PDA

View Full Version : Which vampire is the outlier - Angel or Spike



bespangled
16-07-18, 02:23 AM
I was listening to the podcast Slayerfest 98 last night and one of the guests was seriously anti-Spike. The discussion went along some of the usual paths: Spike is a soulless vampire. The B-verse positions soulless vampires as evil and incapable of good. BTVS made Spike good in order to create Spuffy - it broke all the universe rules, etc. I completely disagree, as did the host. That's when it got interesting.

The discussion turned to which vampire was actually the outlier. Given what we have seen, Spike was capable of love and devotion with Drusilla, but the same devotion was shown to last even longer between James and Elizabeth. Until Angel was souled he and Darla also clearly shared a deep bond. We see some vampires in relationships - nested together as Buffy says. Overall I'm with Dru - vampires can love deeply if not wisely.

In relation to Angel, Spike with no chip was pretty much a normal vampire. He was strong willed, and committed to reaching his goal, but we see that in Russell Winters. Winters lived in the human world successfully like Dru and Spike, and though they all killed they did not drive victims insane. Darla was interested in goading Angel into new heights of depravity, but to all appearances she let him play without interference. Drusilla just enjoyed making a pretty mess, and playing with dollies. The thing that vampires seem to have in common is a disregard for their victims - except for Angel. His passion wasn't killing.

ANGEL
I couldn't take my eyes off them (victims). I was only in it for the evil. It was everything to me. It was art. The destruction of a human being. I would've considered Dana a masterpiece.

It's important to take into account that chipped Spike is not the same as unchipped Spike. Operand conditioning has forced him to adapt his behaviors in order to survive. The Spike we saw in season one was more than willing to kill, but he didn't enjoy the pre-show even before he was chipped. But Angel was a true psychopath, and that makes him an outlier in vampire behavior. The fact that he raped and murdered wasn't unique - but the fact that he focused on the complete destruction of his victims was beyond normal.

HardlyThere
16-07-18, 02:59 AM
he didn't enjoy the pre-show even before he was chipped

He seemed quite content to terrorize Buffy in Halloween. There's the whole "not worth it if they don't cry" stuff from S7 would indicate he wasn't opposed to some theater in his kills. If we're to believe Wes's assessment that Spike was only behind Angelus in terms of maliciousness, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say neither are outliers since they're the worst of the lot.

TimeTravellingBunny
16-07-18, 04:22 AM
I don't think any vampire is "the outlier" - not in a sense of being especially evil or less evil. Soulless vampires are all evil, but it manifests in different ways - they have different personalities, like humans.

The only "outliers" are vampires with special powers, like Dracula, the Master, and for some reason, Drusilla (not her visions - she had that ay a human - but the thrall. Though we only saw her use it once.)

Cheese Slices
16-07-18, 09:28 AM
I think of it more as a spectrum or a "Kinsey scale of evil", with Angel falling more on the pure evil side and Spike either falling in the middle or the "has some humanity" left side. I like the theory that it depends on who you were as a human.

Rebcake
16-07-18, 09:34 AM
I don't think any vampire is "the outlier" - not in a sense of being especially evil or less evil. Soulless vampires are all evil, but it manifests in different ways - they have different personalities, like humans.

The only "outliers" are vampires with special powers, like Dracula, the Master, and for some reason, Drusilla (not her visions - she had that ay a human - but the thrall. Though we only saw her use it once.)

We saw Dru use her thrall on Kendra AND on Giles.

We see with the Judge that only Angelus is deemed "pure demon" enough. Spike, Dru, and Dalton all have some element of humanity that he lacks. It's a small sample, but the other vampires that we get to know — Harmony, Darla, Sam Lawson, the Gorch brothers, Mr. Trick, Sunday, etc — probably would not have passed the Judge's strict purity test, either.

bespangled
16-07-18, 09:54 AM
I don't think any vampire is "the outlier" - not in a sense of being especially evil or less evil. Soulless vampires are all evil, but it manifests in different ways - they have different personalities, like humans.

The only "outliers" are vampires with special powers, like Dracula, the Master, and for some reason, Drusilla (not her visions - she had that ay a human - but the thrall. Though we only saw her use it once.)

Evil is determined by how it manifests. It can't exist in a vacuum. If it doesn't manifest in any way, then it isn't evil. In other words, all vampires can't be considered be evil unless they are doing something evil, and there are gradations there. We get into grey areas. Is a quick death worse than a prolonged one? Are the vamps who work the suck-houses less evil than the vamps who prefer massacres?

I'm with Cheese Slices on the Kinsey scale because I can't really see each vamp being the same degree of evil because they do manifest in different ways. Saying that Angel was the worst in the world, the scourge of Europe - that's all a compliment in some ways. But it also points to his special status. I'd agree that Angel was pretty close to pure evil. I suspect it did have a lot to do with all the repressed rage he felt as a human.

