike out of control? That's ~justice. Spike takes the weapon that was his undoing (the weakness born from the trauma of believing his mother didn't love him) and he turns it around on Wood. It's the emotional equivalent of catching the knife after it's stabbed Spike a few times and finally turning it around on Wood, saying, "How do YOU like it?"

I'm not saying this makes it ~good or ~acceptable even; I'm avoiding morally judging this. I just think it's a different scenario compared to Willow/Warren.

Goyt
03-03-13, 02:33 AM
Why? Must people censor their opinions on Spike's -- or any other character's -- actions from now on because they can't compete with the Twilight atrocity? Since no one was even comparing the two AT ALL it shouldn't be remotely necessary. Thinking Spike's actions were "heinous" =// = thinking they were as bad or as worse as Twilight.

Why fuss over semantics when people have stated, repeatedly now, that they don't think LMPTM and Twilight are in the same league at all? It's a strawman argument rather than actually dealing with the criticisms directed at Spike's behaviour in that episode.


Where did i say anyone should censor their opinions? What i did say is with the words used to describe his actions you would have thought he had commited an atrocity equivalent to twilight.

Dipstick
03-03-13, 02:42 AM
If you read my quote, you'll notice I said the bit about the guy who's "just deliberately brought out your monster so he can try to kill you." That was a pointer at the whole context -- but you are anxious to avoid the context, so it makes sense that you would not have caught the import of what I was saying there. That clause rules out your Warren comparison. That's where I've been coming from this whole time.

You wrote a hard-and-fast rule:


As for using harsh words about Nikki -- sorry, you get a free pass to say whatever you want to the person who is trying to murder you in my book. You don't have any obligation of any variety to try to be nice to the guy who's just deliberately brought out your monster so that he can try to kill you.

Yes, you added the additional aggravating factor that Wood was trying to bring out your monster. I read your bolded section as was a complete phrase (which it was) and inferred it that you were creating a primary rule that people can say what they want to those trying to kill them. With subsidiary aggravating factors (trying to bring out your monster) giving more weight to Spike's allowance to say whatever he wants to Wood because Wood was trying to kill him. It was a very reasonable inference.

I guess the Maggie rule now is that you can say whatever you want to those that are trying to kill you and bring out your monster if you're currently a good guy and not a Warrenesque villain.


As I said, I'm not pivoting. I've been insisting on the whole context the whole time. But again, you have been systematically ignoring the context -- because the context is quite inconvenient to your desire to portray Spike as a heinous unrepentant monster guy.

I wrote a long essay on how I see Spike's positive and negative traits. I defended Spike against some of dorotea's allegations which I didn't think were fair. I wasn't as glowingly positive as you are about Spike. However, I was fair. I pointed out some very positive things about Spike- he's generally repentant though lack individualized repentance to non-Buffy, he focuses on working on himself, he tried his damndest to be a strong, brave champion. I wrote how disadvantaged he is by his short learning curve- in learning how to not be violent, etc. Nothing in that essay said "heinous unrepentant monster guy".

Still, here we are just where we were in October when I thought we were grew past this stuff. I judge Spike very matter-of-factly and maybe a little harshly, But I judge him entirely on his stated words and actions. I find his souled story weak in lots of parts and would like to see it improved. And not improved like, "The mask comes off and Spike is revealed as a monster! Awesome honesty!" I'd like to see more of how Spike regards his past, his individual victims. I'd like to see Spike ponder his role in the fight and what he thinks his future is beyond Buffy. I want Spike to consider where he fits broader community as a souled vamp.

Meanwhile, Willow is Dead To You (which you retracted and I had accepted your retraction until you decided to make Willow responsible for Tara's death through gross negligent to the tune of not reading *fine print* supposedly available to Willow without a scintilla of evidence) and her whole silly redemption was just communing with flowers to you (which you never retracted). Just yesterday, you charged her with responsibility for Tara's death because you decided to just make up in your head that Willow was grossly negligent and chose not to read *fine-print* in information allegedly available to her that Buffy's resurrection would necessitate the sacrifice of a life equal to Buffy's in importance.

I put the question to you, Maggie. Did I accuse Spike of anything as bad or completely unfounded in canonas saying that Willow is responsible for Tara's death because Willow was too negligent to read fine print theoretically available to her?

I can just imagine the gasket that you'd blow if I made Spike responsible through gross negligence for DEATH of a Scooby, especially St. Tara of the Pure and Martyred Rosebushes, on zero evidence stronger than "Spike had fawn blood on him at the beginning of the season and Tara blood on him at the end of the season" and "You'd think Buffy's resurrection would be karmically expensive. Huh? Fawns aren't *that* important, outside of Bambi and even then, Thumper and Skunk/Flower were cuter."

Yet, you lecture me about the need to interpret characters nicely and generously.


But then you keep using the word "heinous". Heinous is an adjective that marks out the noun it describes as being in a particularly offensive moral realm. Not all murders are heinous, but Spike's words are (to you).

Most murders are heinous. And I find Spike's words heinous. The lower end of heinous but still... I see your definition of heinous says "abominable". That's a very good word for how I feel about what Spike said.


Second, what has Spike said that is wrong? Nikki decided to carry on with her mission as a slayer which involves doing battle with vampires and the sure knowledge that the battle will at one point go the wrong way. That IS what's eating at Robin. We know this because if Spike hadn't existed, Robin would still have ended up as an orphan. Nikki chose to continue as a slayer after becoming a mother, and slayers get killed. Spike happened to be the instrument of that, but that doesn't change the fact that with or without Spike intervening, Robin was going to be an orphan -- a casualty in a cause that his mother signed up for, but not him.


All Spike is saying is that when your mission is to save the world, you cannot prioritize your loved ones the way civilians might. Spike does not deny that Nikki loved Robin, he's just saying the straight up truth of the matter -- she didn't love Robin more than the world. She didn't love him enough to quit.


As we now know -- she actually did try to quit. But she went back to the fight of her own free will.


Spike is telling Wood EXACTLY the thing that Wood needs to get in order to move on with his life. He's not saying it with charity or kindness. Buffy does that. But Spike and Buffy are giving him the same message. Recognize that your mother had important priorities that don't coincide with your best interests; appreciate the sacrifice she made; spank your inner moppet and get with the program.

I grouped all of your "Nikki didn't love Robin enough to quit" comments. Spike's fought next to Buffy- the only slayer that Spike really spent time with. Buffy fights, in large part, BECAUSE she loves her loved ones so much. The fate of the world rests with the slayer, especially when there was only one slayer. The show seems to imply that vampires were part of the horrible crime wave in 1970s NY that put all children, especially inner city boys, at risk.

IMO, Nikki loved Robin too much to quit and just let whatever apocalyptic or New York specific threat do whatever they wanted to civilians, including potentially Robin. Nikki can't quit, stop fighting vampires and wait until Robin goes to a friend's house on a sleeperover until some vamp like Spike figures out how to get into the house and kills the boy who is hiding in the trash chute. (Since it's NY in the 1970s and coal bins are out).

If Nikki's life was anything like Buffy's, I'm sure that demons found her to threaten Robin. Having fought next to Buffy for years when Buffy was spurred to be her most slayer-y when her loved ones were in danger, Spike has zero right to say that Nikki wasn't a good enough mother to quit.

I guess soldiers who are mothers, police officers in the line of duty who are mothers, astronauts who are mothers, mothers who continue to be nurses in the middle of horrible epidemics, mother civilians/firefighters/first responders who dived into the dangerous rubble of the Twin Towers on 9/11 to find bodies all don't love their children enough to quit.


No. He shares with Buffy and everyone else in the verse the expectation that slayers will be killed (with a 100% fatality rate) in the line of duty -- sooner rather than later. When Nikki opted to stay on as a slayer that's what she opted into. It may be politically incorrect to note that slaying is not compatible with taking steps to insure that a slayer's son will have a mother for his whole life, but there it is. The same is true of mothers who go into combat. They are putting their children at risk for growing up motherless. It doesn't make them horrible heartless people. It just means that they are making a choice that entails not only personal sacrifice, but also sacrifice on the part of their children. If that's done for the greater good, the children should grow up being PROUD of their mothers, not wallowing in self-pity about being abandoned at a young age.

Being the one slayer in the entire world is partly about the greater world but it's also because as Giles said, the fate of the ENTIRE WORLD rests with the slayer. A slayer who quit, before the empowerment spell, was sentencing the world to potential apocalypses and city-takeovers without a slayer to stop it.

I mean, I even think that mothers in Buffy's army or mothers who go into combat in our world may very well do it for their kids. Have you seen news stories about American soldiers who are mothers? They spent their soldier's salaries and benefits on their children- like Nikki took advantage of having financial and emotional support for her and her son in the shape of her Watcher.


The problem with this is that it refuses to listen to what Spike was saying, which is not that Nikki deserved to be killed, but rather that she chose a mission that necessarily would issue in her death. I can't think what the analogue would be for Warren/Katrina. But that's kind of my point here. You can't tell the difference between a truly heinous villain (Warren) and the thing Spike is talking about.

We'll never know how much longer Nikki could have lasted if she didn't have *Spike* out to kill slayers. Even Spike said, Nikki had Buffy's style. She was cunning, resourceful and hot. That's why she was such a prize to Spike.

Most vampires don't look to kill slayers. Who knows how much longer Nikki could have had if there were no Spike?

I see that Hayes beat me to exposing that you didn't include some of the most objectionable things that Spike said.


The remark about the coat having sentimental value in TGIQ happened in a comedy episode. I am not sure how to read it. But I don't think there's anything inconsistent with the thought that Spike wears that coat not as a trophy but as a reflection of everything he is about -- the slayer killer who is now the willing and devoted servant of the slayer (and her mission).

Comedy ep or not, Spike said it in an episode focusing on him and Angel. I laugh at the thought that the coat was emblematic that Spike was a servant of the slayer. Spike just spent MONTHS not calling this slayer that's he's the supposed "servant" of and emphatically NOT being a part of her mission. In fact, he knows that all of the slayers, especially Buffy, think that what Team Angel is contrary to the slayer mission. I can't even imagine Spike calling himself a *servant* of the slayer, especially by late ATS S5.

I mean, read what Spike said.


SPIKE
No, not a jacket. My jacket. You have no idea what I went through to get this.

Wow. Poor Spike. It's about what *he* went through get this. That was huge. Meanwhile, the slayer stripped of her jacket who was found dead at eighteen years old in the NY subway by the passengers that got on and the boy who was left an orphan and the Watcher who lost his slayer.....what did they go through.

He has real chutzpah to whine about what he went through to get the jacket.


ANGEL
You stripped it off a body of a dead slayer.

SPIKE
Well, which gives it great sentimental value. Besides, I've been wearin' it for over 30 years. It's like a part of me.

Number one, Spike emphasizes that he's been wearing it for thirty years. It's not about what he did with himself recently. It's that it's been his look for *thirty* years, twenty eight of which he was evil.

Number two, it's disgusting and abominable for Spike to say that the fact that he stripped it off a dead slayer gives it sentimental value. Even Angel, CEO of Wolfram and Hart, though that was effed up.


He turns the angel figurines away from him in Him, indicating his feeling of deep guilt. He tells Buffy that the thought of him adding to the pile of dead is unbearable. He practically cries when he tells Buffy about raping and torturing young girls. He doesn't walk around broadcasting it like Angel -- but it's all there. He's deeply burdened by his past. But that doesn't mean that he was wrong to tell Wood that Wood's problem is with his mother and not with him.

I did say that Spike feels generally remorseful. However, he struggles with owning responsibility for individual victims and their families. He conceptualizes his victims in broader groups.

However, he doesn't seem to feel bad about any of the individuals that he's wronged other than Buffy.

I'd love it if the story explained why this is the case. Is it because Spike's pride is too important to him to say, "I'm sorry" to anyone to Buffy? Is it because he lacks empathy for the individual victims? Is it because Spike can summon enough responsibility to make a generalized commitment to doing good and recognizing good. But Spike can't emotionally deal with focusing on how Wood felt growing up an orphan or how Willow felt being child and a beginner witch and being told that Spike will shove a bottle through her face and that if she doesn't do a love-spell on Drusilla correctly that Spike will kill Xander* and it will be her fault or all of the Scoobies felt to be sixteen year olds trapped in rooms in their school, unsure of which one of their friends and teachers and parents were being slaughtered, because Spike decided to invade it on Parent Teacher night with an army even when those folks happen to be right front of Spike.

I don't know. I do see a disconnect from Spike's generalized guilt (that motivates him to be a champion) and his lack of individualized guilt when confronted with his actual victims. It's one of the most interesting things about Souled!Spike. I think that the story did Spike a disservice by not exploring it.


Slayers and vampires punch each other all the time. Buffy has been punching Spike gratuitously for years. It doesn't have the same valence it would have if Spike had walked up to Xander and punched him first.


A trait he shares with Faith and Buffy. And I think they're all pretty careful to only gratuitously punch slayers or vampires. This is another place where you ignore important distinctions in order to paint Spike in a bad light.

I don't believe that Buffy punched Spike since she learned he got a soul. It IS considered bad for ostensible good souled people to punch each other over pure interpersonal conflicts, superpowers or not. For a good reason. It's a hallmark of good, reasonable people to resolve their problems with words instead of their fists.

You say it was bad for Buffy to punch Angel over a dispute on how to deal with Faith. I believe that you believe it was bad for Buffy to punch Faith over a dispute on whether the Potentials should have gone to the Bronze. The show certainly charges Buffy with moral responsibility for these actions and acts like she was in the wrong to hit people/souled vampires because she disagreed with them.

Why can't the same standard be applied to Spike? Why is Buffy bad by punching Faith but Spike is the chivalrous guy exchanging in slayer/vamp dialogue?

*BTW, I have new anger at Spike for his "no more magic than a joke shop line" in 9.01 now that I've considered how horrifyingly Spike reveled in the fact that Willow didn't have enough strength and power to defend herself and was easy pickins for rape, maiming, kidnapping, and murder in Lover's Walk and The Initiative.

Emmie, that's good point about the "honesty on imminent death". I think the Willow/Warren and Wood/Spike comparison is still apt when contrasting the anger and indignity Warren and Spike must have felt.

However, the question of honesty is a dicier one. I do think that Spike was close enough to mortal fear and being confronted with the orphan of one of your slayers is a Moment of Truth all to itself. Maybe it's not the same as Warren's pure fear. However, I do think that it's dire enough and emotionally pivotal (to make up a bullshit expression because I can't find the right phrase for my real feelings...) for some honesty to come out.

SporkKitten
03-03-13, 02:52 AM
Why are we talking about Spike? That's my point. Let's get back on topic of Angel.

Take this Spike discussion elsewhere when it has nothing to do with Angel and Angel & Faith. Or some people might think you are comparing.

Maggie
03-03-13, 05:53 AM
I don't see the need to pursue this further. I wanted to clarify something, though.



Meanwhile, Willow is Dead To You (which you retracted and I had accepted your retraction until you decided to make Willow responsible for Tara's death through gross negligent to the tune of not reading *fine print* supposedly available to Willow without a scintilla of evidence) and her whole silly redemption was just communing with flowers to you (which you never retracted). Just yesterday, you charged her with responsibility for Tara's death because you decided to just make up in your head that Willow was grossly negligent and chose not to read *fine-print* in information allegedly available to her that Buffy's resurrection would necessitate the sacrifice of a life equal to Buffy's in importance.

I did *not* say that Willow was responsible for Tara's death. I said that as I read the season, Willow tried to exchange a fawn for Buffy, and that the universe ended up exacting a human life in exchange for Buffy. It's all on the symbolic level, where I think it works very well. That is not remotely the same thing as accusing Willow of murdering Tara or being directly responsible for her death in any way that makes her culpable. Her culpability, however far that goes, is for engaging in black magic. But she couldn't have foreseen that Tara might be the price, and I don't count that against her. Indeed, I feel sorry for her. It's part of her tragedy. (Hayes' video sets this out so beautifully).

Please try to read me more charitably.


I put the question to you, Maggie. Did I accuse Spike of anything as bad or completely unfounded in canonas saying that Willow is responsible for Tara's death because Willow was too negligent to read fine print theoretically available to her?

I didn't accuse Willow of anything, as I just said. You called Spike's remarks to Wood "heinous". And I wish you and Vamps would look up that word next time you want to say that you aren't saying Spike is worse than Twilight. What word signifies more awful, beyond the pale than heinous? I'm racking my brains to think of any word that signifies more awfulness than does the word "heinous". But my mind's a blank. If I want to designate a crime as the worst sort of crime, "heinous" is the word I use. What word do you use?

Dipstick
03-03-13, 06:51 AM
I did *not* say that Willow was responsible for Tara's death. I said that as I read the season, Willow tried to exchange a fawn for Buffy, and that the universe ended up exacting a human life in exchange for Buffy. It's all on the symbolic level, where I think it works very well. That is not remotely the same thing as accusing Willow of murdering Tara or being directly responsible for her death in any way that makes her culpable. Her culpability, however far that goes, is for engaging in black magic. But she couldn't have foreseen that Tara might be the price, and I don't count that against her. Indeed, I feel sorry for her. It's part of her tragedy. (Hayes' video sets this out so beautifully).

Please try to read me more charitably.

I took it that you blamed Willow for Tara's death when you wrote:


I agree that it isn't to be taken as some metaphysical fact that every resurrection will require the sacrifice of another life. To tie the symbolic value of seeing Tara's death as the price Willow inadvertently ended paying to the phlebotinim of the story, we could say that this particular resurrection operated through a spell calling for the sacrifice of a life to restore a life -- with Willow not reading the fine print about the two lives in question needing to have some equivalence. Hopefully whatever that badness turns out to be (if the resurrection is successful) will have symbolic resonances as powerful as Tara's death had.

Saying that Willow didn't read a fine print provision implied that you believed Willow had information or access to information that Buffy's life would require an equivalent life but she didn't...read the fine print. I'm kind of stuck on how else to take it.

I've never been in a conversation where someone said, "X didn't read the fine print and Y horrible consequences resulted" where it wasn't a judgment on X and their negligence. I mean, I'm a big believer in reading the fine print for just purchasing a refrigerator, let alone raising the dead.

Maybe this is similar to your frustration with "heinous" because that's a loaded word. IMO, "read the fine print" is a loaded expression that pretty much always means that a person missed important information because they weren't paying close enough attention and didn't check it out more. Plus, everyone else on that thread was just talking the universe's karma exacting unknowable consequences and you wrote that Willow didn't read the fine print that the lives had to be comparable in importance.


I didn't accuse Willow of anything, as I just said. You called Spike's remarks to Wood "heinous". And I wish you and Vamps would look up that word next time you want to say that you aren't saying Spike is worse than Twilight. What word signifies more awful, beyond the pale than heinous? I'm racking my brains to think of any word that signifies more awfulness than does the word "heinous". But my mind's a blank. If I want to designate a crime as the worst sort of crime, "heinous" is the word I use. What word do you use?

I like "heinous" for its "abominable" meaning which means very bad and disgusting. Because abominable sounds abdominal which is usually gross stomach-related things. It speaks to my aversion to Spike's words. I know that heinous also means "evil" but I wasn't really leaning that as much as "disgusting". However, the Internet has ruined "disgusting" and "gross" and "ew" for me. Read Mark Watches and you'll get to the surface of why. It sounds like posuer-smart people speaking in 5th grade girl.

For huge unfathomable evil like Twilight, I don't even really feel like disgusting-synonyms. It's just so bad that it's isn't about *my* personal aversion. It's about the singular and universal obviousness that this was wrong. I'll use words like "despicable", "hateful", "beyond the pale", "unforgivable", "worst of the worst" and "reprehensible" which I used for Spike, I think, but I shouldn't have.

Frankly stylistically, I tend to stay away from adjectives from the worst-of-the-worst crimes. Especially, on this board which doesn't allow me to curse with my usual passion and verve. I do use dramatic adjectives for the lesser crimes because I'm a pretty melodramatic writer and speaker. For the big-ass crimes, I'll break out the allusions to tyrannical madmen or serial killers. I'll detail the crimes and usually write pissed that there weren't consequences. For global crimes like Angel's, I've may delve into some known aspect of the crime and then have to resort, "I can just imagine the consequences alluded to but unseen" because the consequences are so huge that they're almost unknowable.

Maybe it's not the best writing process and I'm evolving and learning as a writers- but it's my honest process.

Maggie
03-03-13, 07:59 AM
Saying that Willow didn't read a fine print provision implied that you believed Willow had information or access to information that Buffy's life would require an equivalent life but she didn't...read the fine print. I'm kind of stuck on how else to take it.

Well, what I had in mind was that the spell is like a con man who offers Willow a deal, which she signs up for, not noticing that there's fine print that makes it a much worse deal than it seemed. I didn't mean she was negligent. I meant that magic is a seducer that lures people into thinking you can get something for free, but sticks you with a very high price.


I've never been in a conversation where someone said, "X didn't read the fine print and Y horrible consequences resulted" where it wasn't a judgment on X and their negligence. I mean, I'm a big believer in reading the fine print for just purchasing a refrigerator, let alone raising the dead.

You haven't been in many conversations. I never read the fine print. Who does? And it's usually written in legal gobbledygook with the express purpose of concealing from people what's in the deal. How many times have you clicked on "I agree" without reading the three page crap a software program tosses up at you before letting you use the program? I don't. And every time I've heard the subject come up, it's generally assumed that people don't read that stuff.

And in any case, if you go back and read the whole paragraph, it's not saying that there was fine print that Willow didn't read. (frustration). It was trying to make the following general case:

1. I see a symbolic connection between the faun and Tara.

2. I don't think that implies that there's an in-story metaphysical rule that all resurrections require the sacrifice of some other human life.

3. IF you want an in-story metaphysical explanation you could say that this resurrection operated through a spell calling for the sacrifice of a life to restore a life -- with (rewriting now for clarity) with the spell not having spelled out what sort of life it was going to end up really exacting. In some sense Willow should have known she was messing with dangerous forces. She is guilty of playing around with magic that was beyond her. That's pretty much text. But I don't see the possible connection between the faun and Tara as anything that adds in any way shape or form to the moral status of what Willow did.

I really meant to say that on this reading there's a tragedy for Willow because she inadvertently ended up paying a much higher price for Buffy's resurrection than she bargained for.

NB. Bolded bits are directly from the paragraph, which you presumably read around in order to land on the bit that taken out of context would have me saying terrible, even heinous things, about your beloved Willow. But I learn my lesson. Anything I say about Willow can and will be used against me by you no matter how much you have to disregard context in order to do so. I will keep silent on the subject ever more.


I like "heinous" for its "abominable" meaning which means very bad and disgusting.

Well, you can use words however you want, but you should expect people to understand them according to their conventional uses. And I repeat, the word 'heinous' means (as far as I can tell) the outermost extremity of bad things people can do.

Back to the dictionary:


adjective
hateful; odious; abominable; totally reprehensible: a heinous offense.
Origin:
1325–75; Middle English heynous < Middle French haineus, equivalent to haine hatred (derivative of haïr to hate < Germanic ) + -eus -ous

Related forms
hei·nous·ly, adverb
hei·nous·ness, noun
non·hei·nous, adjective
non·hei·nous·ly, adverb
non·hei·nous·ness, noun

Synonyms
wicked, infamous, flagrant, flagitious, atrocious, villainous, nefarious.

Stoney
03-03-13, 08:42 AM
I would acknowledge that there was a nonsensical aspect to what Spike was saying. If Nikki loved her son deeply isn't accepting herself as someone who has to risk and eventually sacrifice her life to protect him a part of that? He is part of the world after all and could even have been her biggest reason for focussing on the mission, simple acceptance that the Chosen One fulfilling their role keeps the world safer and thus her son. I think this shows that Spike was simply taking a verbal assault as his satisfaction/revenge and obviously playing into Wood's fear about his mum rather than anything that can be intellectually backed up. It is cruel/mean/unkind act but that is as far as I would go, and I still have no personal issue with it because of what Wood did. I think that Wood was lucky that the souled vamp got control back before he got himself killed and that, with that control, vicious verbality was Spike's act of vengeance which is more on the level of schoolground nasty responsive behaviour than anything actually on a par with how Wood had behaved.

