![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Spike and Season 8
I’m under the impression that a lot of people assume that Spike will certainly not figure in season 8, and that Joss either never was interested in Spike (or Spuffy) or he views that story as settled and is just moving on. Of course, we won’t know until the tale is done, but it does seem to me that it would be very strange if the same writer who knew that Angel marked Buffy for life didn’t think that Spike, who played at least as major a role in Buffy’s story, could vanish from her story without trace. But all I want to argue for here is the proposition that based on what we have seen in the first 21 issues, there is plenty of room for Spike to enter the story, perhaps even in an important way.
Before getting to the text, it’s worth observing that Scott Allie has said (Slayalive Q&A #20, question 4) that Joss has the right to use the characters in Angel as much as he likes. There thus seems to be no contractual reason for Spike to remain offstage. All that will matter is what the story demands.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to argue that the story demands that Spike play a role, there is a fair amount of text at this point that would retrospectively set up his appearance.
1. Buffy is the main character of the series. (Duh). When last we saw her, Spike was arguably the most important person in her world – the one who was in her heart, the one with whom she shared the fiery hands of passion, the one whose name was the last word she spoke in the entire series, the one with whom she spent what could well have been her last night in the world, the one who stood by her when all her other significant folks kicked her out of her own house, etc. etc. etc. The status of Buffy’s relationship with the person who was so very important to her was left hanging at the end of the story. It matters how it is resolved. Really. Angel hung over her story for years. It’s unreasonable to think that Spike vanished without a trace in 18 months, or that the resolution of Buffy's story with Spike is insignficant.
And it’s not like the writers of season 8 are insensible of the fact that romantic story lines from season 7 need to be resolved in season 8. Pretty much the first thing we learn about Faith in #6 is that Robin ended up not surprising her – she’s still very much alone. It took a while, but we finally learn that Xander really did spend some serious time mourning Anya (#13). If Joss really wanted to close off the Spike/Buffy story line, he’d have done so much the way Faith/Robin got closed out. He didn’t.
2. On the contrary, one of the first things Joss tells us about Buffy is that she doesn’t know the significance of the Immortal to either Angel or Spike. It opens the door to the possibility that she does not know that they tried to track her down in TGIQ. Far from closing the story down, Joss offers a tantalizing detail that reminds us that we really don’t know where things stand between Buffy and Spike.
3. There is the mysterious absence of Spike from Buffy’s dream space (#3), where every other significant figure in her life is present. (With the possible exception of Hank). Angel is here, as is Riley. Tara, and Dawn, and Faith, and, Joyce, and all the major villains and the Scoobies. There are cubes from early in Buffy’s life through season 7 (Xander with an eye patch; Caleb). There are three ways I can think of to account for this fact. (a) The scenes and figures drawn were chosen by Jeanty and have no particular significance. But Enisy asked Allie about this, and Allie says that Joss did interact with Jeanty both about what should be there and about what should not be there (Slayalive Q&A #19, question 6). (b) Buffy really doesn’t see Spike as an important person in her life (beyond his usefulness in her erotic fantasies). That defies imagination. Whether it’s the fiery hands of passion or the bathroom scene, Spike has impacted Buffy enormously, both in good ways and in bad ways. (c) The absence is significant in a way that has yet to be revealed.
4. Buffy finally mentions Spike in A Beautiful Sunset sandwiched between Angel and Riley. As already noted, both Angel and Riley figured in her dream space. They’ve also both (now) appeared in the series. Angel in a nod to what lies firmly behind Buffy (#20); and Riley as either a villain or an undercover ally (#19). If two of the three major loves in Buffy’s life deserve a role in the series, it is even stranger that Joss couldn’t be arsed to close out a dangling thread about her most recent romantic involvement.