Yes, Spike terrorized Buffy in preparation before he attacked and attempted to kill her. From what we've seen fear makes the blood taste sweeter. He also talked about rape - a power move which also seems like a normal vamp attack. Literally - a vamp penetrates a victim against their will even without sex. I don't argue with either of those - I just don't think that they make Spike special.

HardlyThere
16-07-18, 11:41 AM
We saw Dru use her thrall on Kendra AND on Giles.

We see with the Judge that only Angelus is deemed "pure demon" enough. Spike, Dru, and Dalton all have some element of humanity that he lacks. It's a small sample, but the other vampires that we get to know — Harmony, Darla, Sam Lawson, the Gorch brothers, Mr. Trick, Sunday, etc — probably would not have passed the Judge's strict purity test, either.

The Judge's test always seemed a bit faulty. He burns up Dalton for liking to read, this simply joy making him too human. But we know Angelus likes such human things as well--theater, music, drawing. Just a couple episodes later, the whole Passion voiceover pretty much debunks The Judge's logic.

Silver1
16-07-18, 12:42 PM
Colour me thick but what does "outlier" actually mean?

HardlyThere
16-07-18, 01:40 PM
Colour me thick but what does "outlier" actually mean?

I assume it means weirdo in this context. Is Spike the weirdo because he has "humanity" or is Angel the weirdo because he (supposedly) has none?

TimeTravellingBunny
16-07-18, 01:56 PM
The Judge's test always seemed a bit faulty. He burns up Dalton for liking to read, this simply joy making him too human. But we know Angelus likes such human things as well--theater, music, drawing. Just a couple episodes later, the whole Passion voiceover pretty much debunks The Judge's logic.

The Judge always seemed a bit thick.

(And yes, Drusilla used thrall twice...thanks for the correction..but both in the space of the s2 finale two-parter.)

- - - Updated - - -


I assume it means weirdo in this context.
:lol:

It's a statistical term. It basically means an exception - something very different from all other examples of the group, which should not be used to calculate the overall average value.

DeepBlueJoy
16-07-18, 02:19 PM
I think Angel is an outlier, because human Liam is in fact at minimum a narcissist, and possibly has sociopathic tendencies. Unlike other vampires, who are shown to have attachments -- not to humans, but to other vampires -- Angelus has none. This is demonstrated when he abandons Darla. James is horrified by his behavior, as I recall. Darla risks herself to rescue Angelus, but when Angelus' hide is on the line, he has only one concern. Angelus.

It's difficult to have empathy for people without a soul when you barely had it when you had a soul. He learns the high cost when his soul is abruptly shoved back inside... but even that doesn't really make him deeply empathic. He is quite fine with leaving Darla and Dru to eat the lawyers... as ANGEL. He only refrains from such behavior most of the time because being 'heartless' and un-empathic makes him less likely to be redeemed.

Understand that I'm not anti Angel, but that I really do think he's a deeply ruthless individual... all versions of him. He has serious attachment issues. He doesn't attach.

The only thing about the (shock of the) returned soul is that it makes him acutely aware of right and wrong... He's still not capable of empathy. He's not connected to those he saves, as I think Doyle tells him. Those connections he develops over the years do mean something, but when he becomes obsessed with something else, he easily ditches them (when he's obsessed with Darla, for example). He also steals a year of their memories (at least) when he rewrites their lives on going to W&H. And one wonders if that made it easier for them to 'choose' to sign on.

Vampires aren't good. Angelus is not good. Vampires are like any other individual -- they have a variety of ways of being connected to each other and to the world. Angelus is like most sociopaths. He's connected to very little. His soul makes him see the value of those connections -- his friends serve as his emotional guideline, the same way the scoobies and Buffy serve as Spike's moral guideline... He doesn't have any innate emotional capacity. Yes, he has feelings, but they are always self oriented and self filtered. He is obsessed in his love for Buffy... but he isn't looking for HER needs. He cannot. He's looking for what HE believes she should have and should want and should need... It's always FULLY and completely Angel centered.

He has NO window on the feelings of anyone but himself in ANY iteration.

And no, I'm not saying that he's incapable of love. I believe he IS capable. If he wasn't, he couldn't derive joy from feeling loved by Buffy. He just cannot see outside his own perspective.

Blue

EDIT: So, if he has no empathy, why does he fight to do good? He has a clear compass of right and wrong from his soul. It doesn't make him connect. But it does make him moral.

Stoney
16-07-18, 02:32 PM
I think all vamps vary because they are based on the human personality with differing wants, strengths and weaknesses. They also can have different demon essences which might affect the strength/power of a vamp I suppose. We know now that Spike and Angel have the same demon essence from Archaeus, as did The Master, Darla and Dru. So the differences between them as a specific comparison we can lay more directly as being their human personalities and then perhaps their reputations and that of the Aurelius line as also having been influenced by the specific demon essence too.