(yeah, I know verbality isn't a word but I couldn't think of anything that replaced it and meant what I wanted so I have gone with it regardless :)).

LMPTM is a topic that seems to draw extreme responses. There is this (http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17197&highlight=lies+parents+LMPTM) dead thread that the mods may resurrect if people are wanting to get back into it all. I don't think I have anything left to add personally.

vampmogs
03-03-13, 09:32 AM
Why are we talking about Spike? That's my point. Let's get back on topic of Angel.

Because, as per, people started complaining about Angel's story and how Spike gets treat to a double standard and held more accountable for his actions. Ironically, it was neither Dipstick, myself, or Vampire In The Rug who originally brought up Spike, and yet we're the ones who this 'why are you comparing Angel and Spike?" keeps getting directed at as if WE originally compared the two, when, in actual fact, we didn't.

It's funny how people quickly lose patience with the Angel/Spike comparisons whenever the conversation doesn't go as intended. Apparently, there's nothing wrong with comparing the two if its to say how horribly treated Spike is and how the writing is so unfair to him, but if anybody dares say otherwise suddenly we should leave Spike out of it? Heh.


Take this Spike discussion elsewhere when it has nothing to do with Angel and Angel & Faith. Or some people might think you are comparing.

How about you direct that at the people who *brought him up in the first place* and who actually DID compare the two... his biggest fans. It's surreal how twisted these conversations become and how quickly people forget how they started. Not a single poster here who has criticised Spike's behaviour in LMPTM actually brought Spike up. We just disagreed with those who did. Believe me, I'd love nothing more if we could go one A&F discussion without someone grousing about how whitewashed Angel is and how horribly Spike is treated.

hayes62
03-03-13, 09:35 AM
I really meant to say that on this reading there's a tragedy for Willow because she inadvertently ended up paying a much higher price for Buffy's resurrection than she bargained for.

Or even deserved but life is like that. The connection between the spell Willow did in Bargaining and Tara being shot in Seeing Red isn't based on morality or world building but, as ever with Joss, on emotional truth, on poetry. It's the same kind of sense that Angel's curse makes. One moment of happiness breaks the spell, he loses his soul and everybody (else) suffers. It's like a gun whose backfiring is a feature but it makes emotional sense because the curse is powered by vengeance and vengeance is a living thing. (It passes through generations. It commands. It kills.)

Willow's tragic flaw here is not vengeance (although she has that). It's the junkie's inability to accept grief. To accept that bad things happen that can't be fixed by a "spell" or a deal. More than any of the other characters Willow can't move beyond the bargaining stage of mourning Buffy, she can't let it go. She thinks she has a solution, a way to make everybody happy again but it's like the happiness Philip K Dick describes in the author's note to "A Scanner Darkly" and you should really read the whole thing (http://butterflyjunk.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/scanner-darkly-authors-note.html)
but here perhaps are the most relevant parts:

This has been a novel about some people who were punished entirely too much for what they did. They wanted to have a good time, but they were like children playing in the street...

..."Be happy now because tomorrow you are dying," but the dying begins almost at once, and the happiness is a memory.

Willow wasn't just playing. It's not an exact analogy although it does connect the junkie-Willow arc everybody hates with other addiction stories (there's a reason "Perfect Day" works as a Willow song). But I'm going off-topic (even within this entirely off-topic post). Tara's death isn't justice, it's nemesis, it's the universe's arbitrary revenge on a person who was trying to be happy, to make things right. There's no world building sense to it - in Buffy's world, unlike ours or Joss's, death isn't one of those things that literally has to be accepted. The story is incoherent but Joss believes incoherency can make a story stronger. I don't think he's wrong but I may be. It's certainly arguable.

Jack Shaftoe
03-03-13, 10:08 AM
Look, I get that Spike was pissed about being betrayed and ambushed and he had every right to be. I still don't think that gives Spike a blank cheque to say whatever he likes to Wood and not be judged for it. To play devil's advocate, would you be comfortable if Spike started throwing racial slurs at Wood, and started saying nasty stuff about Nikki based on her race? I mean, Wood is trying to kill Spike, so he should get to say anything, right? Wood tried to kill Spike, and if that entitles Spike to a free pass, why should racist comments be off limits? Note that Spike doesn't actually need to be a racist in order to say racist things if the purpose is to indulge in a free pass to hurt Wood's feelings. Would you be comfortable with Spike insulting Nikki's race instead of her parenting skills?

When Holtz is trying to kill Angel, should Angel be allowed to say disrespectful things about Holtz's family? How do you think the fandom would react if Angel started talking about how tasty the baby was, or how much his wife enjoyed being raped? In my eyes, Holtz has morally worse things than Wood by far in the name of his vendetta against Angel. Yet when Angel gets a chance to speak with Hotlz, he's remorseful. Should Angel have instead chosen to disrespect the family after it had been established that Holtz was trying to kill him?

Also, we are discussing a show where monsters and/or humans (who sometimes are monstrous in their own right) try to kill the protagonists all the time. It's not like Spike is some guy who has never been into situations where he had to fight for his life and let's not forget that he is a lot stronger than Wood. For instance when Ford used Buffy and a bunch of other people as vampire bait, she still had some compassion for him. Ditto when she was stabbed in the back by Faith or Giles or Spike or Willow or the majority of the 45 other people who have betrayed her over the course of the series. Now, mind you, I for one think Buffy often is way too lenient in those cases, but the point it's a show where this happens all the time.

Moreover, this wasn't the last time Spike and Wood met, so we can't write off his words as just heat of the moment thing. He had many chances to apologize or if not apologize per se, at least say he might have been too harsh towards Wood's mother. He did nothing of the sort.


I didn't accuse Willow of anything, as I just said. You called Spike's remarks to Wood "heinous". And I wish you and Vamps would look up that word next time you want to say that you aren't saying Spike is worse than Twilight. What word signifies more awful, beyond the pale than heinous? I'm racking my brains to think of any word that signifies more awfulness than does the word "heinous". But my mind's a blank. If I want to designate a crime as the worst sort of crime, "heinous" is the word I use. What word do you use?

Something tells me that if a character, any character, was to say anything remotely negative about Spike's relationship with his mother (or anyone/anything Spike considers very dear to him), their words would be described as heinous by like half of this forum. But when posters don't interpret Spike's actions in the best possible light, now we have a problem apparently. It's quite funny, actually.

Really, character bias aside, words can be described as heinous and nobody really expect them to be considered as something worse than mass murder. Or just one murder. Though, in this fandom it's entirely possible for harsh words to create more fan backlash than a character causing people's deaths. One needs to look no further than the reactions towards Xander's actions in OWMF and Dead Man's Party. I jsut don't think it's the case in this particular discussion but the way Spike gets excused for everything he ever did causes people to be harsher to him than they would have been if his fans weren't trying too hard to exonerate him. That's true for any character, obviously, Spike just has more die-hard fans than the others do.

Local Maximum
03-03-13, 10:13 AM
I made a deal with myself that I would go on hiatus for the month of March. But I keep coming back -- I'm a bit of a junkie too.


Or even deserved but life is like that. The connection between the spell Willow did in Bargaining and Tara being shot in Seeing Red isn't based on morality or world building but, as ever with Joss, on emotional truth, on poetry. It's the same kind of sense that Angel's curse makes. One moment of happiness breaks the spell, he loses his soul and everybody (else) suffers. It's like a gun whose backfiring is a feature but it makes emotional sense because the curse is powered by vengeance and vengeance is a living thing. (It passes through generations. It commands. It kills.)

I don't remember if I ever gave you props for that video but I do think it's extraordinary and the best vid I've seen. And I think that you articulate the way in which Tara's death is really because of the spell -- poetically. Buffy's death and Tara's don't connect literally, but they rhyme, and the end of SR and beginning of Villains emphasize the rhyming with Willow saying "bring her back," referring to Tara, and Buffy's eyes opening. We're meant to see a connection between Tara and Buffy (and the two have been paired for a long time in some ways, with dead mothers and siblings named "Donny"/"Dawnie"). I am uncomfortable with and can never make sense of a way in which Tara's death is literally the result of the spell, but it has a poetry -- and the clearest in-universe explanation is the one Willow provides in Anywhere But Here, that she could have worked on making a life without Buffy but devoted all her energies to bringing Buffy back.


Willow's tragic flaw here is not vengeance (although she has that). It's the junkie's inability to accept grief. To accept that bad things happen that can't be fixed by a "spell" or a deal. More than any of the other characters Willow can't move beyond the bargaining stage of mourning Buffy, she can't let it go. She thinks she has a solution, a way to make everybody happy again but it's like the happiness Philip K Dick describes in the author's note to "A Scanner Darkly" and you should really read the whole thing (http://butterflyjunk.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/scanner-darkly-authors-note.html)
but here perhaps are the most relevant parts:


Willow wasn't just playing. It's not an exact analogy although it does connect the junkie-Willow arc everybody hates with other addiction stories (there's a reason "Perfect Day" works as a Willow song). But I'm going off-topic (even within this entirely off-topic post). Tara's death isn't justice, it's nemesis, it's the universe's arbitrary revenge on a person who was trying to be happy, to make things right. There's no world building sense to it - in Buffy's world, unlike ours or Joss's, death isn't one of those things that literally has to be accepted. The story is incoherent but Joss believes incoherency can make a story stronger. I don't think he's wrong but I may be. It's certainly arguable.

I go back and forth on what the resurrection itself means and what it means. Certainly Buffy ends up alive and happy to be alive at the end of season six, and to me the effect of Willow et al.'s bringing Buffy back to life is partly an act of defying the idea that slayers MUST die young and maybe changing the rule so that one slayer manages to live out life with the life expectancy of a cheeto. If they hadn't brought Buffy back, Buffy couldn't change the world in Chosen (and with Willow, too) and the story keeps doubling back on itself uncertain whether that's a good or bad thing but I think it's better than it is bad -- and think that ending the cycle of girls dying at twenty because It Is Written is worth taking big risks. Willow accumulates the power to rewrite the story, following the example of chronic rule-breaking that Buffy showed her, though very-seldom-naughty Willow, once she gets going, is a bigger rule-breaker than Buffy (which is not itself either a good or bad thing -- it depends on what rules she breaks).

Conversely, while Willow et al. DID want Buffy to live longer, they also did want her back because it's too painful to consider her not being back. They CAN rewrite the story of the slayer line, the one where every girl dies young and the best they can hope for is that it be a good death like the one Buffy gets in The Gift. But they can't rewrite the whole world and remove pain from it and remove the fact that SOMETIMES, people die young. And you capture in your writing the way that works -- that emotionally Willow is driven partly (primarily?) by her inability to accept that Buffy's really gone. Tara's death rhymes with Buffy's resurrection because that denial of the existence of pain is there and I don't think the Scoobies were clear-eyed about that when they went into the resurrection; still, Buffy climbs out of her grave "for real" shortly after Tara's death, and while Willow's goal of everyone being happy and okay didn't come to fruition, Buffy being alive and happy to be alive did. No thanks to Willow in the interim maybe -- she kept Buffy alive by saving her several times in the season (After Life, Gone, DMP, Normal Again, Villains) but that's mostly all she did for her, and Buffy had to figure out why she was alive herself. In SR/Villains, Tara dies but Buffy's eyes drift open, and somehow I think those two (along with Willow's eyes turning red and Xander's powerlessness) catches an ambivalence about what the resurrection means really well.

I think that's how to resolve the contradictions, or rather how I resolve what I see as the contradictions, at least today -- that Buffy's "mystical death" has to get resolved for the story to go forward and for Buffy to succeed in her series mission of ending the slayer trap (because she has friends who tie her to the world) and to get the message across, primarily to Willow but to the whole cast, that some things in life are permanent and that accepting that the world is sometimes a terrible place can be a first step to embracing it fully. To me, the question of when to take the big risks on changing the rules and when to accept the world's manifest unfairness is the central question for Willow and one of the central ones for Buffy, which is both a moral issue and an emotional one.

I also like the way you write about Willow's junkie-ness. I don't think Willow's junkie-ness is all that literal, though it does get literalized in s6's midseason, but I do think she has crutches that she uses to deal with emotional pain that she can't imagine living without.

Dipstick
03-03-13, 03:17 PM
You haven't been in many conversations. I never read the fine print. Who does? And it's usually written in legal gobbledygook with the express purpose of concealing from people what's in the deal. How many times have you clicked on "I agree" without reading the three page crap a software program tosses up at you before letting you use the program? I don't. And every time I've heard the subject come up, it's generally assumed that people don't read that stuff.


NB. Bolded bits are directly from the paragraph, which you presumably read around in order to land on the bit that taken out of context would have me saying terrible, even heinous things, about your beloved Willow. But I learn my lesson. Anything I say about Willow can and will be used against me by you no matter how much you have to disregard context in order to do so. I will keep silent on the subject ever more.

I didn't take anything out of context and I wasn't determined to land on you something heinous about Willow.

Note there's a distinction. I didn't find anything objectionable when Hayes posted the video and spoke about the universe just taking a higher price. Yes, it ends up putting a horrible tragedy on Willow without any evidence. I can just imagine how angry fans who more carefully guard their favorite characters would get over someone saying that their favorite character did something that caused the death of Tara- without any evidence other than blood/blood parallels. However, it didn't make up negligence on Willow's part.

It *is* negligence for someone to not read the fine print before embarking on a risky mission that is a matter of life and death and to then, cause a death accidentally because someone didn't read their fine print. It's negligent for a doctor to not read the fine print of a patient's chart before embarking on an operation and it opens a medical malpractice suit if the patient later dies. It's negligent for a builder to not read the fine print of the conditions of the land that he's building on if there ends up being a sinkhole buried on the land. It's taken as read that before anyone embarks on a risky project that could risk lives, they MUST read the fine print. Saying that someone embarked on a risky project but didn't read their fine print and that resulted in a death is a huge accusation.


And in any case, if you go back and read the whole paragraph, it's not saying that there was fine print that Willow didn't read. (frustration). It was trying to make the following general case:

I posted your entire paragraph in my last post- except the last sentence that just called for Giles's resurrection to have the consequences that Buffy's did. I don't make like I'm going to analyze what Spike said to Wood while strategically omitting his ENTIRE paragraph break-through where he emphasizes that Spike had a mother who loved him back while Wood didn't.


1. I see a symbolic connection between the faun and Tara.

2. I don't think that implies that there's an in-story metaphysical rule that all resurrections require the sacrifice of some other human life.

3. IF you want an in-story metaphysical explanation you could say that this resurrection operated through a spell calling for the sacrifice of a life to restore a life -- with (rewriting now for clarity) with the spell not having spelled out what sort of life it was going to end up really exacting. In some sense Willow should have known she was messing with dangerous forces. She is guilty of playing around with magic that was beyond her. That's pretty much text. But I don't see the possible connection between the faun and Tara as anything that adds in any way shape or form to the moral status of what Willow did.

Fine, but you're rewriting. Because, again posting your paragraph:


I agree that it isn't to be taken as some metaphysical fact that every resurrection will require the sacrifice of another life. To tie the symbolic value of seeing Tara's death as the price Willow inadvertently ended paying to the phlebotinim of the story, we could say that this particular resurrection operated through a spell calling for the sacrifice of a life to restore a life -- with Willow not reading the fine print about the two lives in question needing to have some equivalence. Hopefully whatever that badness turns out to be (if the resurrection is successful) will have symbolic resonances as powerful as Tara's death had.

The very natural way that I read that paragraph was:

1) Not every resurrection requires a sacrifice of another life.

2) However, this particular resurrection spell called for the sacrifice of a life.

3) Willow didn't read the fine print in the spell that the lives need to have equivalence and assumed it was just a fawn because she didn't read the print available in the very spell which is what CALLED for the equivalent life. (Note, I couldn't even change words to make them interpretations here. I just had to write what you said.)

I'll respond to some of Hayes and Local Max's points on another thread because we've wandered off the point.

I will reiterate that I wasn't busting Maggie's chops for the heck of it. The only reason that I brought the Willow resurrection debate into this thread because Maggie wrote:


But the fact that you don't see all those differences between Warren and Spike just leads me to not take you seriously on this point. You want to look at the bits of what Spike said and take them completely and 100% out of context. In other words, you don't want to understand Spike, you just want to condemn him. So have at it. You have plenty of company. But our conversation ends here.


As I said, I'm not pivoting. I've been insisting on the whole context the whole time. But again, you have been systematically ignoring the context -- because the context is quite inconvenient to your desire to portray Spike as a heinous unrepentant monster guy.

Note, that this after hours of a pretty decent exchange of ideas between Maggie and I- but she decided to go full tilt negative on *me*.

I find something very aggravating about being lectured that I just want to condemn Spike and that I'm ignoring context because I want to portray Spike as a heinous monster by someone saying at the same time that Willow didn't read the fine print in the damn resurrection spell that she cast and that resurrection spell is why Tara is dead. Particularly, in light of said person's "Willow is Dead.To.Me" and "All Willow had to do was commune with flowers after her Wicca Wampage" comments.

And then, when Maggie denied that she what she said about about the resurrection, I tried to be conciliatory on how meanings can be cumfuzzled between "heinous" and "read the fine print". See:


Maybe this is similar to your frustration with "heinous" because that's a loaded word. IMO, "read the fine print" is a loaded expression that pretty much always means that a person missed important information because they weren't paying close enough attention and didn't check it out more.

I awoke to discover that I was hit with the olive branch that I extended:


NB. Bolded bits are directly from the paragraph, which you presumably read around in order to land on the bit that taken out of context would have me saying terrible, even heinous things, about your beloved Willow. But I learn my lesson. Anything I say about Willow can and will be used against me by you no matter how much you have to disregard context in order to do so. I will keep silent on the subject ever more.

So, I HAD to parse Maggie's original words above to explain why I, as a reasonable reader, believe she intended to say that Willow ignored fine print in the resurrection spell warning that it would necessitate a comparable line. And why I as a member of society, believe that those who embark on risky, controversial missions dealing with lives and souls, had a moral obligation to read all fine print available to them and to allege that they didn't and that caused the death of a 20 year old woman, is a very grave, serious charge.

To not parse Maggie's words would be leaving her accusation that I just wanted to twist what she says into someone calling "my beloved Willow" heinous. Which, I think I proved was a baseless accusation.

Stoney
03-03-13, 03:58 PM
Something tells me that if a character, any character, was to say anything remotely negative about Spike's relationship with his mother (or anyone/anything Spike considers very dear to him), their words would be described as heinous by like half of this forum. But when posters don't interpret Spike's actions in the best possible light, now we have a problem apparently. It's quite funny, actually.

I wish this didn't happen. I am quite capable of hearing negative opinions of Spike by characters in the story or by posters outside of it. Either I will have thoughts for/against what is said or not but there isn't a 'problem' with people having negative views on Spike, it just doesn't mean that I have to agree. It often feels like a preference for Spike and/or support of his actions is instantly viewed as invalid in some way, as if I have become incapable of debate and discussion or of having a considered view just because Spike is involved. I think there is great support of him but it is at least equaled by the unnecessarily negative view of actually doing so. Surely disparaging the people who like him and making statements of how funny it is that they always do a, b, or c just isn't necessary (and imo isn't fair either).

Heading back to A&F#19. As Angel is the one who has the answers on what is the next step to take with Giles, do people pretty much see it as a high likelihood that we will be going on a Weight of the World esque issue next which someone suggested (sorry can't remember who)? The solicit for 20 says Angel is sidetracked which could simply be the way he is trapped within himself and Spike/Faith hit the streets of London which could be to find a way to mentally connect to Angel to help him get control or tell them what to do perhaps. The other 'plus' side from a writing pov in entering a mindscape is you can write some weird and wacky stuff if you like with there being no actual consequences so such things as Gage's teased 'sexy times' could be done with reasonable impunity regardless of pairings. Any thoughts?

Rihannon
03-03-13, 04:45 PM
I don't remember if we ever had a visual introspection of Angel's mind. Also, this could be a chance to let interact Giles' psyche with Angel's.... and also with some Angelus in the mix. It could be pretty cool if they handle it well.

I think an interesting take would be, how would Angel get to reconcile his feelings and those from Giles, regarding to the same people or events: The death of Jenny Calendar, of course... but then there are Buffy and Faith (that are/were loved by both of them, in different ways), and even Spike, that happens to be there.

Maybe Spike could be a kind of point of convergence, since both Giles and Angel have this mix of annoyance/admiration/loath/sympathy feelings for him.

Dipstick
03-03-13, 04:59 PM
I don't remember if we ever had a visual introspection of Angel's mind. Also, this could be a chance to let interact Giles' psyche with Angel's.... and also with some Angelus in the mix. It could be pretty cool if they handle it well.

We did get introspection on Angel's mind in Amends, Deep Down, Awakening, Orpheus, and Soul Purpose.

Still, I usually love Mind Introspection stuff and Angel could benefit from anything well-written that could engender sympathy for him.


I think an interesting take would be, how would Angel get to reconcile his feelings and those from Giles, regarding to the same people or events: The death of Jenny Calendar, of course... but then there are Buffy and Faith (that are/were loved by both of them, in different ways), and even Spike, that happens to be there.

Yeah, I think that's the thing. Spoilers for AtS. All of Angel's big introspection eps, besides Amends, occurred in late AtS so they were about the people over there. It's kind of funny when you think that most of our glimpses into Angel's mind had very little to do with Buffy.

dorotea
03-03-13, 05:04 PM
Maybe Spike could be a kind of point of convergence, since both Giles and Angel have this mix of annoyance/admiration/loath/sympathy feelings for him.

Neither Angel nor Giles IMHO have or ever had the slightest hint of admiration vis-a-vis Spike although sympathy was definitely there. As for the point of convergence - don't think so either. Giles and Angel go way back and there is more than enough in that mixed bag of tragedies and similarities to deliver a stunningly explosive story. Spike has no place there by virtue of being an outsider; but he is also in a perfect position to be reflecting sarcastic observer - his specialty in Angel's story.

Rihannon
03-03-13, 06:23 PM
Neither Angel nor Giles IMHO have or ever had the slightest hint of admiration vis-a-vis Spike although sympathy was definitely there. As for the point of convergence - don't think so either. Giles and Angel go way back and there is more than enough in that mixed bag of tragedies and similarities to deliver a stunningly explosive story. Spike has no place there by virtue of being an outsider; but he is also in a perfect position to be reflecting sarcastic observer - his specialty in Angel's story.

Well, I meant convergence in their point of view. At least they would probably agree in their opinion abut Spike. But yes, don't really think none of them (Angel, Angelus or Giles) would be giving him much of their mind space... only to torment the three of them, maybe :D. Anyway, just wanted to throw the idea...

And yes, both Faith and Spike would have to be some kind of observers, but also would have to take some action. None of them is patient enough to be mere observers... And probably they would start fighting each other at some point.

dorotea
03-03-13, 08:38 PM
My original prediction was that the chase for the (possibly stolen by the nefarious duo of Team Rocket aka Pearl and Nash) Crown of Coil will be the filler for Spike and Faith issue. So far I don't see why not. Alasdair's in possession of it and surely he will mention it at some point - and they will go to check on it and gasp -discover it missing or something.

The visual cue of Spike shaking cigarette's ashes into a Big Magic Cup while Alasdair is watching in horror might be red herring - but it also might be a comedic nod to the Cup of Perpetual Torment aka the cup of Mountain Dew. The Crown was the device Angel intended to use on Gile' body. It might also be a device that would restore a vampire to human. This is too juicy an opportunity for a writer not to exploit when dealing with Spike and his current situation, IMHO.

TimeTravellingBunny
04-03-13, 03:08 AM
Neither Angel nor Giles IMHO have or ever had the slightest hint of admiration vis-a-vis Spike although sympathy was definitely there.
What, so Angel's nightmares in AtS season 5 about Spike being a better and truer and more deserving hero than him don't qualify as "the slightest hint of admiration"? How slight is your slightest hint?