5. There are plenty of places where one can read resonances with Buffy’s history with Spike, things that could take on different shades if Spike turns out to be part of this story. In the first battle we are shown, Buffy is in a church killing a demon with a cross. The last time we saw Buffy in a church with a demon, the demon was draped on the cross in one of the most arresting images of the entire series. General Voll points to the crater at Sunnydale and says “look what she did to her hometown”. But when Buffy last had anything to say about what caused that crater, her answer was “Spike”. In Buffy’s dream about Xander, she promises to be gentle “this time”, yet knocks off Xander’s head and worries about being dark. There are resonances here with her not-so-gentle relationship with Spike, which was epitomized in the alley scene in Dead Things where she didn’t quite knock his head off. Buffy even says “oh balls” here, which is a line that comes from that scene in DT. Ethan’s entrance into her dream is teased as Spike (we just see his Spike-like clothes at the end of #2) and Buffy explicitly objects to him calling her “pet”. Skipping ahead, and going in less detail: Dracula’s relationship with Xander mirrors in some ways Spike’s relationship with Buffy (evil vampire crossing lines to help the good guys because of love); Willow tells Frey that the most important men in Buffy’s life are lurks (and that that fact makes it too simple to say that Buffy’s life is about eliminating them); and in the most recent issue we have Clem and Harmony allied, the two demons who were friendly with Spike during his time in Sunnydale. None of these allusions or references have to mean anything. But they are available to mean something if Spike turns out to figure in the story.
So we’ll see. It’s true that we’re nearly two years into the comics. But we’re also just over half way through the “season”. And in many of the seasons on Buffy, the real contours of the season aren’t revealed until the second half. It’s too soon to claim that Joss is going to pay no attention to Spike. Indeed, I tend to think that the strange absences and silences point to a larger role rather than a smaller one – since the failure to close out Spike/Buffy quickly seems to demand some sort of pay-off when the story finally is continued.
no subject
I've made much the same mistakes in lj and fanboard discussions. I make assumptions about where the person is coming from, knowing very little about them. I'm learning to ask for clarification - because you never know if you might agree.
If the writers really did mean for us to see NFA as heroic and nothing but heroic, then I just am not on board. And that would be hard to deal with cause I love the show. Anyway, I find it hard to imagine that NFA was written by people who were entirely unaware of the dark side of what was going on. But AtF really does seem to be unaware of it. Brian really does seem to think that Angel is about a guy who while not perfect is basically a hero, but who is beset by really bad misfortune. So it's nice to finally give him a happy ending. For me, Angel is a classically tragic figure in that his tragedy is rooted in his character. I can't get him to a happy ending when the trajectory of events began with his choice to wipe the memories of his friends and sell out to evil, inc.
Actually - the issue doesn't end happily. Just read issue 16 last night. It's a very ironic ending. And somewhat tongue firmly in cheek. Lynch has a sardonic sense of humor and makes fun of things. Sardonic or sarcasm is tough for people to catch and can be very subtle. I know because I have the same sense of humor.
If you read the issue, with the last Buffy issue featuring Harmony clearly in the forefront of your head, you'll see how disturbing that ending is and why Angel states, "uh, this is not normal at all and really not good."
Also Angel is not depicted as a "straight-up" hero, so much as a bit of tragic figure. Everything he does in hell causes someone he loves to die. It's all about him. He only changes it when he finally dies - but it is not a selfless act and he is not motivated to do it until Connor dies, so in a way it is an act of suicide.
I saw the comic as a wry critique of the whole idea of "champion". Angel is a bit, shall we say, self-absorbed and vain? Note the comparisons the writer makes between Angel and Gunn and Angel and Spike?
No, there's a lot going on there beneath the surface. I'd write more but time does not permit. Must go to work.
no subject
1. Lorne got his groove back. In the notes he says that he just needed to figure out that it's better to help people than to mope around when you've done something wrong. The last we saw Lorne he was shattered. He was executing someone in cold blood. Moreover, he was executing *Lindsey* on behalf of *Angel*. Not only did Angel use Lindsey for his own purposes before disposing of him; he was giving up on Lindsey's possibility of redemption. That's either hypocritical (since Angel has needed and still needs a ton of forgiveness and room for redemption) or its despairing (he's identified with Lindsey and is giving up on himself by proxy). Either way, Lorne gets it, I think. Which is why he is in such despair. The little message "you get over this stuff by helping people" doesn't seem to fit the dimensions of where we were. I read it as trivializing. Of course it's good to help people, and it's better than brooding. But it loses the commentary on Angel. And it seems to violate one of the principles of the 'verse which is that you don't just shrug stuff like that off.