We don't know the details of exactly what the Judge looked at and for me it works that Angel's denial of his human emotions, his wish to reject love as an example, is enough for the Judge to determine that he has no humanity as a broad statement. Not only do we come to learn of Angel's interest in some elements of art/human society, but as Angel's relationship with his father greatly affects the choices and behaviours he shows as a vampire his connection through rejection is still based on emotional responses to his past. Darla's whole point about how killing his father was still based on love is driven by this. So I just don't see Spike as having a greater connection to humanity than Angel, it is that he looks to embrace an element of William's core motivation as his prime influence. Importantly, it's one that most humans understand as a 'good' one, to love and be loved. However, that doesn't mean that he did so in a healthy way and I think that was what S6 came to show, the limitation that the soulless vampire has in their emotions and motivations, even if they seemingly are driven by something that can result in good acts.

I don't think either are outliers beyond the fact that they were considered to have been worse in terms of the acts of evil that they committed and the whole reputations that they had as presented by the Council. We are presented this as a truth that does separate them from the main, so a lot depends on how you accept that. But personality wise, especially the aspect of retained humanity, I believe it worked exactly the same way for both of them, how they reacted to their human influencing personality/motivations was the same they just differ because they are individual. One embraced what the other rejected but both were operating as soulless vampires formed in part from the human they were but with a demon inclusion. :noidea:

TimeTravellingBunny
16-07-18, 03:05 PM
I think Angel is an outlier, because human Liam is in fact at minimum a narcissist, and possibly has sociopathic tendencies. Unlike other vampires, who are shown to have attachments -- not to humans, but to other vampires -- Angelus has none. This is demonstrated when he abandons Darla. James is horrified by his behavior

You are completely misremembering the AtS flashbacks.
It was the exact opposite. In the flashback in The Trial, when Angel and Darla were in France and got surrounded by vampire hunters, he was talking about how the teo of them could fight them - but Darla instead knocked hin out, took the only horse, and told him "if you get out of this, see you in Vienna" and rode off.

The flashbacks with James and Elizabeth were a couple of years later, and Angel was annoyed with the lovey doviness of those two, while James was telling him that he was selfish and didn't really love Darla.

But having seen the previous flashback, even if Angel had previously had any illusions about the depth of caring in his vampire relationship - Darla's actions would have disavowed him of any such illusions. Did he really detest the idea of vampire love to begin with, or was that what his sire and long time lover taught him? Maybe that's why he was so hostile to anyone who believed in true love? We don't know.

And does that make Darla the outlier? She wasn't all that caring or good for quite a while after she was brought back as human, either. Are they both outliers?

Or, more likely - no one is an outlier? Vampires just have different personalities, just like humans.

HardlyThere
16-07-18, 03:49 PM
The Judge always seemed a bit thick.

(And yes, Drusilla used thrall twice...thanks for the correction..but both in the space of the s2 finale two-parter.)

- - - Updated - - -


:lol:

It's a statistical term. It basically means an exception - something very different from all other examples of the group, which should not be used to calculate the overall average value.

Like I said, weirdo. Anomaly.

I don't get the whole disparaging of Liam. He was a drunken frat boy. That's a far cry from Hannibal Lector.

vampmogs
16-07-18, 04:22 PM
I don't get the whole disparaging of Liam. He was a drunken frat boy. That's a far cry from Hannibal Lector.

I agree. I've always found it extremely strange how people talk about Liam. Other than the resentment he had towards his father, we never saw anything to suggest he was this bad guy people make him out to be or held onto a lot of anger. In fact, based on how William was mocked and humiliated by everyone around him, you'd think Spike has more of a basis to deeply resent society than Liam/Angel. Liam was a "drunken whoring layabout" but there's absolutely nothing to suggest he was ever guilty of anything more than that. He was for all intents and purposes pretty harmless.

TimeTravellingBunny
16-07-18, 06:43 PM
Like I said, weirdo. Anomaly.
It's just a really funny way to put it.

- - - Updated - - -


I agree. I've always found it extremely strange how people talk about Liam. Other than the resentment he had towards his father, we never saw anything to suggest he was this bad guy people make him out to be or held onto a lot of anger. In fact, based on how William was mocked and humiliated by everyone around him, you'd think Spike has more of a basis to deeply resent society than Liam/Angel. Liam was a "drunken whoring layabout" but there's absolutely nothing to suggest he was ever guilty of anything more than that. He was for all intents and purposes pretty harmless.

Well, Spike did torture people with railroad spikes. Possibly some of those same people, likely because he overheard what was said about him, that "getting a railroad spike through your head" was better than hearing his poetry.

MikeB
16-07-18, 07:59 PM
All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.



* Spike is far more than an "outlier"--He's unique. The only vampire in history to win his soul back. It doesn't seem vampire/Slayer relationships are common. Spike destroyed Sunnydale and closed the Hellmouth for years.


* By definition of the word "outlier", Angel is an outlier simply because he was cursed with a soul, perfect happiness clause, etc. For some reason, The Beast, Jasmine, The Powers That Be, Wolfram & Hart, and Twilight were interested in Angel. Angel dated The Best Slayer Ever.