Are you just taking Angel's slights against Spike at face value, despite the fact we saw what was really going on in Angel's mind? Or are you just projecting your own feelings onto Angel?


Well, I meant convergence in their point of view. At least they would probably agree in their opinion abut Spike. But yes, don't really think none of them (Angel, Angelus or Giles) would be giving him much of their mind space... only to torment the three of them, maybe :D. Anyway, just wanted to throw the idea...

Giles wouldn't. But Angel, in either souled or unsouled so-called "Angelus" version, definitely would. "Destiny" and other flashbacks - significant mind-space to Spike. BtVS season 2 - big mind space for Spike in Angel(us)'s mind; the only thing Angelus has an interest in outside of his obsession with tormenting Buffy is tormenting Spike. AtS season 5 - definitely big mind space for Spike in Angel's mind...

But since Gage seems to be of the "Spike is a silly buffoon that nobody could respect or take seriously" school of thought, I don't think we'll see any of it explored.

dorotea
04-03-13, 03:52 AM
What, so Angel's nightmares in AtS season 5 about Spike being a better and truer and more deserving hero than him don't qualify as "the slightest hint of admiration"? How slight is your slightest hint?

Having nightmares about loosing your identity ( under condition of magical duress no less - remember Angel is being psycho-sucked by Eve's parasite when he has those dreams ?) is no proof of 'admiring' the individual you are having nightmares of loosing to. In fact, having somewhat disrespectful opinion of that individual makes the nightmares worse. The point of the parasite was to make Angel weak and lose self-assurance. Dreaming about loosing to a (perceived) looser is worse than dreaming about loosing to somebody you consider worthy. What was going in Angel's mind was a darkish parody on the real situation - unless you want to take the cake with LA going to Hell and the little fairy making Spike the 'real boy' seriously. I think that episode is somewhat underrated by the way, because it is one of those many layered (and yeah -somewhat overloaded) nightmare metaphors that can be read in so many ways. See the AV club for Noel's excellent and ship-neutral review.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/harms-waysoul-purpose,71579/

Stoney
04-03-13, 08:09 AM
I tend to side with dorotea's belief that Angel's opinions focus more on disrespect towards Spike. I think Rihannon is right that both Angel and Giles have similar mixes of emotions towards Spike but I'm not sure how contrasting they are though, particularly in Angel's case, in the main. Probably more mixed for Giles but deeper rooted for Angel. I don't think Angel respects Spike enough for any moments of jealousy to morph into admiration. Giles, I think, at least may have some respect for Spike for going and fighting for his soul whereas Angel I don't think really allows himself to. It would be interesting to see them side by side though. Equally for Faith too, if not more so.

One of the most interesting aspects potentially of any mind exploration is the missing factor of Angel's self realisation of his own personal errors that led to S8. Allie has said he is on a repeat rather than realisation but that doesn't mean there isn't any internal unconscious self recrimination going on and a touch of that could be a fascinating layer to the season for Angel I reckon.

Morphia
04-03-13, 09:48 AM
Interestingly, in his Slayalive Q&A, Gage's view on Spike and Angel's relationship with each other was this: Very complex. Very competitive. More envy of each other than either would admit, and more admiration for each other than either would admit.

Not much sign of the latter so far, it's true, unless you count Spike's comment about things always getting bloody when they're together, and not much chance of it in the next issue either if Angel's going to be comatose throughout. Just pointing out that it's not the author of the comic's view that Angel has no admiration for Spike.

Perhaps 'respect' and 'admiration' are not quite the same thing, but still.

It's just not that clear-cut.

Stoney
04-03-13, 10:10 AM
I only think the admiration isn't there because Angel wouldn't 'let' himself openly feel it for Spike and is more likely to hold onto views of him being lesser to even try to ignore seeing his jealousy where that appears, which is itself a layer above any feelings of respect or admiration he might hold. I'm sure at times of closeness or connection they may be capable of acknowledging more positive thoughts/feelings towards the other but it isn't their modus operandi. Someone recently commented on the fact that the changes they have made in themselves from their original human selves turns towards each other's human traits. A simplification but an interesting thing to note, so yes, I can see how envy could be in there as well as the more obvious jealousy as something that they both feel. Of course competitiveness towards each other illustrates that these aspects are in play. I think one thing that definitely does hold true by anyone's account is that it isn't a simple relationship! :)

I would love to see what Angel thinks of Faith. I have only seen them in AtS1 where there is the obvious redemption link between them and Faith is now looking to help Angel but I haven't seen them around each other to get an impression from the show (it may come in later seasons) what they actually think of each other, as people. There seems genuine affection there.

vampmogs
04-03-13, 11:27 AM
Angel considers Spike a Champion so there's definitely some form of admiration there. Typically, he didn't like admitting that but whenever the situation got bigger than their macho pissing contest or something compelled them to unite, neither vampire had any qualms calling the other a hero;

DROGYN
(looks at Angel)
The power to draw back Illyria lies in there. It requires a champion who has traveled from where it lies to where it belongs.

ANGEL
You got two of those right here.

Stoney
04-03-13, 01:01 PM
As I said, at times their closeness/connection breaks past it all, and there I suppose a sense of joint purpose/goal.

KingofCretins
04-03-13, 01:02 PM
Recognizing Spike as a champion at that point is more or less akin to recognizing him as a vampire -- it's not sentiment, in the Buffyverse, it's a question of objective fact.

It's been... several days since this thread was about Issue #19 in any direct sense. Assuming that this wide and winding tangent all relates back to Angel actually trying to talk down to Spike about his motives and history, is it not enough to say that that's more to do with how Angel perceives himself than how he perceives Spike?

TimeTravellingBunny
04-03-13, 03:16 PM
Having nightmares about loosing your identity ( under condition of magical duress no less - remember Angel is being psycho-sucked by Eve's parasite when he has those dreams ?) is no proof of 'admiring' the individual you are having nightmares of loosing to. In fact, having somewhat disrespectful opinion of that individual makes the nightmares worse. The point of the parasite was to make Angel weak and lose self-assurance. Dreaming about loosing to a (perceived) looser is worse than dreaming about loosing to somebody you consider worthy. What was going in Angel's mind was a darkish parody on the real situation - unless you want to take the cake with LA going to Hell and the little fairy making Spike the 'real boy' seriously. I think that episode is somewhat underrated by the way, because it is one of those many layered (and yeah -somewhat overloaded) nightmare metaphors that can be read in so many ways. See the AV club for Noel's excellent and ship-neutral review.

Being jealous of someone and competitive with someone and constantly putting them down does not mean you really completely disrespect them. Although I guess if you really believe so, you must also think that Spike absolutely never had the slightest hint of admiration for Angel(us), right?

As for Angel perceiving Spike as a loser, how does that fit with Angel saying things like:

Giles: Well, he can't be any worse than any other creature you've
faced.
Angel: He's worse. Once he starts something he doesn't stop until everything in his path is dead.
(School Hard)

Fred: Is that what this is about? You're afraid he's gonna come back and try to get with your ex again?
Angel: I just want you to be careful, Fred, because I know how charming Spike can be.
(Hellbound)

So, he thinks that Spike is extremely dangerous because he is determined, and that he's very charming... and that he's a loser? Something doesn't fit there.


Recognizing Spike as a champion at that point is more or less akin to recognizing him as a vampire -- it's not sentiment, in the Buffyverse, it's a question of objective fact.

Not for some fans.

KingofCretins
04-03-13, 03:41 PM
Not for some fans.

That's the beauty of objective facts, they aren't really subject to opinion. How much time do you spend trying to convince someone that the Titanic sank in 1912 instead of 1997 when the movie came out?

There may be some wiggle room about what a "Champion" actually is, what it means, where it comes from, what its metaphysical significance is in the Buffyverse, but that Spike is one -- not a topic about which reasonable people can differ, at least not without relentless appeal to Unreliable Narrator argument and nothing else.

Dipstick
04-03-13, 05:03 PM
I'm pretty turned off by the whole concept of "Champion" in the Buffyverse. I still like "hero" a lot and I think that all Scoobies and Fang Gang members are heroes. However, Champion is a word to create a caste system among the Scoobies and Fang Gang members and put some on a higher plane than others. I'm not sure what standard is for becoming a "Champion" instead a garden-variety hero or whether champions can keep their champion status after doing something like becoming Twilight.

If I'm not mistaken, the only persons named Champions were Angel, Cordelia, Spike, and Buffy.

I get the impression that the Watsonian definition of "Champion" is any hero who has been recognized by destiny to do their hero-ing. However, this doesn't include the Watchers who have been recognized by destiny to be nerds. There is a Doylist definition of those who the story treats both the most seriously and the most admiringly- Buffy, Spike, Angel, AtS Cordelia and now, Faith.

dorotea
04-03-13, 05:37 PM
Honestly, discussing Angel's opinion of Spike, and Spike's opinion of Angel might be a fascinating subject to some, but I find is more of a moot point. These guys have a complex relationship which is really the whole point of their 'buddy comedy' frenemy routine. I suppose Spangel really falls into the same category as more or less all of Spike's relationships : mutual abuse with a side of masochists tango ( see the appropriate trope). Technically Masochist Tango does not have to include admiration - more of a co-dependency complex - with one side usually being the willing recipient of the abuse, (except these two can pretty well function without each other.) I am not a big fan of the mutual abuse tropes - be it in unrequited romantic love situations or in unrequited bromance ones, so I cannot see the enjoyable component or a healthy doze of mutual admiration here. But I am not denying that if you are into this kind of relationship - then Sp-anything in both BtVS and AtS is your perfect collection of masochist tango bonds.

Rihannon
04-03-13, 06:49 PM
As far as I know, the difference between a "Hero" per se and a "Champion", is that a Champion would be a hero chosen by someone to represent him/her/it in some sort of confrontation/challenge/war... Therefore, Buffy and Angel would be the ones the PTB choose to fight their fight, Spike would be Buffy's champion, and then whoever else's he's fighting for, and Cordy... well, didn't put that much attention to AtS to say, most of you know it better than me.

The other Scoobies and Fang Gang members are heroes by their own choice, they were not designated as such by any higher power of sorts.

So, as far as I know, to be a champion, he/she has to be someone's champion. Hence the difference with other kind of heroes.

Dipstick
04-03-13, 11:50 PM
As far as I know, the difference between a "Hero" per se and a "Champion", is that a Champion would be a hero chosen by someone to represent him/her/it in some sort of confrontation/challenge/war... Therefore, Buffy and Angel would be the ones the PTB choose to fight their fight, Spike would be Buffy's champion, and then whoever else's he's fighting for, and Cordy... well, didn't put that much attention to AtS to say, most of you know it better than me.

The other Scoobies and Fang Gang members are heroes by their own choice, they were not designated as such by any higher power of sorts.

So, as far as I know, to be a champion, he/she has to be someone's champion. Hence the difference with other kind of heroes.

I agree that Champions need to be Chosen. That's my Watsonian basis for Champion-ness. The named champions fit that. Buffy is a slayer. Angel is a vampire with a soul, chosen by the TPTPB. Cordelia was chosen to carry the Visions. I don't entirely think *Buffy* solely nominated Spike as a Champion- but that's part of it. I'd more likely call Spike a champion because he's also a vampire with a soul, a rarity and a special class of two individuals.

However, the Doylist reading that a Champion is a hero that the story takes very seriously and very admiringly also counts for a lot.

Wesley and Giles were, technically, Chosen but I never get the impression that they are Champions. The story doesn't treat Giles with the level of seriousness of a Champion and it doesn't treat Wesley with either the level of seriousness or the level of admiration depending on the season to give him Champion status.

Faith may have been Chosen to be a slayer but she certainly wasn't a Champion when she was acting up/being a villain/being in Buffy's shadow even when she was behaving in S3. Faith wasn't a Champion when she was behind bars. Faith wasn't a Champion when she was often regarded as an interloper and a suspicious character in S7. Faith started to become a Champion in S8 and now that she's a co-title of a series who gets "grown the most" plaudits, she's really regarded as a Champion.

Actually, the same thing goes for all non-Buffy and Faith slayers.

Being Chosen is a necessary condition to be a Champion but it's not a sufficient one.

shipperx
05-03-13, 12:39 AM
Y'all are making me terribly glad that I decided to sit out the weekend reminding myself that everyone is entitled to an opinion even if I disagree somewhat passionately and that it's all a cartoon and not worth being truly riled over. Because I do disagree passionately with some of this but it really isn't worth being riled over... even though some of the tangents here have a darkening effect on my mood.

Echoing KoC here (but no doubt on my own tangent) of wake me if this comes anywhere close to the topic of the comic book rather than rehashing grudges from a decade ago.

TimeTravellingBunny
05-03-13, 01:13 AM
I am not a big fan of the mutual abuse tropes - be it in unrequited romantic love situations or in unrequited bromance ones, so I cannot see the enjoyable component or a healthy doze of mutual admiration here. But I am not denying that if you are into this kind of relationship - then Sp-anything in both BtVS and AtS is your perfect collection of masochist tango bonds.
I'm not sure what you mean by "unrequited bromance". I can't think of one such in Buffyverse. If it's supposed to apply to Spangel, I'm not sure which side the "bromance" love is supposed to be coming. Are you saying that Spike bro-loves Angel but not the other way round, or that Angel bro-loves Spike but not the other way round? I can imagine people trying to make a case for either, but I can't see them managing to make this case, whatever it may be. Their feelings for each other are very mutual and really not bromantic, more like bro-rivalry. Both of them have complex feelings for each other that include some love and some hate, some open contempt and some hidden admiration/fascination, and a lot of jealousy and personal issues.

Reddygirl
05-03-13, 02:40 AM
If Angel and Spike don't share some kind of mutual regard and even a bit of affection it's pointless for Spike to appear in Angel's title at this stage in 'Verse.

Imo very few in fandom have interest in seeing Angel and Spike's interaction be all about jealousy over Buffy.

dorotea
05-03-13, 03:15 AM
If Angel and Spike don't share some kind of mutual regard and even a bit of affection it's pointless for Spike to appear in Angel's title at this stage in 'Verse.

Some argue that Spike's entire miniseries were kind of pointless. I disagree, but that's a wide spread opinion. Mind that the original argument was over the 'admiration' part, not 'regard' or 'affection'. I found the admiration part excessive and soap-operatic, but if you guys insist on Spike admiring Angel secretly - who am I to argue ?


Imo very few in fandom have interest in seeing Angel and Spike's interaction be all about jealousy over Buffy.

But of course not. If that was simple jealousy - Spike would have not jumped out of his skin to get outta Easter Island to London in one day without the spaceship, and Angel would not have assumed he only had to say frog to get Spike in London.

Rihannon
05-03-13, 03:43 AM
...Spike would have not jumped out of his skin to get outta Easter Island to London in one day without the spaceship, and Angel would not have assumed he only had to say frog to get Spike in London.

Speaking of which... I posted in the #18 thread a not-so-popular joke about the reason for Spike painting his nails was that he didn't have anything better to do during the over 20 hour flight from Easter Island. I assume that it would have taken less time in the bug-ship.

But then, in #19 Angel points out how fast he got there [London], and Spike answered sort of cryptically. Of course, it could be a way to say "none of your business", but who knows. Any thoughts about how he managed to get out from the island so quick?

MikeB
05-03-13, 09:15 AM
I had to include this to get an idea of Christos Gage’s thinking.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=43754:


Christos Gage: Is Angel redeemed if he brings Giles back to life? He's still got all those other crimes he committed over the centuries. And does being redeemed in their own eyes mean being redeemed to others, or vice versa? There’s no hint that Angel’s even given money to the Red Cross. Even if Angel saves Giles, that only makes up for Giles dying. Gage doesn’t seem to even reference BtVS S8 (or at least point it out as significant because the cursed version of Angel did that). If Angel and/or Faith thinks Angel is redeemed, that’s about meaningless other than it being horrible that either would think that. Angel hasn’t even begun to try to make up for his actions in BtVS S8 – the whole thing with Giles simply seems to be about making himself feel better and to try to score some ‘points’ with Buffy.


* Gage refers to Angel as a “hero”.

In-verse, Angel was made the champion of Los Angeles by the Powers That Be simply because they could use him. This happened after he was already fighting for the side of good for 3 years. And before that, he (seemingly) hadn’t even killed anyone in over 20 years. Spike was allowed the mantle of “Champion” after doing good for around 3 years (and before that he had helped Buffy stop Acathla). Faith was in prison for around 3 years before escaping to help Angel and Co. and then helped Buffy and Co. stop the First Evil. Gage calling Angel a hero is simply ludicrous. Angel is killing demons with Faith, but his goal is simply to ‘save’ Giles but he’s doing it more for himself than even for Giles or Faith. Hey, Spike was killing vampires in “Lovers Walk” (3.08) and Spike didn’t kill Joyce: would Gage consider that Spike was already a hero in that episode?


CG: In some ways, Whistler is in the position Angel was as Twilight last season: pursuing great power to effect a world-changing transformation that is supposed to be for a greater good, but will have significant collateral damage. And just as Angel wasn't always thinking clearly as Twilight Angel was thinking clearly when he was Twilight. His goal was to be with Buffy in a ‘paradise’ dimension. And it wasn’t for the greater good given Angel wanted Buffy to allow the entire world to be destroyed merely so that she could stay in Twilight with him.


CG: Spike evolved in his miniseries to be a bit more self-motivated, more independent of Buffy. Does that mean he's over Buffy? No, it's not nearly that easy, but he's coming to London having established some independence and gained a bit of his swagger back. Um, no. In the miniseries, Spike is more into Buffy than he was before and seems more committed to trying to be with her than he was before.



Angel and Faith 9.19 bullet points and analysis

It’s about impossible for me to consider some of the stuff in this Issue to actually be canon. The Car Scene in A&F 9.18 was bad enough: in A&F 9.19 we get Angel knowing about the bugship’s cannons; Spike thinking Angel and Angelus are two distinct and separate people; Spike thinking that Angelus is somehow at the level of a Glorificus or a full-powered Illyria; and Nadira liking Angel more than she likes Faith because apparently lying is a worse sin to Nadira than being responsible for hundreds of Slayer deaths, possibly hundreds of millions more deaths, and possibly trillions of dollars in damage.


* How old is Giles’ grandmother Edna? She’s killing vampires with a sword. She’s got to be at least in her mid-60s and could be as old as in her 90s.


* Giles’ whole thing with Eyghon simply makes him less deserving to be brought back to life.

Why didn’t Giles ever tell Buffy and Co. about this? In BtVS S8, Buffy and Co. had more than enough power to kill Eyghon.

________

* Where did Faith get the information regarding the Angel-Faith relationship?

It doesn’t seem Buffy would have told her. And Buffy herself doesn’t know much about it.

It hardly seems likely that Angel told Faith about it given apparently he didn’t even inform her he called Spike for his help.


* Angel and Spike aren’t “frenemies”, or at least Faith shouldn’t be thinking that.

“Frenemies” would pretty much only describe them in BtVS S2.


* More importantly, Faith doesn’t mention what Angel did in BtVS S8.

________

* Angel tells Faith: “I don’t love [that I had to call Spike for his help], but we need the help. Not to mention the spaceship. Its cannons should do pretty well against demons Eyghon’s size.”

Hopefully, Angel means he didn’t love the idea of having to call Spike because of what Angel did in BtVS S8: but that seems unlikely.

There’s no hint that Spike even knew the ship had cannons before Sebastian shot up those Moa.

It makes zero sense that Angel would know the ship had cannons.

And wasn’t the point to kill Eyghon in a ‘special way’ so that Giles soul could be extracted from Eyghon? If Angel wanted Eyghon “shot up”, why not have a bazooka or something for Spike – or himself – to use?

________

* Spike puts cigarette ashes in some antique vase or whatever.

Does Spike think that is Faith’s place?

Spike hasn’t done something like this since “Blood Ties” (B 5.13).

________

* Spike doesn’t tell how he got to Alasdair Coemes’ house from Easter Island.

Given the timeline (Car Scene in A&F 9.18), Spike would have had to teleport to get there that quick. If the Car Scene isn’t what happened, Spike could have taken a plane.

________

* Angel to Spike: “Buffy gave you the brush-off, huh?”

Angel seems to have zero shame and zero humility over what he did in BtVS S8. Plus, Angel called Spike for help and yet at the first opportunity tries to insult and diminish Spike’s relationship with Buffy.


* Spike to Angel: “I left of my own bloody accord! She can at least stand the sight of me, unlike some undead people I could mention! […]”

Instead of punching Angel in the face, Spike simply yells at Angel.


* Faith: “Annnd cue the slap fight.”

I really hope Faith is under some kind of spell; otherwise, she’s very unlikable in A&F. She acts as if Spike has zero valid reasons to be unhappy and/or angry with Angel.


* Spike to Angel: “[…] I’m not you, mooning about outside her window. I know when a bit of space is healthy for all concerned.”

Spike was “mooning about outside her window” in “No Place Like Home” (B 5.05) and in “Into the Woods” (B 5.10). Also, Angel was away from Buffy for about all of post B 3.22 to B 8.01.


* Angel to Spike: “She’s with somebody, huh? He a good guy, at least?”

So, Angel assumes that not only did Buffy give Spike the brush-off, but that she’s with someone else. Not sure if Angel is implying that Spike’s not a good guy and not sure if Angel is implying that Angel’s a good guy.


* I assume Spike’s simply lying about Buffy/Dowling. Buffy was only getting “chummy” with Dowling minutes before getting teleported away by Illyria and Dowling getting bitten by a zompire. Spike left at least days before that happened.


* Spike to Angel: “You’re out to resurrect the librarian in the hopes won’t hate you anymore.”

This is true.


* Angel to Spike: “I’m taking responsibility for my mistakes. Not that you’d know anything about that.”

First off, again, keep in mind that Angel is asking Spike for help in fighting a very dangerous demon and yet he still is taking every opportunity to try to insult, diminish, and defame Spike.

Secondly, Angel is not taking any responsibility for what he did in BtVS S8. Giles was killed by TwilightAngel. Angel wanted Buffy to let all her friends die. Angel wanted to let the entire Earth and all its life be destroyed merely so that Buffy and he could stay in Twilight together. He tells Willow that he planned to bring all the ‘good people’ into Twilight, which is clearly a lie since if that were true, he would have immediately brought the Scoobies and the Slayers into Twilight and he would have told Buffy that he planned to bring all the good people into Twilight. As-is, all the death and destruction that resulted from the extra minutes of Buffy and Angel being in Twilight is about 100% Angel’s fault (the rest being Giles’ and Willow’s fault). Again, there’s no indication that Angel’s even given money to the Red Cross. Angel seems to view Nadira and Co. as an annoyance. There’s no indication that Angel’s even given money to a Veteran’s fund or Wounded Warriors or anything even though Angel’s 100% responsible for a bunch of soldiers’ deaths.

Thirdly, Angel knows that Spike takes responsibility for Spike’s past mistakes. Angel knows Spike got a soul. Angel knows that Spike had been helping Buffy and Co. for years. Angel with his photographic memory remembers Spike in “Damage” (A 5.11) forgiving Dana for what she did to him, because he knows he’s done a lot of bad stuff in his past.


* Spike to Angel: “What do you know about it, never bothering to check in after your little cosmic shag? Did you have any bloody idea she thought she was”

Obviously, Spike wouldn’t be referring to the pregnancy. Spike’s probably referring to Buffy thinking she was responsible for having sex with Angel and that therefore she was also responsible for the damage done to the Earth and its life because of her having sex with Angel. In this, Spike would be referring to his knowing that Angel glowified Buffy into having sex with Angel or that Twilight glowified her into having sex with Angel; either way, Spike would know that Angel raped Buffy. Angel’s reaction also seems to fit with this: that he essentially raped Buffy and that Buffy wasn’t actually responsible for any death and destruction that happened in BtVS S8.

Hopefully, if Spike’s diatribe continued, he’d have mentioned Angel causing a bunch of deaths – including hundreds of Slayers – and destruction.

________

* How does Nadira know what William the Bloody looks like?