2. Does Lynch see Angel's tragedy as externally driven or internally driven? The fact that Lindsey and Drogyn have disappeared from AtF, makes it at least possible that Lynch thinks that Angel's mistake here was to not see that the senior partners could retaliate by damning an entire city. But in the series Angel's participation in the evil of W&H was far more problematic. He was there in the first place because he sold himself and his friends out to W&H to save his son. He might be telling himself now that the idea was to fight evil from the inside; but at the time, when Lilah tried to tempt him with that he KNEW it could never work and rejected it. Lilah only got him with the promise of saving Connor. That's an internally motivated tragedy. Angel made a trade which we can understand, but which was still wrong. It violated his own integrity. And the mindwipe violated his friends. And we could go back further. Connor was in a mess because Angel couldn't figue out how to deal with him; he was unreachable or difficult because of his experience in hell with Holtz, but Holtz was motivated by the very terrible things Angel had done to him and his family; Connor himself exists because Angel despaired of his own redemption and sought to lose his soul by sleeping with Darla. It's all character-driven. This is not to say that Angel isn't doing plenty of good as well. But the bad stuff does not just randomly plop on him. But Lynch seems to think so. Read his opening remarks in the first TPB. Poor Angel had all this bad stuff happen; but no mention of why it was happening. And here he delivers Angel a "happy ending". Even if it is ironic in the ways you see, it's not at all obvious that the irony has anything to do with the fact that the tragedy has been driven by his own character all along.
3. In Home Connor tells Angel that you can't save someone with a lie. Angel proceeds to try to save him with a lie. Of itself that's problematic. But now we have a saved Connor, and no sense that there's an underlying dilemma. Further, there's a real question of identity. How is post-Home Connor related to pre-home Connor? Angel killed pre-Home Connor, and replaced him with post-home Connor. So who, exactly, got saved here? Lots of very interesting stuff to be done on personal identity, and on whether Angel's motivation was to save Connor, qua Connor, or to save his son, who happened to be named Connor. We know at a minimum that he did not save the Connor who was standing before him in the sporting goods store.
Continued...
Continued
I did see that the final set up could be used to interesting effect given the problematics I see as coming out of NFA. There could be a ginormous irony about Angel being viewed as "hero" when in fact he was not hardly an innocent bystander. It's true that at a minimum Lynch sees it as somewhat ironic, because the whole LA in hell thing did stem from Angel's act. But as I've said above, I'm pretty sure that Lynch sees Angel's contribution as having failed to see the consequences of standing up to the partners, but not all the rest of it. So, yes, Lynch intends some of the shading. And were the story to be continued by a different writer it could be extended to encompass the whole thing. The fact that Lynch forgot about Lindsey and Drogyn doesn't mean that future writers have to, and the 'reset' opens up space for it. (Though I bet you large sums that Aftermath will NOT be going in this direction).
I'm not sure how you see the comparisons between Angel and Gunn and Angel and Spike working. I'd be interested in knowing more about that. (I have my own ideas, but...)
Anyway, I tried to stay charitable with Brian. But something snapped after the first issue of First Night. And of course, once you decide not to be charitable you stop reading so closely. Much of the community here has given up on season 8 in much the same way. But since I want people to rethink about season 8, I plainly need to rethink about AtF. So if you could help talk me down, it'd be very much appreciated.
I'll try but with the following caveat.
Hee. I'll try. But with the caveat that I actually agree with some of the concerns that you've raised above. And I do, to a degree struggle with the story. As I was telling Emmie, I find ATF more enjoyable when I don't analyze it. While Buffy S8 is more enjoyable when I do analyze it or read someone else's analysis.