Alce
06-08-18, 09:59 AM
I'm a little late here, but something bothered me and I couldn't get what exactly."Cause it's not worth it if they don't cry" That's it. I call it bullshit. We saw him killing two slayers, we saw him wanting to kill Willow twice. In all these cases he was quick to act. No intention to torture at all. He's a hunter and humans are his prey. That's all. Ironically he could be considered decent man assuming we look at him from vampire perspective, where vampires are humans and humans are animals for food. In comparison to him Angel is psycho who's main enjoyment not hunt (he didn't want to fight Chinese slayer), but torture.

Stoney
06-08-18, 10:15 AM
I don't think he's lying about that, why would he want to? I take him at his word. Of course how he views what he did when souled is going to be very, very different anyway. I'd imagine him to have been carefree, nonchalant about what he did to girls Dawn's age when he was unsouled. Just consider the way he tells the story about the girl in the coal bin with dramatic emphasis to Dawn. There's no issue with the slaughter of her family and the terror of the child, and he obviously enjoyed the 'fun' of the scenario. He is also very casual when in the carriage with Angel in Destiny about the bride and what they got up to at the wedding, had enjoyed it. We also know that he drove railroad spikes through people. That wasn't just getting on with the kill either, but making a performance of it. The implication I take from what he says to Buffy in Never Leave Me (I think it was) is that he is talking about rape too, not necessarily just killing them. But either way, it is clearly a different scenario from him pitting his fighting ability against a slayer or going to kill the slayer's friend. Making them cry didn't even have to have been a really big thing to him, but could almost have been incidental, icing on the cake so to speak. Spike is considered to be second only to Angel we're told, so clearly he was well known for some awful crimes. I'm buying it. :)

Alce
06-08-18, 10:57 AM
I don't think he's lying about that, why would he want to? I take him at his word. Of course how he views what he did when souled is going to be very, very different anyway. I'd imagine him to have been carefree, nonchalant about what he did to girls Dawn's age when he was unsouled. Just consider the way he tells the story about the girl in the coal bin with dramatic emphasis to Dawn. There's no issue with the slaughter of her family and the terror of the child, and he obviously enjoyed the 'fun' of the scenario. He is also very casual when in the carriage with Angel in Destiny about the bride and what they got up to at the wedding, had enjoyed it. We also know that he drove railroad spikes through people. That wasn't just getting on with the kill either, but making a performance of it. The implication I take from what he says to Buffy in Never Leave Me (I think it was) is that he is talking about rape too, not necessarily just killing them. But either way, it is clearly a different scenario from him pitting his fighting ability against a slayer or going to kill the slayer's friend. Making them cry didn't even have to have been a really big thing to him, but could almost have been incidental, icing on the cake so to speak. Spike is considered to be second only to Angel we're told, so clearly he was well known for some awful crimes. I'm buying it. :)

And why wouldn't he? As we know he's quite a drama queen. He wanted to point at danger he is to Buffy and he could exaggerate it. As for his story. Hunting is fun. Searching hiding prey could be very exciting and he has no reasons to be ashamed of that (before his soul of course). Spikes as weapon of choice is quite poetic (in bad Williams's way of poetry) all things considered. There's no doubt that he enjoyed killing, in fact I think he enjoyed it more than anyone else in the show. I just don't think that suffering of his victims had any meaning to him at all.

Of course all this is based of my perception of Spike from the show. And I understand that not everything could be shown or even outright stated there. For example hinting about raping of young girls. From one side I don't see him having any kind of sex with anyone behind Dru's back, but from other, I could see them using some human girls as sex toys for both of them. Which, of course, is too grim to even hint at in such kind of show. Anyway, show did quite a bad job in showing any sadistic qualities in Spike as opposed to Angel's case. We were told, but never shown anything of that kind from him.

Stoney
06-08-18, 11:28 AM
Of course he could be exaggerating to try and emphasise how bad he was to Buffy but I really don't think we are supposed to think he's either making it up for drama or trying to add in extra details to try and make him seem more vile than he was. I think he is picking something that is truly horrific to try and appal her with who he literally was. He's trying to present a hard awful truth, that's the whole point of the scene I think. It could have been an irregular act for him but something that he just did now and then but he thinks she will be most disgusted by. That he is looking back on how he used to be and reacting to what he did is significant. I think facing these things is something that he often tries to avoid, tending to not want to look back at what he did but forwards to what he can do now. For me, considering that he is adding in extra details and expanding on the truth when we are supposed to be seeing his raw guilt exposed and one of the few times he considers what he has done very directly/bluntly would undermine seeing him thinking back on his past.

I really just don't think being shown that Spike mostly enjoyed the fight and would just make quick kills quite often overwrites all that we are told about him being considered one of the worst or gives any reason to disbelieve that he's done what he says. Making them cry might have just been an extra bit of fun and have no extra meaning for him beyond that unsouled. I don't think we are shown anything to suggest that he couldn't simply find that entertaining/amusing. It might not have been a major thing for him or something he did even regularly for it to appall him and horrify him so deeply once souled. I totally buy that he is really cut up about all that he has done and is simply looking back on it in horror now that he is souled. How irrelevant these things were to him is a great part of that, and how huge they are to him now. I think Spike is criticised often for not reacting to his past enough, for not wallowing in guilt enough and I think these scenes which show some raw pain when he is looking back are really powerful because it isn't something that he often does and because I think they are honest scenes personally, even if he is trying to pick something specific to shock/horrify.

flow
06-08-18, 11:38 AM
Alce:
He wanted to point at danger he is to Buffy and he could exaggerate it.