I’ve always assumed that Buffy and Co. distributed Spike’s picture to the Slayers and told them that he was a souled good guy who’s saved the world multiple times and therefore shouldn’t be killed.


* Nadira to Spike: “William the Bloody. Mass murderer. Killer of two Slayers. I’ve got something for you. The only way to kill Eyghon is decapitate him. Alasdair called his a Vorpal Blade.”

Nadira probably knows Spike has a soul and probably knows Spike helped save the world.


* Angel to Nadira: “Wait a minute. [b] He gets a pass?”

Angel says this in a way that’s as saying Nadira should consider Spike worse than Angel is and therefore should be more against Spike than she is against him.

Angel here seems to have less than zero shame and humility over what he did in BtVS S8 because Angel knows that Spike was instrumental – Angel probably wouldn’t acknowledge that Spike was foremost – in saving the world in BtVS S8.

________

* Faith is very curt with Spike.

She should be happy that he’d help.

________

* I’m not sure Spike’s and Angel’s looks after Faith says, “If we’re gonna keep reminiscing about awkward sexual encounters, we’ll be here all day.” is them thinking about having had sex with each other.

Spike could well be thinking about “Dirty Girls” (7.18), or about Harmony, or about Hell-LA (if any of that is canon), or about Morgan, or all or some of the above.

Angel could be thinking about BtVS S8’s rape of Buffy.

________

* Faith to Spike: “Eyghon’s got” “a bunch of old-school zombies. Not as a strong as zompires, but hard to kill.”

It seems Faith doesn’t know about Billy being able to dispatch a bunch of zompires.

________

* Faith to Spike: “[Eyghon’s] in his pure demon from. We need to arm up fast. ‘Cause if I saw into his head when he tried to possess me, he could’ve seen into mine. Meaning he might know exactly where to find us.”

Since when was Faith this stupid? Why wouldn’t she have immediately said this to Angel, and Nadira and Co.? Eyghon probably arrived over 20 minutes after no longer being in Faith’s head. Why would Faith have them still be in Alastair’s place? Why would Faith allow Angel and Spike to yell at each other when Eyghon and Co. could be on their way to kill them all?

________

* Spike: “Well, look at zombie Giles. Undead and still a crap fighter.”

It doesn’t even seem Spike much cares about Giles or his current predicament. This would mean that he’s there to kill Eyghon even though he unlikely knew that Eyghon was a current apocalyptic danger.

________

* Faith’s dated a cop.

________

* Faith to Eyghon Giles: “I got my best on [trying to kill Eyghon].”

Neither Angel nor Spike would consider they are Faith’s underlings.

________

* Spike himself would beat Faith in a fight. A Spike infused with true form Eyghon power should have easily killed Faith.

Remember how strong and powerful Jenny was when infused with Eyghon power? Spike’s power boost would be much more than that because true form Eyghon at the peak of his power possessed Spike.

I have to assume that this is something like the ‘Ben in Glory is the reason Glory didn’t simply Buffy’ thing. I have to assume that Spike not wanting to kill Faith is the reason why a true form Eyghon-infused Spike didn’t easily kill Faith.

________

* Faith kicked Spike in the “bollocks” because she likely thought that it would ‘snap’ Spike out of Eyghon’s possession of him. A shallow cut by sword to the stomach was able to snap Faith out of being possessed by Eyghon so she probably considered a similar ‘jolt’ would do the same for Spike.

Even if not, she could have simply hoped that the kick to the “bollocks” would stun or even immobilize Eyghon-infused Spike for a time.

In “Innocence” (2.14), Buffy kicking Angel in the “bollocks” felled him and kept him felled for a time. True form Eyghon-infused Spike was only felled for mere moments before getting up and attacking Faith again.

________

* Since when did a soul have any power?

It shouldn’t matter that Giles’ soul is in Angel: souls never had any power.

In “The Dark Age” (2.08), there was no hint, suggestion, or implication that Angel’s soul had anything to do with defeating Eyghon.


* Giles doesn’t deserve getting to be heroic by killing Eyghon. The Eyghon situation could have been taken care of in BtVS S8. If anything, Giles is partly responsible for all the death Eyghon’s caused since BtVS S8.

________

* So, apparently Faith is strong and powerful enough to successfully fight true form Eyghon-infused Spike but Spike’s body weight fells Faith.

________

* Faith seems angry that Spike asked her if he saved the day and if they won.

________

* In the TV Buffyverse, Angel’s never been that ‘ripped’ as he is in this Issue.

________

* Giles’s memories that are shown:

- Wanting to kill Angel because Angel killed Jenny Calender.

- Holding the just-dead Jenny Calender.

- TwilightAngel killing him. Buffy is shown in the background being shocked and saddened.

- Training Buffy.

- Fighting DarkWillow.

- the only tender memory shown is a memory of Faith and him when both have bandages on each’s face.


These memories seem to imply that Jenny and Faith were the only two whom Giles actually truly loved. Angel is just portrayed as a killer who should have been dusted before he could do things like killing Jenny and killing Giles. Buffy is portrayed as merely Giles’s job. Willow is just portrayed as a magical danger. Xander, Spike, Tara, and Dawn aren’t even shown. Spike’s absence is the most conspicuous given Eyghon Giles was just fighting Spike meaning that Spike was just minutes before helping to kill Eyghon. And given what Spike did in BtVS S8.

________

* Spike seemed to only be there to help kill Eyghon. After Eyghon’s killed, “Well, my work here is done. And like all the best scraps, I can’t remember a bloody thing. Why do my bollocks ache?”

________

* Spike about Angel: “Vacant stare, drooling like the village idiot…yep, all’s right with old Angel. Hang on, is that a nipple piercing? Will we be cutting ourselves and following the Cure about as well?”

Spike obviously doesn’t care about Angel to the point that he’d feel any pity that Angel was catatonic for a time, so he wouldn’t much care about Angel’s current emotional state now.

________

* Why would Spike know about the Tooth of Ammut unless Spike somehow researched that when he decided to get his soul back?

________

* Does Spike think that Alasdair’s house is Faith’s house, or does Spike know where Faith lives? And how would he know where Faith lives (perhaps Angel told him)?

________

* Spike to Faith: “[Angel’s] got a trio in there now, doesn’t he? Himself, Angelus, and old Rupert’s complete soul. Must be a right racket. Angel was never much of a talker, but those other two, bloody hell, they never stopped. Loved to hear the sound of their own voices, they did—”

Spike never considered Angel and Angelus separate people; it makes zero sense that he’d refer to Angel and Angelus as separate people. Spike if anything should have said something like, “the soul, the demon, and another soul” and then not talked about Angel and Angelus as if they were two separate types of talkers.

________

* Spike is not concerned with Angelus’ ability to kill him. It makes less than zero sense that he’d be telling Faith, “[Angelus] only needs a moment to kill us all.”

Spike here seems to be equating Angelus to someone like Glorificus or a full-powered Illyria and he simply wouldn’t do such a thing.

“Us all” seems to include Spike, Faith, Nadira, and the 9 or more other Slayers there.

________

* Faith prevents Nadira from decapitating Angel because: “He saved your life. All our lives. That’s who he really is. Not Angelus. Not Twilight.” “If you didn’t kill [the Slayers] when they were possessed by Eyghon you’ve got no right killing him. And if you still want to try…you’ll have to do through me. I’m done apologizing for that.”

This is extremely disgusting.

First off, although Faith doesn’t know this: Giles killed Eyghon and the only reason that was able to happen is because somehow Giles’s soul being in Angel made Eyghon not able to fully possess Angel. Faith probably considers Angel either more powerful and/or good than Spike and that’s why Angel wasn’t possessed even though Spike was. If this were true, it’d also mean that Faith considers Angel either more powerful and/or good than herself given that she also has a demon within her and given she was also possessed.

Secondly, Faith simply wants to excuse and/or dismiss all the evil Angel’s done even though it more than outweighs all the good he’s done.

Thirdly, Faith still seems to want to believe that Angel isn’t at all responsible for any bad he did in BtVS S8. She seems to want to believe that he was possessed by Twilight the entire time from before 8.01 to about the end of 8.39.

Fourthly, Spike doesn’t seem inclined to dust Angel but she doesn’t include him in those that would fight the Slayers to prevent them from dusting Angel.

Fifthly, does Faith think she could take on 10 (or more?) Slayers?

Sixthly, and perhaps most importantly, Faith doesn’t mention that dusting Angel could mean destroying Giles’ soul. Faith’s sole argument for not dusting Angel is that Angel is a great guy and doesn’t deserve to be dusted and that she’d fight Nadira and Co. to try to prevent them from dusting him.

________

* Nadira to Faith: “Fine [, I won’t dust him]. I suppose he’s earned a chance. You haven’t. You lied to us. We put our trust in you and you betrayed us.”

Huh? Angel saving them from Eyghon makes Nadira now okay with Angel continuing to be undusted? And not only that, Angel’s “earned a chance”? But Nadira’s still against Faith because Faith lied to them? So, lying to them by not telling them she’s taking care of Angel is worse to Nadira than Angel killing hundreds of Slayers and being responsible for perhaps hundreds of millions of deaths and perhaps trillions of dollars in damage?

This makes zero sense.


* In the next breath, what was Nadira talking about? Does she want the other Slayers to dust Angel even though she said she wouldn’t? And why would Nadira think they would decide to stop slaying? If not as if they never thought they could be hurt or killed in their slaying duties.

________

* Faith talks to Daphne (one of ‘Nadira’s Slayers’) as if Faith hiding and protecting Angel shouldn’t have been something that would “hurt” them.


* Daphne seems to tell Faith that they’ve decided to no longer slay but that if Faith hadn’t lied about the Angel thing, they would have still eventually stopped slaying.

So, really, the only real consequence to Faith for protecting Angel and having him live at her house is that Nadira no longer is okay with her.

________

* If Spike more concerned about Angel or about Giles?


* It’s understandable that Spike wouldn’t contact Buffy and tell her about this situation.


* Would Spike actually stay and help out with this situation given it’s highly unlikely he even cared that Angel was catatonic and given that Spike didn’t want Buffy being at-all okay with Angel?

Spike doesn’t seem to much care about Giles, but he could have decided to help with the Giles situation if it’d be good for Buffy and the Scoobies.

If the stuff in the IDW Spike miniseries is canon, Spike helped Drusilla. But Spike’s never been portrayed as not caring about Drusilla. Spike told Morgan to “sod off”.

With Angel though, Spike went into space for 2 months after 8.39, 8.40 happens 4 months after that and there’s no indication that he even cared if Angel was dusted during this time. B 9.01 happens a month or a few months after that, and so far perhaps months have passed in BtVS S9. During none of that time did Spike seem to care about Angel’s well-being or his condition. Spike didn’t want Buffy being at-all okay with Angel and ‘blew up’ at Buffy’s reaction to hearing “Angel Island”.

So, it seems odd that Spike would decide to stay and help Angel out (if it’s not about Giles) rather than go back to Buffy given he knows that Buffy’s still in danger (from Simone at least).

________________

Slay the Critics section:


Scott Allie: “Oh, look, Angel’s crazy again! Making way for Spike to really run the show next issue. Spike fans, rejoice: Christos and Rebekah get to focus heavily on the best bad guy and bad girl in the ‘verse.” Angel being “crazy again” isn’t interesting. Spike was “running the show” for a few episodes in AtS s5 and it didn’t require Angel being catatonic or having “three people inside him”. Spike’s the one who decides not to risk millions of people by putting Fred back in her body.

* Spike isn’t a “bad guy”. Saying such a thing is extremely insulting and defaming to the character. Spike is the foremost hero of BtVS S8, the foremost hero of “Chosen” (7.22), and, if canon, is the only reason Angel and Co. survived Hell-LA.

And while Faith is not being a good person by thinking Angel’s not responsible for any bad stuff that happened in BtVS S8, it’s not as if she’s a “bad girl” on the level of Drusilla or even Harmony Kendall.

KingofCretins
05-03-13, 02:21 PM
It’s about impossible for me to consider some of the stuff in this Issue to actually be canon.

You are not the Arbiter of Canon, though ;)


The Car Scene in A&F 9.18 was bad enough: in A&F 9.19 we get Angel knowing about the bugship’s cannons; Spike thinking Angel and Angelus are two distinct and separate people; Spike thinking that Angelus is somehow at the level of a Glorificus or a full-powered Illyria; and Nadira liking Angel more than she likes Faith because apparently lying is a worse sin to Nadira than being responsible for hundreds of Slayer deaths, possibly hundreds of millions more deaths, and possibly trillions of dollars in damage.

Spike's comments about Angelus were reflective of how evil/untrustworthy Angel is without his soul, not that he thinks he's Galactus.


* Faith: “Annnd cue the slap fight.”

I really hope Faith is under some kind of spell; otherwise, she’s very unlikable in A&F. She acts as if Spike has zero valid reasons to be unhappy and/or angry with Angel.

On the contrary, Faith's summary dismissal of the Spike/Angel pathos as a slap fight is the best thing to happen in the issue and quite possibly in the 21st century :)


* Angel to Spike: “She’s with somebody, huh? He a good guy, at least?”

So, Angel assumes that not only did Buffy give Spike the brush-off, but that she’s with someone else. Not sure if Angel is implying that Spike’s not a good guy and not sure if Angel is implying that Angel’s a good guy.

Seems more likely that he's just asking if Buffy's not dating a douchebag, not on a Spike-scale. I think the question would have been exactly the same had neither Angel nor Spike ever dated her.


* How does Nadira know what William the Bloody looks like?

Maybe she read that one Watcher/fan expy's thesis on him :)


I’ve always assumed that Buffy and Co. distributed Spike’s picture to the Slayers and told them that he was a souled good guy who’s saved the world multiple times and therefore shouldn’t be killed.

I agree that there was probably the equivalent of a BOLO or something to Slayer's in the organization to the effect of "plz don't kill kthx". How much detail it would have or not is really up for grabs. I mean, certainly I doubt it used the exact language you used.


* Nadira to Spike: “William the Bloody. Mass murderer. Killer of two Slayers. I’ve got something for you. The only way to kill Eyghon is decapitate him. Alasdair called his a Vorpal Blade.”

Nadira probably knows Spike has a soul and probably knows Spike helped save the world.

I doubt Nadira cares all that much. Nadira doesn't actually try to kill him, of course, so obviously she's governed by pragmatism, but you seem to be forgetting the core matrix that underlines Slayers and vampires -- Faith herself, summed it up pretty well. "Vampire, Slayer, dead vampire". It's also alluded to when Andrew points out that his team in "Damage" consists of 10 Slayers, "none of whom have ever dated (Angel)". The implication is strong, and entirely reasonable, that the objectively detached Slayer does not care or inquire about vampires' souls, quests for redemption, whether they sparkle and eat mountain lions, etc. Buffy and Faith (to a lesser extent) represent not the norm, but the deviation from the norm, in their willingness to trust/love/be pals with vampires.

I don't think Nadira or any of hers would ever be in a room with Spike or Angel (Twilight beef notwithstanding) socially without always keeping at least one eye on them and a weapon in reach. Because vampire.


* I’m not sure Spike’s and Angel’s looks after Faith says, “If we’re gonna keep reminiscing about awkward sexual encounters, we’ll be here all day.” is them thinking about having had sex with each other.

Spike could well be thinking about “Dirty Girls” (7.18), or about Harmony, or about Hell-LA (if any of that is canon), or about Morgan, or all or some of the above.

Nah, just a direct callback to that scene in "Dirty Girls". His only direct interaction with Faith that didn't involve establishing her pwnership was the gawdy exchange about her sexual history.


* Faith to Eyghon Giles: “I got my best on [trying to kill Eyghon].”

Neither Angel nor Spike would consider they are Faith’s underlings.

More fools, they :) But seriously, I don't think she was implying that they were. You've never used that expression, "I've got my best people on it"? You seem to take things that are not literal, very literally sometimes.


* Spike himself would beat Faith in a fight. A Spike infused with true form Eyghon power should have easily killed Faith.

Or you are asserting your own opinion of who should win a fight as fact and expecting the story to conform to it. Personally, I think if it came down to kill or be killed with Faith, Spike should run like hell, and so should Angel. Either of "the gals" would handle either of the guys if it came down to it.


* In the TV Buffyverse, Angel’s never been that ‘ripped’ as he is in this Issue.

Show me even one live action version of a character that's ever been as ripped as their comic book counterpart. Ever.


* Spike is not concerned with Angelus’ ability to kill him. It makes less than zero sense that he’d be telling Faith, “[Angelus] only needs a moment to kill us all.”

Why do you think Spike is not concerned with Angelus' ability to kill him? I think he's overselling Angelus a bit here, too, but it again seems like your real complaint is that the canonical story is not adhering to your belief that Spike is the biggest baddest thing in any room he walks into.

TimeTravellingBunny
05-03-13, 02:35 PM
Some argue that Spike's entire miniseries were kind of pointless. I disagree, but that's a wide spread opinion. Mind that the original argument was over the 'admiration' part, not 'regard' or 'affection'. I found the admiration part excessive and soap-operatic, but if you guys insist on Spike admiring Angel secretly - who am I to argue ?

Oh, I see, so you think it's excessive and soap-operatic to say that Angel may have some admiration for Spike, but not that Spike has some admiration for Angel? Geez, why might that be? Could it be because you think that Angel is so incredibly freaking admirable that anyone can't help but secretly admire him, unlike the lowly, contemptible loser Spike? :lol: You can't help but confirm what I said about projecting your own biases onto the characters, I guess. :)

dorotea
05-03-13, 03:52 PM
Oh, I see, so you think it's excessive and soap-operatic to say that Angel may have some admiration for Spike, but not that Spike has some admiration for Angel?

No, I was pulling your collective leg. I think the 'admiration' part is excessive and soap-operatic in this bromance for both of the souled vamps, period. their relationship at this point best fits with this trope :

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WithFriendsLikeThese

But your side keeps insisting luvr and admiration is there. So I teased.

Dipstick
05-03-13, 06:45 PM
On the contrary, Faith's summary dismissal of the Spike/Angel pathos as a slap fight is the best thing to happen in the issue and quite possibly in the 21st century :)

No, I agree with MikeB on that point. It's not some silly slap-fight for Spike to tell Angel that his year-long reign of terror and his sexual manipulations (to put it verrrrry lightly) of Buffy has resulted in Angel's first good love, the hoped for mother of Angel's universe, the single-most sought after Buffyverse LadyPrize in Buffy Summers completely rejecting Angel and being unable to look at him.

What Spike said there wasn't, "I've got a bigger penis". It was Spike entirely correctly delivering hard truths to Angel about Angel's huge, unfathomable crimes and how Angel is persona non grata. Faith shouldn't have dismissed it with a joke. Faith should have perked up her ears. If not from a moral perspective, than from a continuity perspective when two issues ago, Faith supposedly came to some epiphany that Angel is social poison with the slayers and Faith unnecessarily harms her status by working to redeem Angel. Seriously, what happened there?

So, Faith's line sucked.

Then again, Spike's declaration that Buffy can't even stand the sight of Angel in this issue makes his stomp-off on Buffy thinking about Angel Island in BtVS 9.09 look silly. If Spike is so secure that Buffy is completely over that hot mess Angel, what was the point of that? Then again, Spike could be lying here that he genuinely thinks Buffy can't stand the sight of Angel. However, that's a pretty big-ass hurtful thing to lie about. Not that I care much about whether Angel's feelings are hurt by lies...that really should be the case. But still....

sybil
05-03-13, 06:47 PM
First, I am way back in the thread, and I agree with KING that the curse of the imposed demonic (pick one) soul, essence, spirit, evil, stuck into the First Slayer is not the First Evil; however, I think it was THE FEAR of the men that was the First Evil; and * then * the will/desire to misuse *another” was how they dealt with that fear. Thus, we have an arrogance of authority, we have no real consequence in their “if/then” choice. Why? The “temptation” between “if and then” is what binds them, not the “cause and effect” these men think is “consequence.”

The consequence they thought was “freedom from fear,” what the real consequence is a curse to the men and demons and slayers, in the creation of the “Chosen One.” These men thought they could just “walk away from the problem” and the Slayer would take care of “all the evil everywhere.” (You can tell these guys were “ends/means” and morally “didn’t shave using a mirror”). They extract payment for the magic, in the “forced suffering” of a demon and the forced suffering of a soul, while justifying arrogance and while indifferent (definition of “evil” in vampires anyway) to the suffering they imposed—their costs/prices in humanity; thus a curse/gais was made; it requires the cursed “Chosen One” to undo the curse imposed on her; and “the task” is that “undoing” must satisfy “both the demon and the soul” to break. I also think that the slayer’s power attracts the very evil she is trying to fight—if I understand why the Master smiled to know a slayer was in town.

We have “good” and “for all” decided by “not the all,” and most certainly not the girl, what the “good” even is or how to “share it.” (How about the power to conquer one’s own fear instead of forcing one girl to take on that which is reprehensible and bury her in the burden for the world’s existence against all demons that would inhabit it—and do that job in secret? Thus, we have at least three faults before so much as a word is actually said, or ritual enacted; and we de facto make a gais/curse that transcends the girl misused. (Why there is a slayer line).

Second. I’m wiccan, despite the “male” name. So, on the nature of Angel/us’s curse, those who think it has anything to do with “perfect happiness” alone, don’t understand what a magick-made curse is. It was told to you, clearly by Jenny’s uncle: “to suffer.” Tearing Angel soul from Angelus demon does not end the curse

Third. A curse has within its making its undoing. It isn’t some “loop hole” or “cast another spell.”

Fourth, Magick is a meditation, as well, no different than “zen,” “tantra” and others, for all the hoopla shown.

Fifth, no free lunch indeed, as So harm ye none” is not really the (arrogant) Golden Rule, deciding who or what deserves * what you think* the other would like would be the same that you would like.

Sixth, These men did not face the fear of demons by themselves, they got the idea to cure this “if /then” in answer of “somebody else” had to have “more power.” (Imbalance on several fronts arises in you not doing the “if only” when the “if/then” is imposed on another, with some (justified) “consequence” of “good for all” that was neither the design of nature or included the vote of “good” and “all”, which is what made the gais of the Slayer. The power was naturally “misdirected.” So! The Watcher’s Council really is a shrine to fear. Which is why The First takes infinite shapes. And so easily aligns itself to anything attributed to God/Goddess.

The trouble with Caleb, specifically, was again, the “shape” of the First (fear and thus the deepest desire inseparable from it) for Buffy was in the “father figure,” a pure priest, who is marry the pure “vessel” of the Church Body—but is pure Oedipal re Buffy. I also see the “shape” of the First couched in someone’s deepest (unfulfilled works, too) desire—Buffy wanted a “perfect father,” for example. And, can anything be more Oedipal, than “a priest?” Especially if one is afraid of one’s own “demon(s)?”

Worse, the narrow band of a specific kind of fear, re misogyny, just smacks of “domination” of a kind of “Watcher’s Council” over “women power” that Buffy already completely ignores, for some stab at the superior/inferior power dealio. They also needed to make more of Buffy “dealing with fear” in not taking on more ‘demonic power’—which is probably is the power of the ‘misandrist’ if we are to follow the logic of Caleb’s fear/power.

Now Buffy overcoming the misogyny of any men over her, while sharing her power, sounds real “feminist” and “independent” in that she also “released” the bondage of the potential to “actualize” so yea, she won! But,she drove off the very last man, “to protect him from himself” when he had the right of the “fool” trying to protect his own life and home, (unlike Graduation in which all were informed and all given the right to fight for kin, kith, hearth, and heart). But! she chastised him for not providing her a coke. Now that is supposed to be the usual “alterworld drug reference,” and/or Buffy’s “entitlement” immaturity talking, but the truth to me is that “feminism” (politically) advocates equality, and hence I saw another “imbalance.”

I think in season nine we are seeing Buffy “working with demons” to “kill other demons” while still trying to not kill people/slayers, in that “equality” kind of struggle, as well as winning/losing are always the “appearance” of a moment’s reality, (survival) while “human” does not always mean “a trophy” and someone else hollering “winner.”