I don't know how much of Lynch's work that you've read. I'll tell you what I've read - being an unapologetic and pseudo-obsessed Spike fan - I've read all Lynch's Spike comics. Actually I've read all the Spike comics. I loved Lynch, because in comparison to the other comics, he was a breath of fresh air. Peter David didn't appear to get the character at all or he did but at a far more rudimentary level(Old Wounds, Spike vs. Dracula). Lynch seemed to get Spike's internal struggle the best - and was the closest to Whedon's vision of the character - which has been more or less supported by the fact that Whedon selected Lynch to write ATF based on Spike:Asylum and Spike:Shadow Puppets (which in some respects, were in my opinion, far better written and drawn than ATF was). The other Lynch comic I tried to read and gave up on was a Zombie one - the humor was there, but the writer bugged me on other issues, which I won't bore you with a long sub-tangent on, except to say they are to a degree similar to the issues you are currently having with ATF and that I to a degree have with ATF.
You ask above it Lynch sees Angel's struggle as internally motivated or externally? I'd say mostly internally. If there's any external - it's probably Whedon. I don't think Lynch cares all that much about social-political themes or the external issues. Whedon is the rare writer who cares about both - which is why he appealed to such a diverse group of fans. You will see psychological analysis of Whedon's work or internal struggles, as well as sociological and political analysis in essays on Slayage and elsewhere. I think Lynch in some respects is more limited in his outlook, but to be fair, he is also a lot younger than Whedon and not as experienced a writer.
I think Lynch does some of the characters internal struggles rather well.
Spike - for example - he appears to have a fairly firm grasp on. He does not, and he's admitted this in interviews, really understand what Whedon was up to regarding the Spike/Buffy dynamic in S6-7. (But a lot of people don't understand that, so I've gotten used to it and more or less shrug it off.) Nor is he a fan of Spuffy. (Which I am by the way. Favorite ship in the series for reasons a lot of people don't understand.) That said, he's been good about not going there, possibly because Whedon drew a line in the sand and told him not to? From the interview in the back of the mag and Whedon's interview reproduced above - I think Whedon told him - look you can do whatever you want, but this, this, and this need to happen and this, this, and this can't happen or you will screw up what I'm doing.
Then swore him to an oath of secrecy not to leak what those items were.
I know this isn't exactly talking you down. But it's better, if we can figure out what we agree on. More productive or so I'm learning. Hee.
That said, I think and I see this in all of Whedon's projects, that point of view is very important here. From your post above - I get the feeling that you may be disregarding this. A lot of fans and readers seem to shrug it off or disregard it. And you really shouldn't - it's key to understanding the story the writer is telling. I'll discuss that in next response, because I think this may be getting too long. And therefore tough to read.
Point of View
Compare this to Buffy S8 - which is told in an almost multi-character pov. And is third person. Only occassionally, like Buffy's dream or The Long Way Home are we in the lead's head, hearing their thoughts, seeing what they see through their eyes. Mostly we are looking at the action from a third person perspective, so know more than the lead character does, yet at the same time feel distanced from them because we don't know what they are thinking. Some readers and writers hate third person narratives for that reason. Others hate first person narratives - because we are limited to the perspective of the narrator, whose head we are currently in, and their thoughts and their views. We can't see outside it. We may on occassion for plot reasons - jump outside to see something they shouldn't and can't know about, but usually it's something that they had been told about later, after the fact - so what we are getting is how they imagined it. Either that or the writer just leaped out, and came back again. I've seen both done in these series. Lynch is appearing to take the former tack.
In the comics - Angel:After the Fall, Spike:After the Fall, and First Night. We have different points of view.
1. Angel:After the Fall is told entirely or almost entirely, I should go back and check but too lazy, from Angel's pov. It's his story. Everything we know and are told is from Angel's perspective. It's how Angel feels and thinks about things. And from the series, we already know that Angel is well, a bit melodramatic. And a tad self-important, not to mention egotistical and vain.
(I like Angel a lot by the way, especially his flaws, he's the classic noir anti-hero. He wants to do good, but is a control freak and obsessed with power. A beautiful soul with a ruthless survivor who is selfish to the bone and obsessed with power and control.)