I agree with that. Spike says this in a very specific situation. He wants Buffy to stake him. It is possible that he says exactly what he thinks will trigger her. It is of course also possible that he did torture victims or rape girls. The show neither confirms nor dismisses that.

What the show did confirm is that he raided orphanages. Just like Angelus liked to raid nunneries. There is no doubt that he is one of the worst or most evil vampires that ever existed.

flow

Stoney
06-08-18, 11:43 AM
Well a lot of what is said about the actions of the vamps is only said, but I don't think we are supposed to think they exaggerate and make it up as they certainly never protest to the idea that they were the worst or deny what is said of them. I don't think there is good reason to believe he is not just being brutally truthful, even if he is deliberately trying to horrify her, which I'm sure he is. What mattered so little to him then really matters deeply now. If he isn't being honest is the way his voice breaks slightly him acting to try and convince her? No, I think it is just raw guilt and him looking back on something that now upsets him greatly.

vampmogs
06-08-18, 11:59 AM
In Halloween Spike got off on damsel!Buffy trembling ("I love it") and in The Initiative he derived pleasure from Willow screaming ("I'll scream!" "Bonus"). He also couldn't hide his delight at the sound of the woman horrifically screaming in Bargaining II as the demon bikers burst into her home. I don't think that Spike had anywhere near the interest in tormenting his victims the way Angel did, or the patience to stalk his prey like Angel did with Drusilla, but it doesn't surprise me that he'd get pleasure from scaring his victims and playing with his food. Remember in Lie to Me that he roars at Anne/Lilly/Chanterelle for no other reason than to upset and frighten her before he goes in for the bite.

Vampires seem to get off on people being afraid. Drusilla calls the fear "intoxicating" in Fool For Love. I assume it makes them tastier, or something. There's also the simple fact that people's misery is amusing to them. We saw vampires, including Spike, state that on numerous occasions. And as Flow says, we know Spike targeted at least one orphanage in Vienna so he's certainly not a stranger to committing crimes that he knows by societies standards would've made him particularly evil. He also got immense pleasure out of slaughtering a wedding party, watching Angelus beat the priest to death with his own arm, and then assumed that Angelus was raping the captive bride later ("Haven't had your fill of her after all..."), which suggests that it was pretty much the norm for both of them.

I definitely think Angelus and Spike are two of the worst vampires on record. However, I do sometimes wonder if a vampire like Darla was ignored because of the sexism of the time. I think her cruelty could rival both of there's (although she believes "even she couldn't keep up [with Angelus]" but it's possible the history books don't mention her because, like a lot of history, women tended to be ignored - even vampires.

TriBel
06-08-18, 01:31 PM
Vampires seem to get off on people being afraid.

I don't disagree but you could say the same thing about patriarchal ideology. For me, one of the most ominous lines in BtVS is Giles "Do you want to be punished?" - spoken to Willow in the opening scene in Lessons (Giles in that scene makes my stomach churn. I've heard other fans comment on how "sexy he looks in his coat" and missing the obvious parallels. I read it as Giles controlling a women who has the power to castrate him). It's often not actual death that people fear but symbolic death. In fact, one could argue that S6 Buffy is less afraid of real (biological) death than she is symbolic death (her friends finding out The Slayer is having sex with an unsouled vampire). It's not her actual life that's at stake but her identity (as a woman and as The Slayer).

TBH, one of the reasons I like the vampires is they often function to demystify ideology. I agree with the comments about Darla.

TimeTravellingBunny
06-08-18, 02:29 PM
In Halloween Spike got off on damsel!Buffy trembling ("I love it") and in The Initiative he derived pleasure from Willow screaming ("I'll scream!" "Bonus"). He also couldn't hide his delight at the sound of the woman horrifically screaming in Bargaining II as the demon bikers burst into her home. I don't think that Spike had anywhere near the interest in tormenting his victims the way Angel did, or the patience to stalk his prey like Angel did with Drusilla, but it doesn't surprise me that he'd get pleasure from scaring his victims and playing with his food. Remember in Lie to Me that he roars at Anne/Lilly/Chanterelle for no other reason than to upset and frighten her before he goes in for the bite.

Vampires seem to get off on people being afraid. Drusilla calls the fear "intoxicating" in Fool For Love. I assume it makes them tastier, or something. There's also the simple fact that people's misery is amusing to them. We saw vampires, including Spike, state that on numerous occasions. And as Flow says, we know Spike targeted at least one orphanage in Vienna so he's certainly not a stranger to committing crimes that he knows by societies standards would've made him particularly evil. He also got immense pleasure out of slaughtering a wedding party, watching Angelus beat the priest to death with his own arm, and then assumed that Angelus was raping the captive bride later ("Haven't had your fill of her after all..."), which suggests that it was pretty much the norm for both of them.