The parallel to Buffy/Willow making the slayers and the Twilight myth is also replayed in Angel’s journey down and down, through the caverns of his mind, to the deeper and deeper desires, from the easiest to access to those he most “represses” as his deepest yearning/desire. The last desire wasn’t merely sex, (Cordelia wasn’t there); but it was literally his own need to “join God.” This would be seen in the union of everything opposite to everything opposite, the union with his own view of ‘soul mate” or goddess: Buffy. Which is why the parade of “goddesses” in Angel’s story, always include this concept of “soul mate” or “the goddess” and was acted upon in the Gais on his back literally come to life. He may like dogs, e.g. CuChulainn of Irish legend, with the gais not to harm a dog: he killed his favorite (see the jossian reversal in Becoming?) and not to refuse the kindness of a stranger—he ate the dog (Buffy) given him by a stranger.(Whistler--get it?)

However, he doesn’t see he is the Gryphon of legend, and like most “serpents” they don’t know what to do with the “treasure,” and these are called “arrogant jerkwads” for all their intentions of “saving the world defense.” This is a “trickster.” This is not Angel’s job; it is Buffy’s.

Now this is long and I am trying to “apply” wiccan principles as to the nature of the world building given.

From the beginning, the demons were the first inhabitants, but lost purchase (and claim of “property possession,” I’d wager, that may or may not have meant all of the demons, or even of * their * view on their “first claim” authority when another species, people, decided to ‘take over?” If I follow Giles. (*All * creation myths are laughable to me) However, it can be argued by examples, how “God on my side” brought about “the promised land,” that was claimed by others, and led to bloody war, still going on today; or that of “manifest destiny” in the US).

These men, who organized to “deal with the problem of * fear * --not “demons”—is why this is “black magic.” (which is silly in that “what is within you “determines the path to “the end of desire.”). They appointed themselves as the authority (not PTB/God/Goddess) to “reallocate power” from “nature” and to “themselves” to *impose * “a demonic source” * that wasn’t natural (the soul) to the “natural girl; ” and use her as a “vessel”-thing. All of this bound their *fear * to another to “fix,” the “the temptation” binding “if/then” in this answer to fear, with a consequence they call for “the good of all”. This is not “the design” of life/death/love by TPB/God/ the Goddess in what the “good of all” even looks like.

Thus, the consequence was “not for the good of all,” it was a curse on a demon and a girl, who themselves must undo what they wouldn’t impose on themselves. (By example, “Fear not for I am with you,” Jesus said, in the worst storms, to disciples in a boat. This means it is not the storm, or the water that is “the problem.” The fear of death is and Jesus is “with them” so there is nothing to fear, (even if they died—they really wouldn’t in all the ways of being with Jesus means).

So we have the creation and transmission of a curse. (Life/death/love are inseparable for this is the design magick must work within you. Not “out there” in waving burning sage around—used to segregate “space” in focus; or to consume, as a gift from the world to you, for your pleasure, the pleasure of your gratitude, (connection) and your life/ well being because it really does have some medicinal properties, thus nothing matter/energy conserved, as well).

So! The misuse of assigning themselves “power” and reallocating “the authority” to use another source of power, to both A. insert a demon in a girl, B they also wrote a “curse/gais” in the nature of the “Chosen One” which is “to fight or die.” ( That demon isn’t happy, either). Thus we end up with a demon bound to a soul, as this is the ‘legacy of the father upon the daughter’—and smart daughters figure out that the ”only” “escape clause” is to “die,” but it * doesn’t end the curse* of the “Chosen One” in the “die” part, as “the stuggle to fight” remains bound between demon and soul that “death itself” can’t end, as both are *without time. * We say the word “immortal.” Just as Angel/us’curse of ‘perfect happiness’ and being “torn apart “ does not end the ‘curse’ the gypsies actually put on him, as I told you.)

I have to add that Angelus does suffer, even “without the soul.” Liam’s own desire for an end to his pain, his slow march to death was a struggle between life/pain and peace he didn’t have arising out of deep needs for “unconditional love,” and yet also “approval” he couldn’t win by his father, or THE FATHER, in his own sense of “entitlement” and “easy answers” no one would tolerate. So “fear of the father” aka respect/love was twisted inwardly into “the bottomless pit” of rage/hate Angelus uses to fuel his unending indifference and need to inflict pain, trying not to feel pain, and actually trying to alleviate his pain in “nothing is ever enough” aka “no peace.” He has no soul (or a repressed soul, if you accept/prefer this POV—I don’t believe in souls, so whatever the story, no damage to me) to even find his way out of his own boredom, so he “raises the stakes to art” because Angelus has “no peace.” “ Ever. This is a definition also of “suffering.” This is for you to see “both sides”of Angel/us suffer. And “both sides” require “the end of suffering” *at once * for the curse to be satisfied and broken.

(Which, you all here seem to utterly hate is exactly what was going for Buffy human-demon/ “soul-slayer” and Angel/us “soul-vampire” in the myth of Twilight. The breaking of both their curses. Both “become god (s) and both are “die forever/immortal” and both are love/life/death at once and “end their suffering,” know peace, and the *the world * must die, as it was *illusion. * Of course, this is about the illusions one holds about the self and the world in self. To see “balance” is not easy when the authors purposely direct your attention into the realm of metaphor, the realm of psychological struggle in which all of these people are “teachers and tricksters,” e.g. Angel “become serpent” in the plane of Twilight (eyeroll: wrong mythology—Angel must really be “literally” missing his head. All of you who want him “dead, dead, dead” would have got your wish. The only thing you might not understand, is I am a B/Aer, and I am CHEERING for it because of the myth requiring he lose his head/unlife. Just. Like.Spike).

This is the wiccan principle that “all is love” which others say “God is love” —we don’t always understand that; and thus we perceive in illusion. Which is why “fast and loose” in life/death/love that Angel/Buffy shaped out of themselves, is suddenly “possession” by an evil god, trying to suck all the magic of the universe into himself. Or something. I have no clue, as Angel became a “serpent” in “paradise”—the body now of Twilight, capable of seed sucking or something, which was the plan “all along”—eye roll—that now results in Angel’s tattoo taking shape and fighting his “dual” existence in black/white stripes of the existentially isolated tiger from China. Meanwhile, Goddess help me, the Goddess “Adam” says ‘F*ck evil-dirt/the badness of demanding “do it again,” for wanting the best sex of her life/green glow/paradise’ and her “boots keep “fly-walking” to “save the world of magical dirt” only to lose it. Or something. ‘The king becomes the fool.” That simple.

All this “betraying” is “evil only exists.”

All of Joss’s curses, pretty much require “suffering to end.” Now death is the usual “price,” but the fact is, there is “no price” for “no duality” exists. That is what “love is all” or love/life/death by design means. That is the only magick going on here.

All the “working of will” and “eye of newt” for example, actually has cost Willow, both in her humanity and in the idea of using an “exterior” resource of “magical power” than herself; it has to be within her, thus “the consequence” isn’t “too much magic” or the “slayers are wrong.” In the if/then “spell” of triggering the potentials. It is a. in the fact no other potentials can be called, which violates the design of life/death/love; b. in the fact the magick was done in the “wrong line,” as the “correct” slayer line aka “linear in time” is in Faith—that happened when Buffy died, Kendra was called, then Kendra was died, for Faith to arise. Buffy is the “aberrant line,” since Faith has never died.

Why Willow chose Buffy, is because Buffy “holds the power.” She has actually “broken the curse/gais” for she has known ‘the end of suffering.’ That is why she keeps getting stronger—e.g. with the Master, for example, after drowning. (She is “the hearth” or “holds the fire” (her will), but her elements are earth and water). But we stick in ‘prophecy’ all over the place to explain anything we need to make Buffy “the only who counts.” Also, the “equal and opposite reaction” re Willow in the “working of the will” must be in the sacrifice of self, for life/death/love are inseparable. We see the cost to Willow and sometimes she fears the cost, and sometimes she becomes the vessel of Nature herself, also “evil,” in that “evil” doesn’t “give a damn.” (Nature/God/Goddess—go ahead and be insulted—I am—even if I also don’t believe in a separate “out there” God/Goddess)“ A person has to take a lot of stuff that is “all about Joss” in this world of his making.

Faith’s line was correct, and existed, but she had little power, for all her struggle, between demon and soul, for despite her pain, she has had zero effect in the curse of the “Chosen One.” She merely controls her demon. Not the same. She was a “vessel of argument” to herself, so she simply “ didn’t know herself” or her own “power.” She had failed herself in the”temptations” of “if/then” consequence that are binding the “demon-soul” in her humanity, (“I don’t care”—the great quote of the vampire, the demon I believe is locked into the slayer). She failed the curse/gais of the slayer that must “ fight or die,” aka “struggle forever” /“suffer forever.” That is why the “world had become “hell on earth” when Buffy returned to it, in season 6 and in season eight, not only to “point out” there are “only lessons.”

And thus, the view of “there is no free lunch” is not being used in wiccan principles, even if they exist in the design, to not segregate life/death/love from themselves in any being, or in their use, from the real source/design; you. I think I do see Joss’s intention in the ‘poetic design’ in the scope of a multiverse, whether one “acts” or doesn’t, one is “acting.” However, I so don’t agree with his aporia view of sin/redemption are in the example of “cause and effect ‘balance’” that isn’t really a “true consequence.” I already beat you regarding the “temptation” between “if/then” and the consequence is what you did or didn’t do yourself about yourself; and for Joss, there is only “you lose” because you always act and can’t escape the thing that defines the escape without the thing to escape from. And I say such logic is not paradox, but still requires “duality” and that is not all there is, pal. “I am not that man.”

Angel’s problem is in “owning the past is to be owned by it; and the past is gone. Thus Guilt is the empty pit that you swallow(s ) you. The ouroborus. Which, in character, he actually had escaped to an actual “path,” but “more stories” insist he “never change.” Daddy still is the boogeyman and Buffy needs new shoes. Never mind he makes Buffy a psychopath and Angel a sociopath, while he hangs Spike out to dry his nails for yet another “cat fight.”

Joss’s take is that “Buffy is shot with a bullet and Willow’s action means she lives, and Tara is shot with a bullet and Willow’s “inaction” means she dies” –balance; is simply not “true” in the nature of “magical balance” which I do define as life/death/love is the triumvirate design at work in Wicca.

We are often shown “liminality” in these “between worlds” kinds of portals and “birth channels” that are kind of “the “reborn” process, shown in dimensions/ or the “between planes” of the psychological. All ya gotta know is life/death/love is a way to see the design that must be worked as one within you. No trope, no example, that is all to magick, that is all to myth, and that is in common with us all.



And, I have killed everyone even asking about 'magick' and 'balance' and all that, because I am very evil like that in hot air. :err: :D





I have one question that I did ask, but has been overlooked or I don’t understand:

We have demons Eyghon, Spikelus, Angelus in Giles’ body. We have Angel, Giles, Spike in Angel’s body and then we have a free for all battle because of “conduitry”—so where is Giles’ demon?

dorotea
05-03-13, 07:01 PM
Then again, Spike's declaration that Buffy can't even stand the sight of Angel in this issue makes his stomp-off on Buffy thinking about Angel Island in BtVS 9.09 look silly.

But the combination of these two factoids is actually deliciously funny. Chuckle.


If Spike is so secure that Buffy is completely over that hot mess Angel, what was the point of that?

The point of this is actually to point out that Spike is anything but secure that Buffy is completely over 'that hot mess Angel' (thank you so much for the hot mess line - it out to be my favorite descriptive in this thread.)


Then again, Spike could be lying here that he genuinely thinks Buffy can't stand the sight of Angel. However, that's a pretty big-ass hurtful thing to lie about. Not that I care much about whether Angel's feelings are hurt by lies...that really should be the case. But still....

Spike is not lying, he is projecting, and trying to hurt Angel back after the 'Buffy gave you a brush-off, huh?' Opening. And it is pretty much in-character for Spike, I dare say. And for the whole hot mess of Spangeluffy triangle.

KingofCretins
05-03-13, 07:14 PM
No, I agree with MikeB on that point. It's not some silly slap-fight for Spike to tell Angel that his year-long reign of terror and his sexual manipulations (to put it verrrrry lightly) of Buffy has resulted in Angel's first good love, the hoped for mother of Angel's universe, the single-most sought after Buffyverse LadyPrize in Buffy Summers completely rejecting Angel and being unable to look at him.

What Spike said there wasn't, "I've got a bigger penis". It was Spike entirely correctly delivering hard truths to Angel about Angel's huge, unfathomable crimes and how Angel is persona non grata. Faith shouldn't have dismissed it with a joke. Faith should have perked up her ears. If not from a moral perspective, than from a continuity perspective when two issues ago, Faith supposedly came to some epiphany that Angel is social poison with the slayers and Faith unnecessarily harms her status by working to redeem Angel. Seriously, what happened there?

So, Faith's line sucked.

Then again, Spike's declaration that Buffy can't even stand the sight of Angel in this issue makes his stomp-off on Buffy thinking about Angel Island in BtVS 9.09 look silly. If Spike is so secure that Buffy is completely over that hot mess Angel, what was the point of that? Then again, Spike could be lying here that he genuinely thinks Buffy can't stand the sight of Angel. However, that's a pretty big-ass hurtful thing to lie about. Not that I care much about whether Angel's feelings are hurt by lies...that really should be the case. But still....

Faith's line wins. Bless her for not having the patience, no, the fawning indulgence of any and every argument Spike and Angel want to have with each other's moral status and how it may or may not implicate their relationship with Buffy. There was important shit to handle; Eyghon, Giles' free-roaming corpse, Nadira. It's only too bad she didn't back it up as firmly as Buffy did with Riley and Angel in "The Yoko Factor". Pace Xander, they should film that scene and show it every Christmas.

Vampire in Rug
05-03-13, 09:41 PM
Angel hasn’t even begun to try to make up for his actions in BtVS S8 – the whole thing with Giles simply seems to be about making himself feel better and to try to score some ‘points’ with Buffy.

That is your interpretation of the situation. The story has established that resurrecting Giles is highly dangerous and other fans have speculated that resurrecting him with his soul inside Angel might actually kill Angel. That's an entirely valid theory, and if such a thing is possible then it's highly unlikely that Angel could "score points" with Buffy if he's dead. Angel knows that Buffy would be against the resurrection because of her own personal experience of coming back from the dead, and the story has made clear that Angel does not want Buffy to know about the Giles-resurrection. This is about Angel thinking he can fix one of his mistakes, this is not about Angel trying to please Buffy.




It’s about impossible for me to consider some of the stuff in this Issue to actually be canon. The Car Scene in A&F 9.18 was bad enough: in A&F 9.19 we get Angel knowing about the bugship’s cannons; Spike thinking Angel and Angelus are two distinct and separate people; Spike thinking that Angelus is somehow at the level of a Glorificus or a full-powered Illyria; and Nadira liking Angel more than she likes Faith because apparently lying is a worse sin to Nadira than being responsible for hundreds of Slayer deaths, possibly hundreds of millions more deaths, and possibly trillions of dollars in damage.

Yeah, I'm gonna second what King said. You don't get to decide what's canon, Mike. You're forever telling other people off and repeating the line "you're not the arbiter of canon."

What happened in this issue is that the canon of the story didn't mesh with your ideas of what should be canon. Sorry, but neither the writers nor the fandom should have to bend to accommodate your personal ideas and theories, and you're going to have to accept that.

Regarding the car scene in A&F #19 and Spike #5, I have opened both pages side by side and see no problem. Angel borrowed a phone, made a call and (thanks to KoC's plausible theory), Spike saw a London caller ID, correctly assumed it was Angel, hello wanker. I see no discontinuity between the two scenes. The only problem I see is how quickly Spike made it from Easter Island to London, but that's something that happens all the time in fiction, and has in fact happened to Spike when he went to Africa in the space of a day, apparently by motorcycle. This is fiction, the story needed Spike to get from Eater Island to London without a boring explanation, this is something you should be able to just shrug off as a minor, unimportant error. If you need an explanation, maybe back when Spike did his magic spell to contain Acathla, a side effect of the spell was that it imbued Spike with a one-off, free teleport trip that could only be used to travel from Easter Island to London. Spike had this ability ever since he did the Acathla spell, but never had a use for it until just now. That idea has as much credibility as a lot of the stuff you've suggested, so I've just fixed this continuity error for you.

As for Angel knowing about the buship's canons, who knows, maybe he researched the bugship at some point in his spare time when he was Twilight. It was a minor detail, I really don't see how it matters why Angel knows abou the canons.

Spike never said that Angelus is on the same level as Glory or Illyria.

Nadira never said that she liked Angel more than Faith, just that she was going to give Angel "a pass" meaning that she was not going to kill him. It should be noted that Nadira quickly changed her tune and wanted to decapitate Angel at the merest hint that he might be a threat again. Nadira has every right to be pissed at Faith for hiding Angel from her and living with Angel. But at no point does the story suggest that Nadira thinks that Faith has committed more heinous crimes than Angel.



* How old is Giles’ grandmother Edna? She’s killing vampires with a sword. She’s got to be at least in her mid-60s and could be as old as in her 90s.

I very much doubt she was killing vampires in her 90's. I think 60's would be a good guess. Maybe it's still a stretch that a 60 year old woman could kill vampires, but she did say that it was a job for a Slayer, not a pensioner, so I doubt vampire hunting was something that Edna normally engaged in when she was that old. In this instance she had Ripper by her side, and they were disco vampires after all.



* Giles’ whole thing with Eyghon simply makes him less deserving to be brought back to life.

Um, how? He made a stupid mistake in his youth and spent his adult life atoning for it.


Why didn’t Giles ever tell Buffy and Co. about this? In BtVS S8, Buffy and Co. had more than enough power to kill Eyghon.

Because everyone thought that Eyghon had been dead since The Dark Age. Nobody in season 8 aside from Angel knew that Eyghon was still alive.



There’s no hint that Spike even knew the ship had cannons before Sebastian shot up those Moa.

Spike was living on that ship for over a year. Why would you assume that he didn't bother to learn about the ship and what it was capable of?



And wasn’t the point to kill Eyghon in a ‘special way’ so that Giles soul could be extracted from Eyghon? If Angel wanted Eyghon “shot up”, why not have a bazooka or something for Spike – or himself – to use?

Where is Angel going to get a bazooka from?



* Spike puts cigarette ashes in some antique vase or whatever.

Yeah, I noticed this and it was not cool at all. This is the type of behaviour people were talking about a few pages earlier that Spike never gets reprimanded for. It's not "evil" and not nearly on the same level of causing an apocalypse, but for the better part of seven seasons Spike has been doing this type of behaviour and rarely get called on it. I enjoy Spike as a character, and I often do find it entertaining when he gets under the other characters skins and acts rudely... but I find it frustrating when the fans want to have it both ways as though none of the other characters should ever be allowed to dislike Spike or speak negatively about him.

I remember the meltdown on the IDW forums when there was in issue where Connor called Spike "an eternal dick". It was an offhand comment and Spike was acting like a dick in that issue, and then Connor goes on to say positive things about Spike, but that one comment was enough to justify derailing the thread... :rolling: Then in season 9, Kennedy made some offhand comment about Spike and fans thought that it was highly inappropriate even though Kennedy has been previously established as not liking Spike. In the latest A&F issue, Spike has acted very unpleasantly towards Alistair, but I can guarantee you that if Alsitair shows any signs of dislike towards Spike, people will get offended.



Angel seems to have zero shame and zero humility over what he did in BtVS S8. Plus, Angel called Spike for help and yet at the first opportunity tries to insult and diminish Spike’s relationship with Buffy.

I didn't like this either, but the writers presumably felt that it was obligatory for Angel and Spike to discuss Buffy. I really wish they hadn't wasted the panels.



* Spike to Angel: “I left of my own bloody accord! She can at least stand the sight of me, unlike some undead people I could mention! […]”

Instead of punching Angel in the face, Spike simply yells at Angel.

It was an awesome line. And it disproves the bullshit lines certain people keep saying after every issue where they sarcastically claim that Angel did "nothing wrong" and that Buffy completely forgives him.



* Faith: “Annnd cue the slap fight.”

I really hope Faith is under some kind of spell; otherwise, she’s very unlikable in A&F. She acts as if Spike has zero valid reasons to be unhappy and/or angry with Angel.

Was there any indication whatsoever that Faith was under a spell? Why is a spell always your go-to fanwank device whenever there is piece of characterization you don't agree with or an inconsistency that you want to cover up? She's not saying that Spike has zero reasons to be unhappy with Angel, she's mocking them for their immature pissing contest over Buffy when there is more important stuff going on.




* Spike to Angel: “What do you know about it, never bothering to check in after your little cosmic shag? Did you have any bloody idea she thought she was”

Obviously, Spike wouldn’t be referring to the pregnancy. Spike’s probably referring to Buffy thinking she was responsible for having sex with Angel and that therefore she was also responsible for the damage done to the Earth and its life because of her having sex with Angel. In this, Spike would be referring to his knowing that Angel glowified Buffy into having sex with Angel or that Twilight glowified her into having sex with Angel; either way, Spike would know that Angel raped Buffy. Angel’s reaction also seems to fit with this: that he essentially raped Buffy and that Buffy wasn’t actually responsible for any death and destruction that happened in BtVS S8.

It's pretty obvious that Spike was referring to the pregnancy. Now I don't think that Spike was suggesting that Angel may have been the father, I think Spike was accusing Angel of not bothering to know what's going on in Buffy's life and the kinds of problems that Buffy is going through right now.

Your idea that Angel raped Buffy in season 8 is completely untrue. The story does not treat that like it's true, and the writing staff have repeatedly told us that was not what happened. You would think that the story would make a bigger deal about it's lead character *getting raped* if that's the story they wanted to tell. They would have made it unambiguous and it wouldn't have involved silly outer-space sex. Do you think Spike would be helping Angel at all if he literally raped Buffy? Your take on the story is not what happened on the pages or what the writers have told us.



I’ve always assumed that Buffy and Co. distributed Spike’s picture to the Slayers and told them that he was a souled good guy who’s saved the world multiple times and therefore shouldn’t be killed.

[...]

* Nadira to Spike: “William the Bloody. Mass murderer. Killer of two Slayers. I’ve got something for you. The only way to kill Eyghon is decapitate him. Alasdair called his a Vorpal Blade.”


She must have forgotten to pass it on to those three basement Slayers who killed him good and proper in After the Fall. We don't know exactly when she knew he was alive or the status of her Slayer army when she found out. I don't think Buffy would have the time or motivation to tell her Slayer army about Spike when she had so many other things going on in season 8. And even if she did tell them about Spike, I doubt she would want to advertise that he's killed two Slayers or that he's a mass murderer. I assume Nadira has done her own research. Possibly when she found out that Angel was Twilight and ordered Slayer deaths she wanted to know about other vampires that had been involved with the killing of Slayers or perhaps she wanted to know about other vampires that had been involved with Buffy.


Nadira probably knows Spike has a soul and probably knows Spike helped save the world.

Can't remember, did Angel mention Spike's soul in front of Nadira in the previous issue? I think he did. Beyond that, I don't see why Nadira would especially care. The important thing that Nadira would be thinking about in regards to Spike is that he's there to help with Eyghon. I don't think she'd care much whether he's got a soul or saved the word, so long as he's going to help with Eyghon. I agree with KingofCretins that she wouldn't want to hang out with him socially under normal circumstances because he's a vampire.



* Angel to Nadira: “Wait a minute. He gets a pass?”

Angel says this in a way that’s as saying Nadira should consider Spike worse than Angel is and therefore should be more against Spike than she is against him.

Angel here seems to have less than zero shame and humility over what he did in BtVS S8 because Angel knows that Spike was instrumental – Angel probably wouldn’t acknowledge that Spike was foremost – in saving the world in BtVS S8.

I agree that Angel was a little shameless here with his "he gets a pass" line. I guess Angel is just a little taken aback at how quickly Nadira is able to get past the fact that Spike is a vampire who has killed Slayers. It doesn't really speak of how Angel considers his own crimes, just that he's a little jealous of how easily Spike is being accepted.