2. Spike:After the Fall - is told entirely from Spike's perspective. And takes place before and during Angel After the Fall - issue one.
3. First Night is told entirely from Betta George's perspective - he's been networked in by Gunn to see what everyone else is thinking. And he's telling us what certain characters are going through - acting as a sort of omnipresent narrative voice. We aren't really in their points of view. When we are it's brief. Lorne's is brief as is Connor's - so what we get isn't that much.
Also, bear in mind, that Lynch didn't write all the stories in First Night - it was a collaboration. And personally? I don't think it worked as well as they thought it would. They were trying to do a Citizen Kane technique - which is explore the lesser characters, the man on the street claiming the world will end (who I think is the same guy in issue 16 of Angel After the Fall getting his photo taken with Angel.), Connor, Gwen, Kate, and Lorne. As well as Gunn - who's the other central pov outside of Betta George and a bit on the delusional side.
All our narrators are unreliable narrators. No one more so than Angel. Angel tends to look at everything in regards to himself. WRH seems to know that. They are to an extent playing Angel. Manipulating him through his wants, desires, and flaws. We don't really know what WRH wants, but neither does Angel. They are the devil tempting him. They tempt him with humanity. They tempt him with a better life for his son. Etc. And Angel rationalizes it, it's turned out okay. He doesn't see all the angles, his pov is rather limited, and somewhat myopic in scope.
TBC
Angel...-and Gunn
From the beginning - Angel sees himself as the big damn hero. This was all "his" fault, no one else was involved, it is all about him. No one else chose it. No one else made any mistakes. And he is the only person who can save them and get them out of it. He's the only hero here.
LOL! If he wasn't so adorable about it, you'd want to strangle him.
Note - that Gunn has decided the same thing. Except that it is about Gunn not Angel. That Gunn is the hero. That this is all about Gunn! Gunn is really not that different than Angelus or Angel. The only difference is when Angel becomes Angelus - he's the biggest bad on the planet, the biggest villain, worse than anyone ever. A conciet that Jasmine played on with great effect via evil Cordy in S4. She was able to manipulate Angel through his own ego. And she understood it - because she was much the same way.
We see all of those insecurities in Gunn's delusions and insanity. Gunn believes he will save the world. And much like Angel in S5 - he attempts to do so by machiavellian means. He rationalizes that stabbing Fred, killing Connor, etc - is the ends justifying the means. It's meant as a mirror to what Angel did. Angel did the same thing. Does Angel get that? Not really. One of the most frustrating things about the character of Angel is he never seems to learn. Jasmine screams it at him in the streets of LA after he reveals who she is and sends everything into Chaos, not that her orderly world was any better. And Gunn screams it at him. Heck, Wes keeps saying it as does Spike. "Oh, right, I forgot, it's always all about you." But Angel truly believes that.
If he was a bit more self-aware - he'd notice a few things. Like the fact that while he'd been going after The Dragon! Gunn was bleeding to death and about to be turned by vampires. Spike was wounded and struggling to help Illyria. He attempts to remedy that when they get time-shifted back. Except it's not a do-over, everyone remembers everything that happened to them. The dragon does. Connor does. And so does Gunn. It's not a reset, the slate isn't wiped clean.
Note how Angel reacts to Spike. Compare Spike:After the Fall to Angel:After the Fall. They look a bit different. What we see from Spike's pov regarding what Spike is going through, Illyria, and Connor - is not what Angel saw. Angel sees a well-adjusted young man in Connor who doesn't need any help or assistence, and he's a bit jealouse of Spike who is "working" with him. In Spike:After the Fall and First Night - it's revealed that Connor needs a lot of help and assistance. Spike saves Connor's life twice. That's why he's working with Spike. Spike is "training" Connor, because he knows if he doesn't Connor will get himself killed. Connor is also insecure about Gwen - he asks Angel about it twice and Angel ignores him. I'm not even sure Angel hears him.
Then we see Gunn - who is similarly myopic. He doesn't really care about his underlings unless they met his purpose. The Fish is for a purpose. He's all about the mission - even if he's deluded regarding it. He's also a bit myopic. Just like Angel.