I definitely think Angelus and Spike are two of the worst vampires on record. However, I do sometimes wonder if a vampire like Darla was ignored because of the sexism of the time. I think her cruelty could rival both of there's (although she believes "even she couldn't keep up [with Angelus]" but it's possible the history books don't mention her because, like a lot of history, women tended to be ignored - even vampires.

It's definitely due to sexism that female vampires like Darla and Drusilla were overlooked by Watchers. Giles found a lot of info about Angel and Spike in the Watcher journals, but none about Darla, and Drusilla was only casually mentioned as "a former paramour of Spike", which tells you all you need to know about how they viewed female vampires. Even now, the idea of women committing violent crimes is often seen as unlikely and strange. Women are seen as capable of being manipulative, seductresses, malicious - but only if it's gossiping or spreading rumors or things like that, and their biggest sins are connected to who they are sleeping with or refusing to sleep with. This is how even the culture and the fandoms are still largely treating women and female fictional characters even in the 21st century. In previous centuries, of course the Watchers would jump to the conclusion that it's the males who are the leaders, instigators and committing most of the violent crimes. Females, even vampires, would be seen as just following in the lead of their men, and unlikely to be the primary perpetrators or instigators of violent crimes. Or just as their "paramours".

TriBel
06-08-18, 02:43 PM
It's definitely due to sexism that female vampires like Darla and Drusilla were overlooked by Watchers. Giles found a lot of info about Angel and Spike in the Watcher journals, but none about Darla, and Drusilla was only casually mentioned as "a former paramour of Spike", which tells you all you need to know about how they viewed female vampires. Even now, the idea of women committing violent crimes is often seen as unlikely and strange. Women are seen as capable of being manipulative, seductresses, malicious - but only if it's gossiping or spreading rumors or things like that, and their biggest sins are connected to who they are sleeping with or refusing to sleep with. This is how even the culture and the fandoms are still largely treating women and female fictional characters even in the 21st century. In previous centuries, of course the Watchers would jump to the conclusion that it's the males who are the leaders, instigators and committing most of the violent crimes. Females, even vampires, would be seen as just following in the lead of their men, and unlikely to be the primary perpetrators or instigators of violent crimes. Or just as their "paramours".

Totally agree - which is why I'm dubious about the mythology of the verse and why I wonder whether concepts such as "the soul" are up for question. All we know about the impact of a soul comes from men (Wesley, Giles and the WC or Spike/Angel). In the last instance, literally "dead, white males".

Alce
06-08-18, 03:07 PM
It's definitely due to sexism that female vampires like Darla and Drusilla were overlooked by Watchers. Giles found a lot of info about Angel and Spike in the Watcher journals, but none about Darla, and Drusilla was only casually mentioned as "a former paramour of Spike", which tells you all you need to know about how they viewed female vampires. Even now, the idea of women committing violent crimes is often seen as unlikely and strange. Women are seen as capable of being manipulative, seductresses, malicious - but only if it's gossiping or spreading rumors or things like that, and their biggest sins are connected to who they are sleeping with or refusing to sleep with. This is how even the culture and the fandoms are still largely treating women and female fictional characters even in the 21st century. In previous centuries, of course the Watchers would jump to the conclusion that it's the males who are the leaders, instigators and committing most of the violent crimes. Females, even vampires, would be seen as just following in the lead of their men, and unlikely to be the primary perpetrators or instigators of violent crimes. Or just as their "paramours".

Or, you know, they weren't particularly memorable for to be mentioned in the first place? Angelus is arguably most vile psycho vampire sadist that had ever existed. And Spike had killed two Slayers. That's something you cant ignore. As for Dru and Darla - until killing Kendra what Dru had to be known for? Only for her connection to Spike. And what have Darla done to be particularly infamous I frankly don't even know.

As for ignoring women's crimes, I beg to differ. By the same reason that women's violent crimes are much rarer, they often much more memorable than men's ones. For example most well known serial killer in Russian history is a woman. Darya Saltykova (Saltychicha).

TimeTravellingBunny
06-08-18, 04:00 PM
Or, you know, they weren't particularly memorable for to be mentioned in the first place? Angelus is arguably most vile psycho vampire sadist that had ever existed. And Spike had killed two Slayers. That's something you cant ignore. As for Dru and Darla - until killing Kendra what Dru had to be known for? Only for her connection to Spike. And what have Darla done to be particularly infamous I frankly don't even know.

As for ignoring women's crimes, I beg to differ. By the same reasons that women's violent crimes are much rarer, they often much more memorable than men's ones. For example most well known serial killer in Russian history is a woman. Darya Saltykova (Saltychicha).