Angel could be thinking about BtVS S8’s rape of Buffy.


You should stop repeating stuff that is false.



* Faith to Spike: “Eyghon’s got” “a bunch of old-school zombies. Not as a strong as zompires, but hard to kill.”

It seems Faith doesn’t know about Billy being able to dispatch a bunch of zompires.

Zompires are like the Turok-Han in the sense that they are built up as scary monsters who have high stats on paper, but in practise they are taken down easily for the sake of buiding up the characters. And the fact that they attack in groups means they suffer from the Conversion of Ninjitsu.



* Spike: “Well, look at zombie Giles. Undead and still a crap fighter.”

It doesn’t even seem Spike much cares about Giles or his current predicament.

Yeah, it seems so. This saddens me a little, I was hoping that Spike would have felt a little more warmly towards Giles after everything they have been through. I realize that Giles did try to kill Spike in BtVS season 7, but I would have thought that Spike could have forgiven him by now.



* Spike himself would beat Faith in a fight. A Spike infused with true form Eyghon power should have easily killed Faith.

Dude, you really need to stop trying to sell your own personal fanon as canon. It is not a given that Spike himself would beat Faith in a fight. That is your opinion, and it's not one that anybody else has to share. If I had to bet on one of them, I'd bet on Faith. We only ever saw one "fight" between them and it was ambiguous who the winner was. I vote for Faith because she landed more hits and Spike left after she stood her ground. I do however understand that their fight in Touched didn't have a definitive winner. In this issue however, we saw Faith handle Eyghon-Spike. You can argue all you like about how you think the fight "should" have gone, that doesn't change what happened on the page.



I have to assume that this is something like the ‘Ben in Glory is the reason Glory didn’t simply Buffy’ thing. I have to assume that Spike not wanting to kill Faith is the reason why a true form Eyghon-infused Spike didn’t easily kill Faith.

Yeah, go ahead and assume that even though there is nothing to back that up. We have never seen any of Eyghon's victims able to fight back against the possession, they were not shown to be anything but puppets of Eyghon and under his complete control. I guess this must mean that Spike is the only one who is strong enough to resist Eyghon's complete control... :rolling:



In “Innocence” (2.14), Buffy kicking Angel in the “bollocks” felled him and kept him felled for a time. True form Eyghon-infused Spike was only felled for mere moments before getting up and attacking Faith again.

Wait... are you trying to suggest here that Spike literally has bigger/stronger testicles than Angel, and it's literally a canonical fact that the writers considered when they wrote this scene?



* Since when did a soul have any power?

It shouldn’t matter that Giles’ soul is in Angel: souls never had any power.

In “The Dark Age” (2.08), there was no hint, suggestion, or implication that Angel’s soul had anything to do with defeating Eyghon.

I can accept that a body with two souls and a demon inside it would be harder to possess than an empty husk of a body or a body with one soul inside it.



* Giles doesn’t deserve getting to be heroic by killing Eyghon. The Eyghon situation could have been taken care of in BtVS S8. If anything, Giles is partly responsible for all the death Eyghon’s caused since BtVS S8.

Again, Giles thought that Eyghon was dead since BtVS season 2. Thematically, it made sense that Giles should get to be the one who gets to kill Eyghon, because Eyghon is the demon that has plagued Giles. It's literally his personal demon, the story is more powerful if Giles gets to kill it. I think there is only one character you would think "deserves" to kill Eyghon, and no thanks, IMO the story we got was better.



* So, apparently Faith is strong and powerful enough to successfully fight true form Eyghon-infused Spike but Spike’s body weight fells Faith.

Lots of people can successfully fight opponents who are larger and heavier than them, but still be felled by their body weight... because they are larger and heavier than them. Simple physics, man. Weight does not equal fighting skill. Also, who says that Faith was "felled"? Who'se to say that Faith wouldn't have been able to toss Spike off her and keep fighting him if need be?




* In the TV Buffyverse, Angel’s never been that ‘ripped’ as he is in this Issue.

These are drawings, not photos. They are representations of what the characters look like. None of the drawings look exactly the same as the character or the actor. And for that matter, the actors are also representations of the characters. As the years passed in the shows, David Boreanez and James Marsters got older and physically aged. Their vampire characters did not age. We should imagine that the vampires have the same physical appearance that they always did because even the actors are not perfect representations of the characters. In comics, different artists have different strengths and weaknesses and again, we are expected to use a bit of imagination and recognize these as the same characters. If you need a literal explanation for Angel's appearance in this issue, maybe he's been working out. I don't know why such an explanation would even be necessary though.

________


Spike obviously doesn’t care about Angel to the point that he’d feel any pity that Angel was catatonic for a time, so he wouldn’t much care about Angel’s current emotional state now.

And yet, Spike is going to around for at least another issue to help Angel get out of his current state.

Although I do wonder what Angel's plan was supposed to be once he'd reached this point. Presumably Faith and Spike will have to figure some way of extracting Giles's soul so that Angel can be sane again. If they have to figure this out for themselves, what was Angel's plan? Did Angel not know that he'd go catatonic when he had Giles's complete soul?

________


* Why would Spike know about the Tooth of Ammut unless Spike somehow researched that when he decided to get his soul back?

That's actually a great peice of personal canon, I like it :)

________


* Spike to Faith: “[Angel’s] got a trio in there now, doesn’t he? Himself, Angelus, and old Rupert’s complete soul. Must be a right racket. Angel was never much of a talker, but those other two, bloody hell, they never stopped. Loved to hear the sound of their own voices, they did—”

Spike never considered Angel and Angelus separate people; it makes zero sense that he’d refer to Angel and Angelus as separate people. Spike if anything should have said something like, “the soul, the demon, and another soul” and then not talked about Angel and Angelus as if they were two separate types of talkers.

I don't take this to mean that Spike is literally talking about two separate "people." Spike obviously means that there is a demon and two souls. I agree that it was worded clumsily, but I don't think that it is mythology-breaking.

________


* Spike is not concerned with Angelus’ ability to kill him. It makes less than zero sense that he’d be telling Faith, “[Angelus] only needs a moment to kill us all.”

I know you must hate it, but this issue showed that Spike does consider Angelus to be a credible threat, which is something that I've been arguing for years. Sorry, but Spike is not way badder than Angelus like you always like to believe. Now, Spike must have been exagerating because obviously Angelus could not beat Faith, Spike and a dozen Slayers all at once. But Angelus is a bad enough dude that Spike feels wary.



Sixthly, and perhaps most importantly, Faith doesn’t mention that dusting Angel could mean destroying Giles’ soul. Faith’s sole argument for not dusting Angel is that Angel is a great guy and doesn’t deserve to be dusted and that she’d fight Nadira and Co. to try to prevent them from dusting him.

I agree that something should have probably been said about Giles's soul... in fact I think that would have been better justification for Nadira to decide not to dust Angel. But I think it goes without saying that maybe Giles' soul is another reason why Faith would be protective of Angel's body right now. But yeah, something should have been explicitly said, it would have made the issue stronger and more believable for everybody involved.

________


* It’s understandable that Spike wouldn’t contact Buffy and tell her about this situation.

Um, why? Any time anybody else hides something from Buffy you crucify them. Why is it okay for Spike to hide stuff from Buffy?



* Spike isn’t a “bad guy”. Saying such a thing is extremely insulting and defaming to the character. Spike is the foremost hero of BtVS S8, the foremost hero of “Chosen” (7.22), and, if canon, is the only reason Angel and Co. survived Hell-LA.

When Scott Allie said "bad guy" he obvioulsy meant "bad boy". People are blowing that line way, way, way out of proportion.

I don't know if I'd call Spike the foremost hero of season 8 since he was only there for the last few issues. And he certainly wasn't the "only" reason the fang gang survived ATF, it's laughable that you'd even suggest that...

dorotea
10-03-13, 03:28 AM
My late review of A&F 19. As always the link is inside spoiler tag so you don't click it by accident. :)


A&F 19 review (http://ladydorotea.livejournal.com/20950.html)

zianna
10-03-13, 08:19 PM
As far as I know, the difference between a "Hero" per se and a "Champion", is that a Champion would be a hero chosen by someone to represent him/her/it in some sort of confrontation/challenge/war... Therefore, Buffy and Angel would be the ones the PTB choose to fight their fight, Spike would be Buffy's champion, and then whoever else's he's fighting for, and Cordy... well, didn't put that much attention to AtS to say, most of you know it better than me.

The other Scoobies and Fang Gang members are heroes by their own choice, they were not designated as such by any higher power of sorts.

So, as far as I know, to be a champion, he/she has to be someone's champion. Hence the difference with other kind of heroes.

I thought that Angel had explained what a champion is, in Chosen.
Someone ensouled, but stronger than a human, who fights for humans.

dorotea
10-03-13, 09:31 PM
Users in my ignore list
MikeB, Dorotea
Don't bother replying to me, unless you love wasting your time


I never thought I am so important to you that you have to put me into your signature permanently. Kind of denies the whole purpose of ignoring. :) In any case - you are not on mine. I actually find you less annoying than you obviously find me. Take care.

_Buffy_
11-03-13, 08:22 AM
I hope in the next issue Spike will doing more job. I don't like to see him so useless. I also don't like to see him with this black nail polish again, like he was in S 5 when he was souless and all the time with this cigarette.:sadwalk:

Moscow Watcher
11-03-13, 02:57 PM
I hope in the next issue Spike will doing more job. I don't like to see him so useless. I also don't like to see him with this black nail polish again, like he was in S 5 when he was souless and all the time with this cigarette.:sadwalk:

Well, since Angel is in a coma, Spike will definitely get more job. I wonder if we're to expect the rehash of "Orpheus" with Spike in Faith's role. OTOH, the cover of #20 is the homage to Archie comics, so I expect a variation on "The Girl in Question" - with a lot of whimsy and bantering.

MikeB
14-03-13, 09:27 PM
All caught up

Here’s my bullet points and analysis so I don’t repeat stuff: http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=658560&postcount=128

_________

I’m only going to respond to posts about the actual Issue, meaning post #11 and after. I’m generally not going to address speculation. It turns out most of the thread wasn’t about the actual issue. :(




* Spike and Faith had sexual chemistry in “Dirty Girls” (7.18).


* Joss Whedon is less involved with A&F than he was with BtVS S8, so I’m not sure how much we can “blame” him for the content of A&F.


* Nadira’s the one who “assigned” Spike as being the one to actually kill Eyghon.


* Spike clearly knows he’s better and morally superior to Angel.


* Scott Allie and Christos Gage’s opinions of Buffy/Angel are immaterial unless they have more say over Buffy/Angel than Joss Whedon does.


* Angel isn’t catatonic.


http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=658125&postcount=31

This post seems to have started the derailing of the thread.

http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=658159&postcount=46

This post furthered the derailing of the thread. I’ll post this here:


* It is beyond silly nonsense to try to make comparable Spike’s BtVS S7 and after actions and others’ reactions to those actions to Angel’s actions in BtVS S8 and others’ reactions to those actions.

And, yes, these are trying to be made comparable; otherwise, they wouldn’t even be mentioned in this thread (And if they somehow aren’t trying to be made comparable, discussing them is off-topic.) – Essentially, it’s “Spike did bad stuff too and he wasn’t really punished for doing that bad stuff!” Spike was punished. His helping to save the world resulted in Drusilla dumping him. His coming back to kill Buffy in BtVS S4 results in his getting chipped and having to have the Scoobies’ protection for 3 years. His attempted rape of Buffy results in his deciding to get his soul back, then he’s tortured both mentally and physically by the First Evil, and Dawn never seems to like him again.

In A&F, Angel’s relationships with various people are either similar or better than they were in AtS s5. In A&F 9.19, both Angel and Faith seem to consider Angel is better and more heroic than Spike even though Angel was the foremost villain of BtVS S8 responsible for hundreds of Slayer deaths and possibly upwards of hundreds of millions more death and possibly upwards of trillions of dollars in property and economic damage.

As for “Not Fade Away” (A 5.22), Angel told the group that if they succeeded, Wolfram and Hart would send an army after them to kill them. There was no thought that Wolfram and Hart would kill innocent people or would still try to destroy Los Angeles or anything like that. They assumed that they were stopping the apocalypse Wolfram and Hart had been planning.

- Warren Meers is responsible for Tara’s death. Willow has zero culpability for Tara dying. The canon is that the “consequence” for doing the spell is that one thing hitched a ride on Buffy and had to be killed.


* Spike is the foremost hero of BtVS S8; Angel is the foremost villain of BtVS S8 (along with Whistler and Twilight). Spike should have been rewarded with things like the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, being congratulated by the United Nations, etc. Angel should have been dusted.


* About 100% of Spike fans (meaning among Buffyverse fans not limited to those reading the comics and posting on Boards) probably would be included in those who want Buffy/Spike, those who want Spike/Drusilla, and those who want Spike/Illyria. Very few likely would prefer Spike be having sex with random people.


* Since when does Spike need to do something bad in order to “have a story”? If I recall correctly, I’m the only poster on here and on SA who would have been fine with Spike being with Morgan so does “doing something bad” mean doing something on the level of Twilight? I also don’t recall anyone else on this Board who mentions the Spike/Drusilla stuff that happened in the IDW Spike miniseries.


* I’ve said since 8.39 was published that unless it comes out that Angel was “controlled” before 8.01 that he should be dusted. I’ve said that fan service is about the only reason Angel is undusted. Nothing in A&F has given support to the idea that Angel shouldn’t – eventually, if not immediately – be dusted. Saving Giles isn’t even a good reason because Giles is partly responsible for the Twilight apocalypse and Giles is 100% responsible for Eyghon not being killed in BtVS S8. Plus, we never saw Giles research or even be concerned about the possibility that Buffy’s soul may have belonged to Eyghon. Even given how Eyghon survived, Giles is still 100% responsible because apparently Giles didn’t research Eyghon well enough if he didn’t know Eyghon could do that.


* This isn’t about Angel fans vs. non-Angel fans. This is about cursed Angel being just as dangerous to the world as uncursed Angel. In fact, more dangerous. The Judge thing only happened because Spike wanted to give Dru the Judge as a birthday present. Acathla only happened because Drusilla knew about it and was able to get the information out of Giles. Angelus killed the Beast. What’s happening in A&F is roughly akin to a BtVS S3 if BtVS S3 happened as it did except Angel was never re-cursed and everyone knew that.


* Um, A&F 9.19 compared Angel’s evil actions (including his souled actions) to Spike’s evil actions (which only included his unsouled actions) and had Angel and Faith considering Spike’s worse. Before the derailing of the thread happened, that’s what posters were addressing.


http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=658400&postcount=103 is when the thread finally got at-all ‘on-topic’ again, if one considers speculation about A&F 9.20 in the A&F 9.19 thread to be on-topic. So, about 70% of the thread before this post had been about things like B 7.17 (which has a 19 page long Dead Thread) and other ‘off-topic’ stuff.


http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=658552&postcount=127 is the first post that’s again about A&F 9.19. It’s the post right above my bullet points and analysis, which was post #128. Essentially about 75% of the posts were either about ‘off-topic’ stuff or about speculation for A&F 9.20.




Maggie


nobody thinks that pre-souled Spike is a whole other person, whereas Angel gets to dodge responsibility for anything and everything that is Angelus (or Twilight). Buffy in early BtVS S7 was trying to consider pre-souled and souled Spike to be two ‘different’ people as in “souled Spike’s not responsible for anything soulless Spike did”.

Buffy in 8.39 considers Angelus, Angel, AngelTwilight, and TwilightAngel to all be the same person.

Buffy, Willow, Spike, and presumably other characters in BtVS S9 know Angel is responsible for his AngelTwilight actions.

________________________________________________


What word signifies more awful, beyond the pale than heinous? I'm racking my brains to think of any word that signifies more awfulness than does the word "heinous". But my mind's a blank. If I want to designate a crime as the worst sort of crime, "heinous" is the word I use. What word do you use? Mass-murdering, genocidal, world-ending, etc. I agree that Spike’s talk to Wood after Wood tried to murder him weren’t “heinous”. “Heinous” means something like “shockingly evil or wicked”. Wood was being “heinous” to Spike; anything short of killing Wood is “charity” on Spike’s part. Spike throughout his existence has been at-most a mass murderer who’s killed two Slayers. Angel’s been world-endingly evil and, unlike Drusilla, he’s been world-endingly evil even when he has a soul in him.



Local Maximum


I read the issue. I wrote a thing about it, but BF logged me out and I lost it. When you log in, click on the “Remember Me” box; also, if you’re on FireFox, hitting the ‘Back’ button should take you to your post.


I think Allie meant "bad boy" and not "bad guy" with Spike (and "bad girl" as the female equivalent of "bad boy," not of "bad guy") -- which is more about his and Faith's look/attitude than moral status. That's still gonna be contentious of course, but I do think that what he meant was not quite as extreme as what it sounded like. Scott Allie is the head of Dark Horse Comics and he has editors. The Buffyverse comics are Dark Horse’s best selling comics and Spike is one of the most popular characters in those comics. Also, if he meant “bad guy” as “bad boy”, why wouldn’t he have said “bad gal” for Faith? It’s either something Allie intended to write, it’s a Freudian slip, or he actually meant “bad boy”. In any case, Spike is no longer a bad boy and Faith hasn’t been a “bad girl” since like “Dirty Girls” (7.18).



BAF


Christos Gageþ@Christosgage

Sorry you didn't like Spike's portrayal, @Morphiauk . I was going back to their Angel Season 5 dynamic. Lots of posturing. More Spike in 20. Not unless by AtS s5 Gage means about only “Just Rewards” (A 5.02).


Christos Gageþ@Christosgage

Some who didn't like Spike's portrayal in 19 will like 20 better. Others may be even madder. Like Shaft, Spike is a complicated man. Translation: it could be even worse in A&F 9.20.


Christos Gage‏@Christosgage

@Morphiauk Angel was no more use than Spike. It was Giles who won the day. That’s simply untrue. Angel’s decision to put Giles’ soul in himself is largely responsible for Giles being able to kill Eyghon.



KingofCretins


Well, Gage will get old waiting for himself to write Spike in a way that won't get enough vocal criticism to make him think he has angered a majority, whether he actually has or not. Just comes with the territory. Spike helped AtS get about a 25% boost in ratings (it went from over 4M viewers to over 5M viewers). BtVS S9: Spike (which pretty much was only an excuse to increase overall Buffyverse sales) did about as well in sales as A&F. Yet Spike seems to have given A&F at-most a boost of sales in the hundreds from what they otherwise would have been.



Dipstick


the slayer stripped of her jacket who was found dead at eighteen years old in the NY subway by the passengers that got on and the boy who was left an orphan and the Watcher who lost his slayer Um, so you think Nikki got pregnant when she was either 13 or 14 years old? Anyway, the canon is that Nikki was 18 in 1973 when she’s first pregnant with Robin (B 9.05), by the time Robin’s born she was the Slayer for three years (B 9.05), and she was killed in 1977 (B 7.17). She was around 22 when Spike killed her. Buffy herself died at 18 and then later died at 20.



Jack Shaftoe


Something tells me that if a character, any character, was to say anything remotely negative about Spike's relationship with his mother (or anyone/anything Spike considers very dear to him), their words would be described as heinous by like half of this forum. Regarding his mother, only Drusilla and Spike would know anything about that. I’ve never seen anyone on any forum saying anything negative about a character saying something negative about his relationship with Drusilla. If Spike’s considers his bleached hair look to be ‘dear to him’, characters’ have made fun of that and I’ve never seen a poster on any forum say anything negative about that.



dorotea


Neither Angel nor Giles IMHO have or ever had the slightest hint of admiration vis-a-vis Spike although sympathy was definitely there. With Giles, I guess it depends on one’s definition of “admire”. Giles in BtVS S2 and BtVS S4 pre-“Pangs” (4.08) was very concerned/fearful that Spike could/would kill Buffy in a fight. In BtVS S4, Giles is the first to approach Spike with the idea of his being a ‘Scooby’. Not sure what to make of it, but Giles in “Tabula Rasa” (6.08) rather easily reasons Spike’s his son. Pretty much after Spike was chipped, Giles’ only problem with Spike involved Buffy/Spike.

It’s canon that Angel admired Spike. Admire means something like, “to regard somebody or something with approval, appreciation, or respect.” To say Angel never admired Spike is simply incorrect. “Approval, appreciation, and respect” is all shown in the 1896 flashback. They are shown numerous other times.

Even if you’re only referring to cursed Angel’s opinion and regard for Spike, I can’t comprehend the idea that someone can be greatly envious of someone’s earned accomplishments without admiring that someone.

________________________________________________


I am not a big fan of the mutual abuse tropes - be it in unrequited romantic love situations or in unrequited bromance ones, so I cannot see the enjoyable component or a healthy doze of mutual admiration here. But I am not denying that if you are into this kind of relationship - then Sp-anything in both BtVS and AtS is your perfect collection of masochist tango bonds. It’s canon that Drusilla was in love with Spike, its canon that Buffy was in love with Spike, and Angel and Spike were BFFs for 18 years and eventually were friends again in AtS s5.


__________________________________________________ ______________________________


Posts after my bullet points and analysis: http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=658560&postcount=128


* As far as I know, Joss hasn’t given any opinion on A&F or spoken of anything in it. But certainly the only way I can consider various stuff in this Issue to be canon if is Joss says they are.


* I forgot that Spike would only need to beat Faith in order for Eyghon to take control of her. Even if one wants to consider that its about even in whether Spike or Faith would beat the other in a fight, consider Jenny Calender’s boost in strength and power after Eyghon possessed her and multiply that by a number, then add that extra strength and power to Spike – A full power Eyghon-infused Spike should relatively easily beat Faith unless some ‘Ben in Glory’ thing was happening. If a ‘Ben in Glory’ thing wasn’t happening, this fight makes about no sense.


* Nothing suggests Spike thinks Angel has any shot of being able to be with Buffy again. The “Angel Island” thing is too ambiguous for me to much bother to consider her reaction anything other than awkwardness because of her having had sex with Angel in BtVS S8.



KingofCretins


It's only too bad [Faith] didn't back it up as firmly as Buffy did with Riley and Angel in "The Yoko Factor". Do you actually believe Faith could take on both Angel and Spike and beat them both or that Faith would think such a thing?



Vampire in Rug


Lots of people can successfully fight opponents who are larger and heavier than them, but still be felled by their body weight... because they are larger and heavier than them. Simple physics, man. Weight does not equal fighting skill. Also, who says that Faith was "felled"? Who'se to say that Faith wouldn't have been able to toss Spike off her and keep fighting him if need be? Wow. I don’t recall you giving any credence to my F = m*a thing http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19057 and yet here you talk about “simple physics”. Here, you don’t seem to understand that Faith can lift far more than Spike weighs. As for your arguing, “You can argue all you like about how you think the fight "should" have gone, that doesn't change what happened on the page.” you somehow don’t apply that to yourself. Faith is felled by Spike’s body weight. That’s “what happened on the page”.


You don't get to decide what's canon, Mike. You're forever telling other people off and repeating the line "you're not the arbiter of canon." What part of my saying “Joss Whedon is the only arbiter of canon” don’t you understand?


* My quote: “the whole thing with Giles simply seems to be about making [Angel] feel better and to try to score some ‘points’ with Buffy.”

Angel didn’t disagree with Spike’s assessment.


* Buffy was glowified into having sex with Angel. Angel raped Buffy. If Angel glowified Buffy or if Twilight did, either way Angel raped her.



dorotea


the implied fact that Edna was the one to convince Giles finish his Watcher's training, and likely the one who was teaching him through his final years in the academy after his return ( as implied by Angel's mumblings in the end) - is another piece of the verse-lore that I was extremely happy to learn. This has been implied since Tales of the Vampires was published in early 2004.


So, Spike is pissed over losing the ship , by way of his own ineptitude and being too easily swayed by anything wearing a tight leather gambeson over a curvy body. Curious: do you blame Angel for being vamped by Darla?