Illyria is going nuts. Angel sees this and ignores it.
Spike asks for Angel's help with Illyria several times, and he ignores him. Because you know, Angel has to save the world and single-handedly, because it is all his fault.
Angel is completely utterly unaware of anything that doesn't directly revolve around him.
Which brings me to...Illyria and Angel.
Re: Angel...-and Illyria
Illyria like Angel has a bit of a god complex. Makes sense she is a god or was worshipped as one. She is a control freak. And ruthless. And angry because she lost Wesley who she has feelings for and isn't sure why.
Angel looks at Illyria and sees Angelus. It's different than what Spike sees or Wes for that matter.
When Illyria goes nuts trying to destroy the universe, because she's unhappy, she's lost everything, she feels there is no meaning - it is to degree a reflection of Gunn and finally, Angel's own despair. Angel is human but he can't enjoy it. He can't save the people he cares for.
Everyone is here because of him. Is there even a point?
The world is a black and dirty and horrendous place because of Angel or so he thinks.
Re: Angel...-and Spike
Angel struggles with Spike much the same way anyone who has a sibling struggles with one. You see the similarities and you see the differences. In the show and here, Spike is in a way a mirror to Angel.
Unlike Angel, Spike does not believe it's all about him.
Or caused by him. Or all his fault. He doesn't believe he deserves to be a champion or chosen or the leader.
He's just trying to survive and trying to save others.
A reluctant hero of sorts. But like Angel, he can't save anyone. Everything and everyone he touches rots. Or goes nuts. Or something.
Spike isn't a big picture guy. He focuses on those closest and nearest. The people he saved and is directly responsible for. Illyria. Connor - who he's become responsible for.
He's not concerned with the PTB or care. Actually is a little annoyed with them. Nor does he require their approval or Angel's. His achillees heel is women. And he gets close to Illyria because she reminds him of himself - she's a demon with a human personality - more to the point, a human personality and essence that was once a woman who tried very hard to save Spike and believed Spike was worth saving, even when Spike himself, did not.
Spike reflects Angel's doubts. His self-loathing. His need for family. His caring for his son. Spike is the reverse negative of Gunn. Spike unlike Gunn isn't concerned with being the big player on the field, or the "chosen" one. He is concerned with saving and protecting Fred who appears to reside inside Illyria and surviving.
Spike's not better or worse than Angel or Gunn, he's just not as confident and sure of himself. HE doesn't see himself as the big hero. Hence the nervous chattiness, the bravado, the self-deprecating humor. He's always a bit surprised when he does take the hero role.
Angel wants to be important, to be a legend. Spike just wants to be loved and have fun. The legend status isn't that big a deal to him, well except to aggravate Angel.
He wouldn't mind having it for that.
Re: Angel...-and Spike
Spike was used in Season 5 as a mirror for Angel. Angel's disdain for him was exactly because Spike is very threatening to Angel. Spike sought his soul; Angel didn't. (This is huge: Spike isn't wrestling with Spikelus. Angel's whole problem is that Angelus would never, ever, seek a soul -- and that's why Angel is always divided within himself). Spike has actually made the big sacrifice; Angel hasn't. Spike arrives off of big sacrifice when Angel has just sold out to W&H. I love the whole dynamic. Oh, yeah, souled-Spike puts a dent in Angel's "it's all about me" schtick.
Also interesting to the dynamic is that Spike really doesn't see what Angel's problem is with him. And he looks up to Angel. He really does think that Angel has more experience with the champion thing; and in any case Angel will always be the alpha. Spike therefore wants Angel's approval and follows Angel's lead. Ironic because Spike's moral compass is truer than Angel's, and Spike has the big advantage of having fought for his soul as a demon. Of course he snarks about it and rails about it. But mostly because he wants approval that isn't going to be forthcoming because Angel is actually quite jealous.