Or, you know, Darla participated in all or most of the same crimes that Angel did, and so did Drusilla in Spike's, and a lot of times all 4 of them did it together? What do you imagine was going on - the men went off to hunt, while the womenfolk stayed home to...cook blood?!

We even saw Angel and Darla committing crimes together - killing Holtz' family, abusing Drusilla, we saw Darla pick Drusilla and the Romani princess for Angelus in the first place. We know Darla was attacking the missionaries during the Boxer rebellion, and stole a baby to test Angel, The Watchers didn't even record the fact that Darla, Spike and Dru were killing off the rest of the Romani village after Angel was cursed.

What was Darla known for? Nothing! That's the point! All the crimes she and Angel committed were ascribed to him alone, she was completely ignored. The rest of the time, she was working for the Master, so any crimes she committed would probably be ascribed to him or the Order of Aurelius.

Female serial killers you refer to are those that worked alone, like Aileen Wurnoos (spelling?), so it's impossible to deny that they were the instigators and perpetrators. Which then makes them additionally infamous - because OMG! A woman committing violent crimes - and not by "feminine" means, like poison or getting a man to do the dirty work - who ever heard of that???! :rolleyes: In killer couples, it's usually assumed that the man was the leader and the weak woman was just following his lead. And those are 20th century killers - prior to the 20th century, people would be even less inclined to think that a woman was committing violent crimes just as the man was.

TriBel
06-08-18, 04:09 PM
Or, you know, they weren't particularly memorable for to be mentioned in the first place? Angelus is arguably most vile psycho vampire sadist that had ever existed. And Spike had killed two Slayers. That's something you cant ignore. As for Dru and Darla - until killing Kendra what Dru had to be known for? Only for her connection to Spike. And what have Darla done to be particularly infamous I frankly don't even know.

As for ignoring women's crimes, I beg to differ. By the same reasons that women's violent climes are much rarer, they often much more memorable than men's ones. For example most well known serial killer in Russian history is a woman. Darya Saltykova (Saltychicha).


Or, you know, they weren't particularly memorable for to be mentioned in the first place?

We wouldn't know though would we because their history's recorded by men. They could - for instance - have killed watchers. The WC wouldn't admit to that because it reveals a weakness in a patriarchal institution. There's a reason the Guardian is killed within minutes of revealing an alternative history. That aside, d'you how many times that reasons been used to justify ignoring women's contributions to literature, poetry, art and sport?

Alce
06-08-18, 04:52 PM
Or, you know, Darla participated in all or most of the same crimes that Angel did, and so did Drusilla in Spike's, and a lot of times all 4 of them did it together? What do you imagine was going on - the men went off to hunt, while the womenfolk stayed home to...cook blood?!

We even saw Angel and Darla committing crimes together - killing Holtz' family, abusing Drusilla, we saw Darla pick Drusilla and the Romani princess for Angelus in the first place. We know Darla was attacking the missionaries during the Boxer rebellion, and stole a baby to test Angel, The Watchers didn't even record the fact that Darla, Spike and Dru were killing off the rest of the Romani village after Angel was cursed.

What was Darla known for? Nothing! That's the point! All the crimes she and Angel committed were ascribed to him alone, she was completely ignored. The rest of the time, she was working for the Master, so any crimes she committed would probably be ascribed to him or the Order of Aurelius.

Female serial killers you refer to are those that worked alone, like Aileen Wurnoos (spelling?), so it's impossible to deny that they were the instigators and perpetrators. Which then makes them additionally infamous - because OMG! A woman committing violent crimes - and not by "feminine" means, like poison or getting a man to do the dirty work - who ever heard of that???! :rolleyes: In killer couples, it's usually assumed that the man was the leader and the weak woman was just following his lead. And those are 20th century killers - prior to the 20th century, people would be even less inclined to think that a woman was committing violent crimes just as the man was.

Darla was vampire 150 years prior meeting Angel and spent 100 years without him after break up. If she hadn't got any separate from Angel reputation for that period then we can assume that there was nothing particularly exceptional about her that's worth to be mentioned. History rarely remembers henchmen, unless they are exceptional in some feats or traits.

- - - Updated - - -


We wouldn't know though would we because their history's recorded by men. They could - for instance - have killed watchers. The WC wouldn't admit to that because it reveals a weakness in a patriarchal institution. There's a reason the Guardian is killed within minutes of revealing an alternative history. That aside, d'you how many times that reasons been used to justify ignoring women's contributions to literature, poetry, art and sport?

Reveal weakness to whom? WC itself? :confused: So they would risk their own existence, because their enemy happen to be women before they died and became demonkind? And they are ashamed of that fact? I'm so confused here. That seems very improbable.

betta
06-08-18, 05:56 PM
I've never understood the Gypsies's reasoning; it wasn't Darla who chose the virgin Gypsy and gave her to Angelus? And they both tortured the poor girl. Why did they just curse Angelus?

Double Dutchess
06-08-18, 06:34 PM
I've never understood the Gypsies's reasoning; it wasn't Darla who chose the virgin Gypsy and gave her to Angelus? And they both tortured the poor girl. Why did they just curse Angelus?