Did I mention I finally warmed up to Faith ? All it took is 3/4 of the series and her having a headache over Spike and Angel 's Betty vs Veronica condition. Nadira - not so much. And it is not just because she clearly picks Spike as her favorite vampire-with-a-soul - although that looked more vindictive than logical. Do you actually think it’s illogical for Nadira to like Spike more than Angel?


And Spike is consistently 'not' a team player and without fail stubborn in not having a high opinion of anybody who is not himself This is not based on canon. Spike was a member of the Fanged Four for 18-20 years depending on if one wants to include the two years Angel wasn’t among them. Spike in “Blood Ties” (5.13) was helping Buffy and Co. look for Dawn. Spike is a team player from “Spiral” (5.20) to “Bargaining Part I” (6.01), so for over three months. Spike’s a team player at various points in BtVS S6 and BtVS S7. Spike has a high opinion of Drusilla, Buffy, Willow (though not all the time), Fred, Illyria, his mother Anne Pratt, and perhaps others.


Gage's explanation [regarding the Angelus and Angel thing] was that Angelus is truly an amalgamation of Liam's worst original characteristics and the vampire possessing demon , whereas Angel is all of Liam: his bad and his good traits (including the photographic memory, the fantastic artistic talent, and the penchant for reckless behavior) plus his 240-some years of experience and knowledge, and the mountain of guilt. Um, no: where you get this? Liam was never implied to have photographic memory or to have any artistic talent. A&F 9.19 simply has Giles’ soul, Angel’s soul, and Angel’s demon as separate entities. Angel’s memory and art talent weren’t even mentioned in the Issue.


Myself - I don't see why accepting that a person with a soul and therefore in possession of morality is a different entity from the person without a soul - and subsequently 'without' morality is such a conundrum. Because Angel’s history since 1898 would make no sense.


* Giles decapitated Eyghon: it’s very clear.


Giles' memories of Willow going Dark - and him helping her The helping her part wasn’t included.


I also found that the Slayerettes' leaving Faith at this particular moment of her life a bit callous of them - but unlike with Nadira, fully justifiable. They are leaving Faith for about exactly the same reason Nadira is leaving her.


I think that Gage get's Angelus better than some of the AtS S4 writers, because he is both incredibly frightening and cunning Huh? ‘Angelus’ gave Faith a good reason for why she shouldn’t be helping Angel and a good reason for why she should be dusting Angel. How is that being cunning?

Vampire in Rug
15-03-13, 05:55 AM
I’m only going to respond to posts about the actual Issue, meaning post #11 and after. I’m generally not going to address speculation. It turns out most of the thread wasn’t about the actual issue. :( [/i]

Sadly, yes. Most discussions inevitably get derailed so that the thread can be about Spike, that's the nature of the fandom. It doesn't surprise me in the least that this thread quickly got derailed so that people can discuss -over multiple pages something that Spike did in the show that has zero relevance to this issue of the comic. I think this forum would be a better place if people would read over their entire post, then re-read the title of the thread before posting, and if the thread title isn't relevant to the post they are about to make -then another thread needs to be created because it isn't relevant to this one. Honestly I was glad when you posted your bullet points because I knew that they would at least be relevant to the issue of the comic. :)



* Joss Whedon is less involved with A&F than he was with BtVS S8, so I’m not sure how much we can “blame” him for the content of A&F.

If Joss doesn't want to be blamed for aspects of the story that people aren't happy with, then he should take his name off the cover. While I do agree that Joss is less involved with the day-to-day writing of A&F than he was with BtVS season 8, the same is true of BtVS season 9. Joss is less involved with season 9 than he was with season 8. I've always found it silly when people want to claim that After the Fall is non-canon because Joss's involvement in the writing process was less involved than it was for BtVS season 8. We do know that with ATF, Joss broke down and discussed the story with Brian Lynch and was fine with his name being on the final product. I think an argument could be made that Joss had just as much -possibly more, involvement with the plotting of ATF than he's got with A&F currently.

I would also argue that Joss's involvement with the two main titles -whether that's BtVS season 8 and AtF, or BtVS season 9 and A&F, would likely be greater than his involvement with the various spin-off miniseries. I find it a little silly if you accept every panel and line of dialogue as gospel in the Spike or Willow miniseries, but you dismiss entire pages of A&F, and outright doubt the canon status of AtF.



* Nadira’s the one who “assigned” Spike as being the one to actually kill Eyghon.

Uh, no. She gave him a sword. That's not the same as "assigning" Spike to be the one to kill Eyghon. And even if she did assign Spike to kill Eyghon, so what? Nadira isn't the boss of this situation.



* Spike clearly knows he’s better and morally superior to Angel.

I wish certain fans would stop acting like the writers don't know this. Yes, Angel was an ass this issue when he was talking to Spike. Angel really has no place talking down to or insulting Spike right now. Yet many fans assume that Angel is speaking as the voice of the author, as though the Dark Horse staff consider Angel to be morally superior to Spike, when really, it could be as simple as the Dark Horse staff choosing to write Angel being an ass to Spike as an honest character flaw for Angel. Then we've get silly stuff like Scott Allie going out of his way to mention that Spike chose to have a soul, as though he feels the need to prove himself to the fans that he knows that.



* Scott Allie and Christos Gage’s opinions of Buffy/Angel are immaterial unless they have more say over Buffy/Angel than Joss Whedon does.

"Immaterial"? Really? I'm curious, would you say that your opinions of the story are immaterial? Are you willing to go that far? You always pull the "not the arbiter of canon" line, as though none of the writing/editing staff aside from Joss himself are qualified to speak about the story. Yet you presumably expect your opinion to be taken seriously when you post, even when you outright make stuff up that was never suggested or implied in the story. Does this make you more qualified than Gage or Allie?

Ultimately, yeah, Joss Whedon does outrank Scott Allie and Christos Gage. That doesn't really matter unless there is any sort of conflict between what they say and what Joss says. Obviously, in that situation, what Joss says trumps what they say. But there is zero reason to assume that's the case here, and I see no reason why Gage and Allie's opinions can't be treated as Word of God (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod) unless Joss says something that actually discredits what they say.

Would you say that the "opinions" of the Vice President or the Secretary of Defence or other important members or Parliament are "immaterial" just because they don't outrank the President himself?



* It is beyond silly nonsense to try to make comparable Spike’s BtVS S7 and after actions and others’ reactions to those actions to Angel’s actions in BtVS S8 and others’ reactions to those actions.

I think the point a lot of people are trying to make, is that both Angel and Spike are Karma Houdinis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KarmaHoudini) with plot armour. Now the scale of their crimes is different, yes, but the basic concepts of Karma Houdini's and Plot Armour remains the same -which is why I always find it amusing when people jump up and down with cries of "whitewashing, whitewashing!" about this series when they've got Spike in their avatar or signature. A lot of the complaints basically boil down to character preference. Which is fine -we all have our favourites, but that doesn't justify some of the complaints levelled at Christos Gage when the bar set by some fans is impossibly hard to meet. And it certainly doesn't justify the worst complaints made about him that imply sexism or racism just because this story might not be somebody's cup of tea.


Essentially, it’s “Spike did bad stuff too and he wasn’t really punished for doing that bad stuff!” Spike was punished. His helping to save the world resulted in Drusilla dumping him.

These next few paragraphs are getting off topic, so I'm gonna spoiler them and then that's the last I'll say on the subject with you.

Drusilla dumping Spike wasn't Spike being punished for doing something bad. If anything, that was Spike being punished for doing something good. There are still decades of crimes that Spike remains unpunished for. Let's not pretend the story hasn't been lenient on Spike quite often.


His coming back to kill Buffy in BtVS S4 results in his getting chipped and having to have the Scoobies’ protection for 3 years.

That was not Spike being punished because he came back to kill Buffy. Spike got a chip in his head because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. The Initiative would have attacked him if he were a heroic vampire with a soul, or even an innocent demon of some kind. That's just a case of shit happens, that's not Spike being "punished" for a crime. And on a meta level, getting a chip in his head was not a punishment, it was a blessing because it allowed him to become a main character.

Imagine if after Warren killed Tara, he got to spend the next few seasons with more screentime and character progression and being made sympathetic instead of being killed. Warren is an example of a character who got punished both by the writers on a meta level, and also by the characters in story. Let's not pretend that Spike being chipped by the Initiative is even comparable to that. And since you're so obsessed with scale, let's note that the scale of Warren's crimes isn't comparable to Spike's. True punishment for coming back to kill Buffy would have involved being dusted in Harsh Light of Day or at the very least, remaining a villain instead of being upgraded to wacky neighbour.


His attempted rape of Buffy results in his deciding to get his soul back,

He gets to be the love interest again? Yeah, that's some punishment. The soul is basically a writers shortcut to forgiveness and amnesty for previous crimes. I don't want people to get me wrong, I do enjoy Spike as a character and I did enjoy his progression to becoming a hero. But the whole storyline of attempted rape of the lead character being a catalyst for Spike to go get a soul from a cave we've never heard of until just now so that he can be forgiven back into being the love interest for the next season isn't as deep and epic as some people think IMO. The soul was not a "punishment" for his attempted rape of Buffy. And again, on a meta level, Spike getting the soul was a blessing, not a punishment.


and Dawn never seems to like him again.

Dawn has never had any meaningful interaction with Spike after she learned about his soul, the idea that she never liked him again is largely a fan inference on their last scene together where Dawn threatens to kill Spike in his sleep. I kind of do like the idea that Spike's relationship with Dawn might be irreparably damaged. She's now old enough to have outgrown her fangirling over his hair and jacket, and I do like the idea that there is at least one character for whom Spike has a permanent falling out with over his attempted rape of Buffy. Dawn's negative feelings towards Spike would likely be compounded after he seemingly lost interest in their friendship for several seasons. But like I said, the idea that Dawn currently dislikes Spike is a fan inference, we really haven't seen any meaningful interaction between them since Dawn learned about his soul. I think it's entirely possible that the writers could show Dawn and Spike being chummy again when the writers have a need for them to interact.


In A&F, Angel’s relationships with various people are either similar or better than they were in AtS s5. In A&F 9.19, both Angel and Faith seem to consider Angel is better and more heroic than Spike

Faith never outright says that Angel is more heroic than Spike. She doesn't seem to like Spike, which is entirely reasonable based on their past interactions.

I disagree that Angel's relationships with people are better now than they were in AtS season 5. Angel's relationships with Gunn and Connor are very much the same only now Angel doesn't see them as often. Faith clearly doesn't respect Angel as much as she would have if she'd met him in season 5. I would argue that Spike has less respect for Angel now when you look at where AtF left their relationship. Buffy, Giles and possibly Willow wouldn't work with Angel in season 5 because he was at W&H. Their problem was with W&H, not with Angel personally. Nowadays, their problem is with Angel personally. Buffy can't stand to look at him, Willow smacked him in the face and Giles's soul is screwing up his body. At worst, Whistler may have had a problem with Angel working at W&H but that's me guessing. Now, Whistler has threatened to kill him if he ever sees him again. Illyria is not helping Angel like she was in season 5. Cordelia and (according to IDW) Lorne are dead, and I doubt they'd be looking down on Angel from heaven and approving of what he's doing.

So yeah, I disagree that his relationship with anyone right now, is better than what it was during AtS season 5.



* Spike is the foremost hero of BtVS S8; Angel is the foremost villain of BtVS S8 (along with Whistler and Twilight).

I disagree that Spike was the "foremost" hero of BtVS season 8. He was a guest character. Yeah, he showed up at the end and helped save the day, but he wasn't in the story for nearly as long as say, Xander was. Xander saved the day in season 6 even though Spike arguably more of an action hero in season 6 than Xander was. I'm curious, who do you think is the "foremost hero" of season 6, Xander or Spike?

Also, Whistler wasn't even close to being the "foremost" villain of season 8. He showed up as a guest cameo in one issue that wasn't even part of the main series. That's not even close to being the foremost villain. In fact, until A&F it wasn't even a confirmed fact that he was a villain, he could have been betrayed or duped by the Twilight entity. The main villains in season 8 were Angel and the Twilight cat entity. Warren and Amy were more relevant as villains in season 8 than Whistler was.


Spike should have been rewarded with things like the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, being congratulated by the United Nations, etc.

I can't believe anyone would actually want the comic to *waste pages* showing Spike getting a Nobel Prize. Actually, scratch that, I can totally believe you'd want that included in the story. Whatever criticisms people people want to level at the books, I am thankful that the writers have more sense than to waste our time to show Spike literally receiving awards for how awesome he is. I don't care if he saved the world, I do not need to read pages devoted to Spike giving an acceptance speech. I don't see how that would advance the story at all. Not to mention that I don't think it's in Spike's character to want fancy awards.


Angel should have been dusted.

Sorry, but I just don't see that happening as long as Angel can sell comics.




* I’ve said since 8.39 was published that unless it comes out that Angel was “controlled” before 8.01 that he should be dusted. I’ve said that fan service is about the only reason Angel is undusted. Nothing in A&F has given support to the idea that Angel shouldn’t – eventually, if not immediately – be dusted.

Again: meh. Angel was not the first character to benefit from plot armour and I doubt he'll be the last. After the Hellmouth cave in season 8, they decided to let him live for whatever reason. Then he became Faith's responsibility and she wanted to keep him alive because of their past together. Then she was on board with him trying to resurrect Giles. Then Nadira found out about where Angel was living but she didn't kill him because she needed his help to bring back Marianne and then needed his help to kill Eyghon. Then Faith wouldn't let her kill him when he was skipping between Angel, Angelus and Giles. I don't find it that much more unbelievable that Angel has been allowed to live when compared to other characters in the past. You've claimed that in season 4 Spike earned his keep by killing vampires and demons and Angel is doing that currently.


Saving Giles isn’t even a good reason because Giles is partly responsible for the Twilight apocalypse

Agreed that Giles screwed up big time by not telling Buffy about the Twilight prophecy. That doesn't just apply to season 8, he literally had years to tell Buffy about the prophecy. Angel/Twilight was right when he said that Giles had more reason than most Watchers to be concerned that his Slayer might be the one to fulfil the Twilight prophecy. It's ambiguous exactly what criteria the Twilight Cat demanded to be the "Best Slayer Evar", but Buffy has several feats to her name. She's prevented multiple apocalypses, has come back from the dead twice and she shared her power with all the Potential Slayers. Oh yeah, and she's dated two vampires. Giles had every reason to suspect her of being part of the Twilight prophecy even during the show. In season 8 he was looking for a weapon to kill her (it was face-palmingly obvious what that weapon was, by the way) instead of simply telling her about the prophecy. He could have simply said "oh yeah, if you get so depressed that you get superpowers, don't have sex with any vampires." Giles not telling Buffy about Twilight was a prime example of a character screwing up and then getting punished for it.

Although, I do have to wonder... according to your (completely non textual) interpretation where Buffy was literally taken over by Angel's glow and then *raped*, how can you blame Giles at all? If Buffy had her free will completely stripped by the glow, how would Buffy have benefited in any way from knowing about the prophecy? My take on it is that if Buffy had known about the Twilight prophecy and the resulting apocalypse the sex would cause, she could have chosen to not have sex with Angel. But in your version of events, where Angel completely takes away her free will, how would it have possibly have helped if Buffy knew what Angel was planning? The moment Angel showed up and Buffy was exposed to the glow, wouldn't the same thing have happened anyway if she had no free will?


and Giles is 100% responsible for Eyghon not being killed in BtVS S8.

Again, Giles thought that Eyghon had been dead since BtVS season 2. The writers at the time and the audience thought that Eyghon was dead. If Giles knew about Eyghon being alive all this time, then it's entirely possible that Giles might have taken steps to kill him.


Plus, we never saw Giles research or even be concerned about the possibility that Buffy’s soul may have belonged to Eyghon.

Buffy's Eyghon tattoo was forced on her against her will. Giles and Ethan actually pledged their souls to Eyghon so that they could experience his power. Buffy never actually did that, she simply had a homing beacon stuck to the back of her neck. I don't think that demon and soul ownership works like you are suggesting. I don't think you can force a tattoo on somebody against their will and all of a sudden that person's soul belongs to a demon. I think that to sell your soul it requires a concious choice and consent on the part of the person doing the selling. Otherwise anyone could go around selling other people's souls, and narratively that makes no sense. Usually in fiction, when a demon owns somebody's soul, it's because that person screwed up and made a bad deal with the demon in exchange for momentary gain. We don't see Mayor Wilkins selling Buffy's soul to someone. The closest we've seen to what you are suggesting is demons who steal people's souls, but that seems to be a very specific power and it doesn't seem that Eyghon can do that unless the person sells their soul to him willingly like Giles and Ethan did. The fact that we never see Giles stressing out that Eyghon may own Buffy's soul suggests to me that there was no danger of Buffy "belonging" to Eyghon. That and the fact that Buffy had the tattoo removed pretty quickly afterwards, and also the fact that Giles thought Eyghon was dead and also it makes no narrative sense if anyone can give away the soul of somebody else.


Even given how Eyghon survived, Giles is still 100% responsible because apparently Giles didn’t research Eyghon well enough if he didn’t know Eyghon could do that.

All indications at the time seemed to suggest that Eyghon was dead. Eyghon seems a lot like the demon in the movie The Fallen in that it can't survive for very long outside of a host. Angel's demon spanked Eyghon good and proper and it seemed at the time like Eyghon was dead. Giles had no way of knowing that there was a dead rat under the floor that Eyghon could escape in. And after that, Eyghon was lying low and didn't want anyone to know that he was still alive.



Scott Allie is the head of Dark Horse Comics and he has editors. The Buffyverse comics are Dark Horse’s best selling comics and Spike is one of the most popular characters in those comics. Also, if he meant “bad guy” as “bad boy”, why wouldn’t he have said “bad gal” for Faith? It’s either something Allie intended to write, it’s a Freudian slip, or he actually meant “bad boy”. In any case, Spike is no longer a bad boy and Faith hasn’t been a “bad girl” since like “Dirty Girls” (7.18).

I don't know why this is even still being discussed. Scott Allie obviously meant "bad boy". That's what Spike's entire image is about. Anyone who disagrees must be unfamiliar with movies or TV. One doesn't need to be a villain in order to be a "bad boy".


Yet Spike seems to have given A&F at-most a boost of sales in the hundreds from what they otherwise would have been.

It's weird that you consider to know what the sales would have been if Spike wasn't in it. If Spike wasn't in it, the story would have been something different. We're dealing in hypotheticals here, and it's pretty odd that you claim to know that Spike boosted sales by the hundreds compared to the sales of a hypothetical issue where Spike wasn't in it and the story was about something else. You've got no idea what a hypothetical issue might have sold because that's not the story that was published.



Regarding his mother, only Drusilla and Spike would know anything about that.

I think you miss the point. The point being that if somebody disrespected Spike's mother to his face for the sole purpose of hurting Spike's feelings, I've got no doubt that people would call that a "heinous" act. I'd actually almost like to see that happen for she sheer outburst of rage that would cause on the forums. Spike's mother is obviously a very sensitive topic for him, and I've got no doubt that anyone who tried to hurt Spike's feelings by saying something disrespectful about Spike's mum would be labelled "heinous" by the fandom. Yeah, it's unlikely that anyone besides Spike and Dru would know about Anne Pratt being sired. But the point raised was that the fandom is overly defensive about their favourite characters. People felt that the word "heinous" was being used a little too liberally in regards to Spike disrespecting Nikki. It's an interesting thought exercise to consider how the fandom would react if any character wanted to give Spike grief about his weird, creepy mum. I think if I was quick, I might be able to snag a Red Lantern ring off someone.


If Spike’s considers his bleached hair look to be ‘dear to him’, characters’ have made fun of that and I’ve never seen a poster on any forum say anything negative about that.

Are you seriously comparing insulting somebody's hair, versus insulting their dead mother? Are you really making that comparison?



* As far as I know, Joss hasn’t given any opinion on A&F or spoken of anything in it. But certainly the only way I can consider various stuff in this Issue to be canon if is Joss says they are.

Since when do you get to decide what's canon and what isn't? I didn't like the episode She, I think it's the weakest episode in both shows. Can I just say that the episode is non-canon until Joss says otherwise?

You are trying to be the arbiter of canon here Mike. There is stuff in this issue that you didn't like, stuff that didn't mesh with your pre-established ideas for the characters. So you are trying to pick and choose what is canon from the issue. Sorry, but the whole issue is canon. You can take it or leave it, but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you refuse to accept what's on the page. You are always the one telling others that we aren't the arbiter of canon.

You are the one who suggested that Drusilla is stronger than Faith because of your interpretation of the artwork. You are the one who suggested that an enraged Spike is stronger than Angel and Faith combined because of the way the art depicted them lifting a coffin lid. You accepted this flimsy stuff as canonical based on the art without needing Joss to step in and give his opinion. It really does seem like you are picking and choosing which aspects of the canon you want to accept and which aspects of the canon you want to ignore.

Joss doesn't need to explicitly go through the issue and reassure us that all the stuff MikeB didn't like is or isn't canon. If the A&F series is canon, then this issue is canon by default. The only reason Joss might go back to it is if there is something in there that he doesn't agree with, something that he wants to declare non canon. Until he does that, the whole issue is canon by default. If the series was canon prior to this issue, we don't need Joss to reassure us just because there was something in there that you didn't like.



* I forgot that Spike would only need to beat Faith in order for Eyghon to take control of her. Even if one wants to consider that its about even in whether Spike or Faith would beat the other in a fight, consider Jenny Calender’s boost in strength and power after Eyghon possessed her and multiply that by a number, then add that extra strength and power to Spike – A full power Eyghon-infused Spike should relatively easily beat Faith unless some ‘Ben in Glory’ thing was happening. If a ‘Ben in Glory’ thing wasn’t happening, this fight makes about no sense.

Spike would need to actually beat Faith into unconsciousness for Eyghon to take control of her. Under most circumstances, knocking a Slayer unconscious in battle is not something that is easy to do.

By the "Ben in Glory" thing, I assume you mean that Spike's powerful subconscious was affecting Eyghon and making Eyghon-possessed Spike reluctant to kill Faith. Sorry, but there is zero evidence that happened. We've never seen anything like that with any of Eyghon's other possessed victims, and Spike doesn't even remember being possessed. Again, you're making stuff up because you don't want to accept that Eyghon-Spike couldn't insta-kill Faith.



Wow. I don’t recall you giving any credence to my F = m*a thing http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19057 and yet here you talk about “simple physics”. Here, you don’t seem to understand that Faith can lift far more than Spike weighs. As for your arguing, “You can argue all you like about how you think the fight "should" have gone, that doesn't change what happened on the page.” you somehow don’t apply that to yourself. Faith is felled by Spike’s body weight. That’s “what happened on the page”.

In your F=m*a thread, you were trying to apply real world physics to the Buffyverse and give a scientific explanation for why Buffy is stronger than Spike. You were suggesting that she is able to strike faster. Theories like that are good fun, but the fact is that we don't need a scientific explanation for why Buffy is stronger than Spike, it's part of they mythology. The reason Slayers are stronger than vampires is because "a wizard did it." I did find it a little weird that you never mention why Spike can't be stronger than Buffy when he taps into his Speed Force powers... I also remember you speculating that Illyria might weigh 600 lbs...

As for me "not understanding" that Faith can lift more than Spike weighs, I understand that just fine, thank you. I don't see what that has to do with what I was arguing. Spike fell on top of Faith, she wasn't expecting it, so she was momentarily knocked to the ground. I'm able to lift my own body weight, and I'm certainly able to lift the weight of a shoelace. That doesn't mean that I can't be "felled" by a loose shoelace if I'm not expecting it.

The difference between my interpretation and yours Mike, is that I do accept what's on the page. I might occasionally fanwank something, or apply a bit of personal canon and judgement when I feel that there is an inconsistency or something I feel is just plain silly. But when I'm using personal canon, I'll admit to it, I won't make sweeping, non-textual judgements and expect others to accept them as canon. And for the most part, I try not to rely on personal canon, and I'll accept that what happens on the page trumps any of my pre-established ideas of what should have happened.