Seems like the same mechanism that made the Watchers Council overlook Darla and Drusilla in the vampire crimes department. They probably just assumed by default that the guy must have been the leader and the woman didn't "count". (ETA: in other words, what TTB already said above, "In killer couples, it's usually assumed that the man was the leader and the weak woman was just following his lead.")

- - - Updated - - -


Darla was vampire 150 years prior meeting Angel and spent 100 years without him after break up. If she hadn't got any separate from Angel reputation for that period then we can assume that there was nothing particularly exceptional about her that's worth to be mentioned. History rarely remembers henchmen, unless they are exceptional in some feats or traits.

It seems likely she had other lovers with her then, and so they may have been the ones that were recorded as committing their joint crimes, due to the same mechanism that also caused Darla's role in things to be overlooked when she was with Angel.

SpuffyGlitz
06-08-18, 09:00 PM
Really interesting discussion! Having cast my mind over the 'evil' women in the Buffyverse - I can't even think of Drusilla or Darla as comparable to the level of notoriety Angel and Spike achieved as vampires. And not because they weren't evil or didn't perform acts of great evil - but because, as TTB points out, they're women vampires so their 'evil' trajectories are (of course) sidelined to the male vampires.
Which brings me to Glory...
Glory isn't a vampire but a hell god. She is definitely depicted as manic and horrifically evil.

But is that significant - that she's not a vampire but a god instead? Is this meant to be an inversion of the deification of womanhood? Evil vampires = masculine, predators. Whereas evil women = hell gods (bent on world domination with minions), or vengeance demons (seeking revenge on men who wronged them..) I don't know. Anya is 'supposedly' evil and committed many evil crimes but her evil is often textually treated in a jokesy/ trivialised way (she dated trolls and then punished them, etc) though she does get some episodes focused on her.

flow
06-08-18, 09:10 PM
Alce
For example most well known serial killer in Russian history is a woman. Darya Saltykova (Saltychicha).

I just read the article on Wikipedia (Germany) baout her. It is fascinating how easily real life surpasses Horror fiction. I also found it amazing that she had to serve her sentence not simply in jail but literally in a hole in the ground with no light according to Wikipedia.de. She survived in this prison for 33 years.

flow

bespangled
07-08-18, 12:19 AM
Alce:

I agree with that. Spike says this in a very specific situation. He wants Buffy to stake him. It is possible that he says exactly what he thinks will trigger her. It is of course also possible that he did torture victims or rape girls. The show neither confirms nor dismisses that.

What the show did confirm is that he raided orphanages. Just like Angelus liked to raid nunneries. There is no doubt that he is one of the worst or most evil vampires that ever existed.

flow

SPIKE
Sod off! (laughs) Come on. When was the last time you unleashed it? All out fight in a mob, back against the wall, nothing but fists and fangs? Don't you ever get tired of fights you know you're going to win?

Spike liked to pick the most dangerous prey. He was a pure adrenaline junkie. Dru liked to prey on children. I have no doubt that Spike tagged along, and probably had fun but I doubt that given the choice he would single out a child as prey or an orphanage as his favored mayhem.

But he did terrorize and no doubt rape - and he knew what sort of a danger he could be under the control of the First. He told Buffy what he had done while trying to goad her into staking him.And he chose rape because he had gone to get a soul because he had tried to rape her. He knew that would be a trigger. For what it's worth, given that rape is abut power and not about sex - I have no doubt whatsoever that all 4 of them raped victims. Terror made the blood sweeter - that is brought up multiple times in the series.


Darla was vampire 150 years prior meeting Angel and spent 100 years without him after break up. If she hadn't got any separate from Angel reputation for that period then we can assume that there was nothing particularly exceptional about her that's worth to be mentioned. History rarely remembers henchmen, unless they are exceptional in some feats or traits.


Reveal weakness to whom? WC itself? :confused: So they would risk their own existence, because their enemy happen to be women before they died and became demonkind? And they are ashamed of that fact? I'm so confused here. That seems very improbable.

Well, we could also assume that Dru and Darla were like the thousands of serial killers who currently operate in the world - unnamed and below the radar. Angelus was a sadistic psychopath. He made big plays, and he wanted recognition in the demon world. Spike killed slayers - but Giles had no idea who he was. Wesley did say Spike was second only to Angelus, but Wesley was kind of a walking encyclopedia when it came to Angel and anyone related to him. I doubt he was very well known overall.

ROGER WYNDAM-PRICE
Spike.

SPIKE
(grinning)
You've heard of me?

ROGER WYNDAM-PRICE
No. We've met. 1963. My colleagues and I fell upon you slaughtering an orphanage in Vienna. Killed 2 of my men before you escaped.

This might be why Wesley knew about Spike. I seriously doubt the orphanage was Spike's chosen target. His princess wanted children so they found a building full of children. Spike took on the watchers because they were able to give some sort of challenge. He also seemed surprised and pleased that anyone knew of his exploits.