Also, I won't declare stuff to be non-canon like you are doing here just because you don't like what's on the page.


What part of my saying “Joss Whedon is the only arbiter of canon” don’t you understand?

What I don't understand, is how apparently your ideas about the story like Spike's Acathla-spell, or his Drusilla magic-dust or his ability to heal in space etc. deserve serious consideration, and yet when the writers and editors share a bit of insight into the story *they created*, you think they should be dismissed and that their opinions are "immaterial".

Basically, you think MikeB's opinions > Gage and Allie's opinions. That's what I can't wrap my head around. Are you Joss Whedon, or in contact with him? If not, why do you have more authority to speak about the story than the writers and editors? Why should their "opinions" be dismissed whey they are sharing insight onto the book they worked on? We know that they are in contact with and receiving instructions from Joss Whedon. Why are you qualified to declare which issues or scenes are non-canon?



* Buffy was glowified into having sex with Angel. Angel raped Buffy. If Angel glowified Buffy or if Twilight did, either way Angel raped her.


Again, this is an idea that is not supported by the writers or the characters after the fact. This is an example of you trying to push your own *personal interpretation* as canon. The writers and editors have said that it wasn't rape. You say it was. Why are you more qualified than the writers and editors? Also, why have none of the other characters acted like Buffy was raped? You'd think that the lead character being raped would be a huge storyline, why would they not spell it out for us or treat it seriously?



Um, no: where you get this? Liam was never implied to have photographic memory or to have any artistic talent.

Where do you think Angel(us) got his good memory or artistic talent from?

MikeB
26-03-13, 12:30 PM
Vampire in Rug

* My saying Joss Whedon is the only arbiter of canon obviously encompasses the fact that posters on Buffyverse Boards aren’t arbiters of canon.

The writers of the comics write what’s in the comics. What they say outside those comics or in a Slay the Critics section are merely their opinions on stuff.


* We still don’t know what exactly from IDW is canon. Some things are hinted at as possibly being canon, but that’s about it.


If Joss doesn't want to be blamed for aspects of the story that people aren't happy with, then he should take his name off the cover. That’s debatable. My point is that some posters say things like Joss fully approves of everything in A&F and everything that anyone involved with them (the writers, Scott Allie, etc.) says about them. Some further say that anything said by a comic writer or Allie is canon unless Joss comes out and refutes it.


* My quote: “Nadira’s the one who “assigned” Spike as being the one to actually kill Eyghon.”

There’s a reason I put “assigned” in quotes. And Spike’s role in the fight was to be the one to actually kill Eyghon. That’s something Nadira and Spike decided and obviously not something Angel and Faith intended. That was my point.


My quote: “Spike clearly knows he’s better and morally superior to Angel.”

I wish certain fans would stop acting like the writers don't know this. Nothing suggests Christos Gage knows this.


Angel really has no place talking down to or insulting Spike right now. Ever again.


Yet many fans assume that Angel is speaking as the voice of the author, as though the Dark Horse staff consider Angel to be morally superior to Spike, when really, it could be as simple as the Dark Horse staff choosing to write Angel being an ass to Spike as an honest character flaw for Angel. Gage is writing these Issues and Allie and/or someone(s) is editing them. Joss may or may not be reading the scripts. Gage said something like Angel was already redeemed before A&F even began. About nothing since his saying that suggests Gage ever thought differently. He now has Faith saying anything bad Angel’s ever done isn’t his fault or actually him.


Then we've get silly stuff like Scott Allie going out of his way to mention that Spike chose to have a soul, as though he feels the need to prove himself to the fans that he knows that. Allie called Spike a bad guy.


* My quote: “It is beyond silly nonsense to try to make comparable Spike’s BtVS S7 and after actions and others’ reactions to those actions to Angel’s actions in BtVS S8 and others’ reactions to those actions.”

Essentially, you agree unless you actually don’t think the “scale” of the crimes matter when making comparisons.


* My quote: “Spike did bad stuff too and he wasn’t really punished for doing that bad stuff!” Spike was punished.”

This is true in the way that Angel was punished for his previous actions by being sent to a hell dimension for 100 years.


* My quote: “In A&F, Angel’s relationships with various people are either similar or better than they were in AtS s5. In A&F 9.19, both Angel and Faith seem to consider Angel is better and more heroic than Spike”

I’ve already explained this in other threads and on previous posts on this thread.


* Spike was a main hero of BtVS S8. Angel was a main villain of BtVS S8. This is canon. In short, Angel and Faith should regard and treat Spike as such compared to how they regard and treat Angel.


My quote: “Spike should have been rewarded with things like the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, being congratulated by the United Nations, etc.”

I can't believe anyone would actually want the comic to *waste pages* showing Spike getting a Nobel Prize. Um, why not? President Barack Obama got one for not being quite as bad as President George Walker Bush when it comes to foreign policy. Spike’s actions resulted in the world not being destroyed.


I don't care if he saved the world, I do not need to read pages devoted to Spike giving an acceptance speech. I don't see how that would advance the story at all. Well, it would explain why Spike was able to fly around in a spaceship in plain sight in London and in San Francisco. It would give a decent reason for why Buffy got immunity and the others weren’t charged with anything. Spike could use part of the $5MM to support Buffy so she doesn’t have to be a coffee waitress.


Not to mention that I don't think it's in Spike's character to want fancy awards. Because he’s a completely modest and humble guy?


In season 8 [Giles] was looking for a weapon to kill her (it was face-palmingly obvious what that weapon was, by the way) Huh?


Although, I do have to wonder... according to your (completely non textual) interpretation where Buffy was literally taken over by Angel's glow and then *raped*, how can you blame Giles at all? Good point. :) Buffy could have stopped Twilight before this happened. We saw Willow be able to turn AngelTwilight into a frog. In that one Issue, Xander is treating Buffy as if she’s Superman. In comics, even powerful characters like Thor Odinson and Superman can be affected by magic.


* My quote: “and Giles is 100% responsible for Eyghon not being killed in BtVS S8.”

I’ve already explained this.


Scott Allie obviously meant "bad boy". No, what’s obvious is Scott Allie said Spike’s a “bad guy” and that Faith is a “bad girl”.


* My quote: “Yet Spike seems to have given A&F at-most a boost of sales in the hundreds from what they otherwise would have been.”

You seemed to completely ignore that “at-most” part.


* My quote: As far as I know, Joss hasn’t given any opinion on A&F or spoken of anything in it. But certainly the only way I can consider various stuff in this Issue to be canon if is Joss says they are.

Spike has never considered that Angel and Angelus are literally two completely separate and completely different people. And I’ve already explained why Spike saying Angelus was able to kill them all in a moment makes zero sense.

My point is that until Joss writes such things in a comic or says such things are what Spike thinks, they are simply things in a Gage comic (like the Car Scene) that make zero sense. And obviously there is a difference from something that makes zero sense and something that a poster simply doesn’t like.


You are the one who suggested that Drusilla is stronger than Faith because of your interpretation of the artwork. You are the one who suggested that an enraged Spike is stronger than Angel and Faith combined because of the way the art depicted them lifting a coffin lid. You accepted this flimsy stuff as canonical With the Spike thing, I said it showed that an enraged Spike is stronger than Angel and Faith in “normal mode”. Both those things made sense (Drusilla was shown to be stronger than Kendra was.).


Spike would need to actually beat Faith into unconsciousness for Eyghon to take control of her. You’re right. Still, that fight made about no sense if not for some kind of “Ben in Glory” thing.

* Spike acting as if he doesn’t remember what happened doesn’t mean he actually doesn’t. Faith remembered being possessed.


* Essentially, you agree that Faith was felled by Spike’s body weight. Faith was looking at Spike when that happened, so she wasn’t caught unawares.


Spike fell on top of Faith, she wasn't expecting it, She was looking at Spike when that happened.


* My quote: “Buffy was glowified into having sex with Angel. Angel raped Buffy. If Angel glowified Buffy or if Twilight did, either way Angel raped her.”

I more discuss this in this thread: http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19298


Where do you think Angel(us) got his good memory or artistic talent from? Being a vampire. Nothing indicates that a vampire having a photographic memory is something special. Angel would have a long time to practice his artwork.

Vampire in Rug
26-03-13, 07:57 PM
Vampire in Rug

* My saying Joss Whedon is the only arbiter of canon obviously encompasses the fact that posters on Buffyverse Boards aren’t arbiters of canon.

And yet in this very thread you declare parts of this issue to be non-canon like you've got some kind of authority on such matters.


The writers of the comics write what’s in the comics. What they say outside those comics or in a Slay the Critics section are merely their opinions on stuff.

I do find it very odd that you think the opinions of Scott Allie and Christos Gage have less weight than a fan-opinion. These guys work with Joss Whedon. They are responsible for bringing his story to life. There might be an entire backstory for Alistair Combs that Joss discussed with Gage that didn't make it into the book because there were time and space constraints. That is just one example of an instance where Gage -the writer, would have a better understanding than us -the fans. You know when Joss Whedon says something that gets transcribed and passed around the internet forever like it's the gospel? Gage and Allie are immersed in that. Imagine all the stuff Joss tells them about the Buffyverse that just never gets written down and repeated to the public. I think it's ridiculous for you to suggest that they don't know what they are talking about.

When the writer of a Star Wars novel clarifies something in an interview, or a writer/director/showrunner for the Clone Wars says something in an interview, do you think that we should just dismiss their opinion because they aren't George Lucas? I'm curious to your answer here.



* We still don’t know what exactly from IDW is canon. Some things are hinted at as possibly being canon, but that’s about it.

After the Fall and the Spike series are generally considered to be canon. The rest of IDW's Angel takes place in a sort of grey area where it might have been canon if you want it to be. I don't know why this still gets brought up. ATF was directly referenced in issue #1, as for the rest, DH has told us repeatedly that they will probably not directly reference the IDW ongoing, but they will make every effort to avoid contradicting it. If you liked the IDW ongoing Angel, that's great, put it into your personal canon. Either way, the IDW Angel is going to be largely irrelevant to what happens at Dark Horse because the writers don't want to confuse the audience or give them homework from another company before they can enjoy this story.


That’s debatable. My point is that some posters say things like Joss fully approves of everything in A&F and everything that anyone involved with them (the writers, Scott Allie, etc.) says about them. Some further say that anything said by a comic writer or Allie is canon unless Joss comes out and refutes it.

And *my* point is that Scott Allie didn't get to be at the top of Dark Horse by
misrepresenting the writers, getting the basic facts of a story wrong or selling his opinions as facts. He's a professional, he's worked with countless writers and dealt with countless fandoms. He's always been up front and honest when he wasn't sure about something or when he was "merely" giving an opinion. The rest of the time, I don't see why we can't just take him at his word. If he was incorrect about something or dishonest it would be very easy for Joss to step in an correct him. I don't know why you would assume that the writing staff is *wrong* when they say something that doesn't mesh with your own personal fanon.

And my point stands that if Joss Whedon was unhappy with A&F, or if it wasn't the story that he wanted told for his characters, he should take his name off the cover.


And Spike’s role in the fight was to be the one to actually kill Eyghon. That’s something Nadira and Spike decided and obviously not something Angel and Faith intended. That was my point.

Nadira gave him the sword because he needed a weapon. Nobody "decided" who gets to kill Eyghon. In the heat of battle, whoever has the *opportunity* will be the one to kill the demon. At no point did Nadira "decide" that Spike and only Spike was the one worthy of killing Eyghon. And even if she did decide that, who gives a crap, she's not the boss. I'm curious, why do you think Nadira "chose" Spike to kill Eyghon?

There’s a reason I put “assigned” in quotes. And Spike’s role in the fight was to be the one to actually kill Eyghon. That’s something Nadira and Spike decided and obviously not something Angel and Faith intended. That was my point.



Allie called Spike a bad guy.

He meant "bad boy" it was a typo/slip-up. Seriously people, get over this.



* Spike was a main hero of BtVS S8. Angel was a main villain of BtVS S8. This is canon. In short, Angel and Faith should regard and treat Spike as such compared to how they regard and treat Angel.

That's not the way it works in real life. If you find somebody's personality to be grating, you're not going to like them regardless of how "heroic" they are.

Xander has been far more heroic than Drusilla, that doesn't mean that Spike is obligated to like Xander more.


Um, why not? President Barack Obama got one for not being quite as bad as President George Walker Bush when it comes to foreign policy. Spike’s actions resulted in the world not being destroyed.

Would you want to read a comic about Barack Obama receiving an award? Would that make for a riveting story? I can't believe I'm actually debating with you why Spike recieving a Nobel Prize would be a waste of pages... Seriously, that would be fansiervice in its purest form.


Well, it would explain why Spike was able to fly around in a spaceship in plain sight in London and in San Francisco.

Who's going to stop him? Is there a law against flying around in a space ship?


It would give a decent reason for why Buffy got immunity and the others weren’t charged with anything. Spike could use part of the $5MM to support Buffy so she doesn’t have to be a coffee waitress.

And by taking care of Buffy's money problems you've completely taken the drama and realism out of season 9 and killed off several of the early storylines. Also, you've undermined her feminist icon status by having her rely on her strong vampire boyfriend to pay for everything...


Good point. :) Buffy could have stopped Twilight before this happened. We saw Willow be able to turn AngelTwilight into a frog. In that one Issue, Xander is treating Buffy as if she’s Superman. In comics, even powerful characters like Thor Odinson and Superman can be affected by magic.

You're suggesting that Buffy had her free will completely taken away by Angel's glow. If that is true, it wouldn't matter if Giles told her about the Twilight prophecy or not because as soon as Angel showed up with his glow she'd have become his mindless sex toy according to your (completely wrong) take on the story. But that's a discussion for another thread.



* My quote: “and Giles is 100% responsible for Eyghon not being killed in BtVS S8.”

I’ve already explained this.

No, you haven't. You just keep quoting yourself over and over again. I've already explained that Giles thought Eyghon had been dead for years. How can you blame Giles for Eyghon not being killed in BtVS season 8 when Giles thought that Eyghon *already was* dead since BtVS season 2? Do you blame Willow for Rack still being alive in season 9? Should we blame Buffy if Natalie French the she-mantis is revealed to still really be alive in season 10? People can only react to information they are aware of.



* My quote: As far as I know, Joss hasn't given any opinion on A&F or spoken of anything in it. But certainly the only way I can consider various stuff in this Issue to be canon if is Joss says they are.

Can other fans dictate what isn't canon, or is it just you? There are episodes I don't like in the show, maybe I can claim those episodes are non-canon until Joss tells me otherwise. I think some parts of season 9 are lame, maybe those issues of season 9 are non-canon until Joss says otherwise.

Mike, if you're not enjoying the story or if you want to ignore certain parts of it, that's fine. But you should never again tell anyone that they aren't the arbiter of canon. Because that is exactly what you are trying to do here, you are trying to be the arbiter of canon. You didn't like this issue, and therefore you are calling it non-canon. I call bullshit on that.


Spike has never considered that Angel and Angelus are literally two completely separate and completely different people.

He never explicitly says that they are two separate and completely different people in this issue, either.


And I’ve already explained why Spike saying Angelus was able to kill them all in a moment makes zero sense.

Obviously, Spike was not being literal when he says that Angelus could kill them in a moment. Spike was exaggerating and his point was that Angelus could be generally dangerous so everyone should be on their guard around him. Spike was not literally saying that Angelus could beat a dozen Slayers on his own.


My point is that until Joss writes such things in a comic or says such things are what Spike thinks, they are simply things in a Gage comic (like the Car Scene) that make zero sense.

Things like that are completely subjective. It makes zero sense TO YOU. I've opened up the Car Scene from A&F side by side with the Spike issue #5 and I had no problems with it. To some fans, it might make "zero sense" why Spike was allowed to continue living after hey betrayed the scoobies so many times. That doesn't mean that season 4 and beyond are non-canon because they make "zero sense" to some fans. What happens on the screen or on the page are canon, whether you can make sense of it or not.


And obviously there is a difference from something that makes zero sense and something that a poster simply doesn’t like.

You don't like that Spike considers Angelus to be a threat. You don't like that Faith was able to beat Eyghon-Spike. This stuff obviously bothers you to the point that you want to call this issue non-canon. This is not stuff that makes "zero sense", this is you being upset that the canon of the story doesn't support your views on Spike being a million times awesomer than Faith and Angel combined.


With the Spike thing, I said it showed that an enraged Spike is stronger than Angel and Faith in “normal mode”.

That was laughable when you first suggested it and it's laughable still. Spike is NOT stronger than Angel and Faith combined and I don't care if Spike is in super-rage mode or not.

I can think of a plethora of in-universe reasons why Angel and Faith might appear strained when the lifted the coffin lid without coming to such ridiculous conclusions such as Spike being stronger than Angel and Faith combined.

But the reason I brought it up is because you were so quick to accept it as a canonical fact that Spike is stronger than Angel and Faith combined because of how the comic depicted them lifting the lid to Giles comic. But if you are doubting that this latest issue of the comic is canon, then whose to say that other issues are either? Maybe Angel lifted to coffin lid all by himself, and the panel where he is shown lifting it with Faith is non-canon. I very much doubt that panel came from Joss himself in order to demonstrate Angel and Faith's relative strength to Spike.

Basically you cling on to the flimsiest of excuses, such as this coffin lid panel if you think it makes Spike look good. But the moment an issue comes out that depicts Spike merely showing concern about Angelus, or shows Spike being kicked in the nuts by Faith, you declare the issue non-canon. Forgive me if I can't take you entirely seriously here.


You’re right. Still, that fight made about no sense if not for some kind of “Ben in Glory” thing.

There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests that Spike's subconscious was fighting back against Eyghon or influencing Eyghon in any way. That is 100% made up by you.


* Spike acting as if he doesn’t remember what happened doesn’t mean he actually doesn’t. Faith remembered being possessed.

Faith was only possessed for a few moments and it's debatable how much control Eyghon had her in before Nadira was able to wake her up with a shallow cut. Spike was possessed for long enough to have a fight scene with Faith. Eyghon was holding Spike, it's unlikely he would have put Spike on the ground until he had Spike under his complete control. So yeah, I can accept that Faith was semi-lucid enough to remember what happened when she was woken up, whereas Spike was possessed for longer and therefore didn't remember.

Also, I think it was established that it is easier for Eyghon to possess dead bodies than it is for him to possess an unconscious person, and if that is the case, again, I have no problem accepting that Spike couldn't remember.

Why would you assume that Spike was lying when he said he couldn't remember? Why would Spike even need to lie? That just makes him look like a dick.



Being a vampire. Nothing indicates that a vampire having a photographic memory is something special. Angel would have a long time to practice his artwork.

Your idea that photographic memory and good artwork skills are just another vampire power is pretty laughable. Spike's drawing of Angel's face on the punching bag sure was a masterpiece.

MikeB
09-04-13, 01:47 AM
Vampire in Rug

* Again, what part of my asserting that Joss Whedon is the only arbiter of canon don’t you understand?


* My quote: “The writers of the comics write what’s in the comics. What they say outside those comics or in a Slay the Critics section are merely their opinions on stuff.”

This will always be true. If it came from Joss, they’d say so.


* My quote: “And Spike’s role in the fight was to be the one to actually kill Eyghon. That’s something Nadira and Spike decided and obviously not something Angel and Faith intended.”

This is what’s “on the page.”


why do you think Nadira "chose" Spike to kill Eyghon? She’s okay with Spike and she’s not okay with Angel (at least wasn’t yet).


My quote: “Allie called Spike a bad guy.”

He meant "bad boy" it was a typo/slip-up. You’re not Scott Allie.


* My quote: “Spike was a main hero of BtVS S8. Angel was a main villain of BtVS S8. This is canon. In short, Angel and Faith should regard and treat Spike as such compared to how they regard and treat Angel.”

This will always be true.


* My quote: “President Barack Obama got [a Nobel Peace Prize] for not being quite as bad as President George Walker Bush when it comes to foreign policy. Spike’s actions resulted in the world not being destroyed.”

Why didn’t you apply your “this how things work in real life” here? In “real life”, Spike probably would have gotten a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, etc. In “real life”, Angel would have been dusted.


I can't believe I'm actually debating with you why Spike recieving a Nobel Prize would be a waste of pages... Seriously, that would be fansiervice in its purest form. Fan service in “its purest form” is Angel still being undusted.


My quote: “Well, it would explain why Spike was able to fly around in a spaceship in plain sight in London and in San Francisco.”

Who's going to stop him? Is there a law against flying around in a space ship? It’s not as if they checked in with the FAA. And everyone would like to have such technology.


And by taking care of Buffy's money problems you've completely taken the drama and realism out of season 9 Seriously? You think Buffy having student loans (and her not having paid them) is realistic? A&F is simply unrealistic. Any realism would require Angel being dusted.


Also, you've undermined her feminist icon status by having her rely on her strong vampire boyfriend to pay for everything... Is Faith’s wealth comes from Giles a negative?


You're suggesting that Buffy had her free will completely taken away by Angel's glow. No, I maintain that it was around like the “Something Blue” (4.09) spell except more powerful.


* My quote: “and Giles is 100% responsible for Eyghon not being killed in BtVS S8.”

I’ve already explained that Giles not researching Eyghon enough is his own fault.


My quote: “Spike has never considered that Angel and Angelus are literally two completely separate and completely different people.”

He never explicitly says that they are two separate and completely different people in this issue, either. His talking about them as if they are is about the same as his saying they are.


* My quote: “With the Spike thing, I said it showed that an enraged Spike is stronger than Angel and Faith in “normal mode”.

This is what is “on the page.”


Basically you cling on to the flimsiest of excuses, such as this coffin lid panel if you think it makes Spike look good. But the moment an issue comes out that depicts Spike merely showing concern about Angelus, or shows Spike being kicked in the nuts by Faith, you declare the issue non-canon. Forgive me if I can't take you entirely seriously here. You should address what I actually said. You don’t apply your “this is what’s on the page” if it goes against your own arguments.


My quote: “that fight made about no sense if not for some kind of “Ben in Glory” thing.”

This will always be true.


My quote: “Spike acting as if he doesn’t remember what happened doesn’t mean he actually doesn’t. Faith remembered being possessed.”

This will always be true.


Your idea that photographic memory and good artwork skills are just another vampire power is pretty laughable. Spike's drawing of Angel's face on the punching bag sure was a masterpiece. It seems you forgot all the flashback scenes of Darla, Spike, and Drusilla. It seems you also forgot “Intervention” (5.18).

KingofCretins
09-04-13, 04:10 AM
MikeB, where did you obtain the habit of quoting yourself as an authority to support your own argument? Seriously, like a half dozen times in that post, the formulation "I said this/it was true".

Also...


In “real life”, Spike probably would have gotten a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, etc.

... this quote happened. Without any sense of irony whatsoever.


It seems you forgot all the flashback scenes of Darla, Spike, and Drusilla. It seems you also forgot “Intervention” (5.18).

What flashback scenes demonstrate Darla, Spike, or Drusilla having eidetic memory? Or in "Intervention"? Angel's (standard for TV hit and miss) eidetic memory seems as likely to be an entirely personal attribute like Andy Hoelich's gymnastic skills (I'd be tempted to add Holden's Tae Kwon Do, but it's too hard to differentate that from the once-cleverly lampshaded way in which vampires "pick up" martial arts skills). Drusilla's special ability is one she had in life. There's no Anne Rice "the dark gift is different for each of us" potpourri of vampire powers in the Buffyverse.

MikeB
13-06-13, 06:25 AM
What flashback scenes demonstrate Darla, Spike, or Drusilla having eidetic memory? The flashbacks. They are recalling stuff with starling accuracy.


* "Intervention" (5.18): I was obviously referring to Spike's drawings of Buffy -- unless one assumes Angel drew multiple pictures of Buffy and Spike stole them in BtVS S2 and somehow travelled with them or shipped them around; Spike obviously drew pictures of Buffy that were just as good as the pictures Angel drew.


* There's nothing to suggest that Liam of Galway had a photographic memory.


Drusilla's special ability is one she had in life. I obviously didn't say that Drusilla didn't have the Sight when she was a human.