But they had moved. And this is where I get a disconnect. First, I'm not sure that Lynch understands just how much the contrast with Spike wounds Angel. Second, he doesn't seem to account for the fact that Angel had grown enough to grudgingly accept Spike's status as a champion. The snark had much less edge in the second half of season 5. So when we get dumped into AtF, we find an Angel who is capable of assuming that Spike has fallen off the wagon, or at least of acting like he's assuming that. Now, that could be really interesting if we think of it as a reflection of Angel's massive guilt in the wake of Hell-A. But I never got convinced that Lynch intended us to see it that way. I didn't see where attention was called to Angel's regression on all of this.
And as a Spike-centric soul, I was very disappointed that we didn't follow up on his (and Wesley's) reaction to Drogyn's murder. I wanted to know how Spike would deal with his loyalty to Angel (and his deference to him as an alpha) when he caught a glimpse for himself of the fact that Angel's moral compass was off even when he decided to fight against W&H. At that point room opened up for Spike to start to dope out for himself what it means to be a hero, rather than take his bearings from Angel. And interesting potential dynamic there.
But see, this is where the fact that I don't think Lynch knows how morally muddy Angel really is comes into play. Drogyn just never got mentioned. And Lindsey got written off. The mindwipe bothers no one. I can supply a lot of subtext and make things work. But I really didn't see anything in the text that supports that there's an undercurrent between Spike and Angel over the question of whether Angel is the one with the best understanding of what is or isn't "right". Plenty that Angel might be ineffectual because he doesn't know enough (didn't see that LA could be sent to hell as a response to his actions; didn't see that he was jeopardizing Spike's operation at the mansion). But nothing about his compass being off. Let me know if I missed that. I get that from Angel's POV, Angel wouldn't necessarily see the regression (or the reason for the regression). But I want some way of knowing that the author has distance from that perspective.
Does Illyria really have any essence of Fred? Memories, yes. But Spike said in season 5 that there was no Fred in her. I assume we are to understand his project as giving space for a monster, who has something to work with because of the memories.
(Sidebar: Illyria's possession of Fred's memories are important in shaping our notion that she can be more than just a God-thing. But why are we also supposed to think that the mindwipe didn't matter. Especially when it comes to how we are to understand Connor's present identity.)
Thanks again for this. You are right that Lynch has something to say about these characters. I've registered the places where I think it's off or where I want more. But you let me appreciate more than I did. That's good.
Re: Angel...-and Spike
Buffy, if you remember, did not tell us everything. We were not told what happened when she and Angel met in S6, all we got was fried food and discomfort. And we never got Spike's reaction to what Willow did to Warren or for that matter - Faith and Willow discussing things. Nor was it explained why Xander, Giles, Willow and Dawn would let Faith take over in S7. They leave a lot up to the imagination.
This is a long ass way of telling you that if you are expecting Lindsey or Drogyn to be mentioned again? Don't. The writers feel they've dealt with it in Powerplay and NFA. I strongly get that feeling. Also, I don't think they are necessary - because Angel continues to make the same mistakes, he is still both people even human.
That was the point of Angel becoming human - to show that vampire or not - Angel is who he is. It's what he told Buffy in Amends - it's not the vampire that needs killing, it is the man. She didn't get it, until Enemies, in which Angel played Angelus a bit too well. Fans don't get that, they think Angel is two people -- because in part that is what Angel keeps telling himself. But Angelus won't ever leave.
The difference between Angel and Spike is Spike doesn't see himself as two people. Also the person Spike always struggled with is not the killer or his father/authority figure, but rather weak poet William and his relationship with his mother - who he destroyed attempting to save. Spike tried to save his beloved parent and turned her into a demon that rejected him and wanted to devour. So he staked her. Angel ran from his parent, stole, did everything to hurt him, and came back to eat and torture him and his family. Angel never goes by Liam, he goes by the name his little sister called him before he killed her. Holtz and the Master reminded Angel of his own father and he did everything in his power to best them.
Angel - human or not, soul or not, still has the same problems. Every friend he has - he kills or gets killed. Gun, Fred, Cordeli, and Wes. Heck even Gwen and Connor.
Gun without a soul is actually still a better man than Angelus. He doesn't want to turn people into monsters, he wants to save everyone. He's in a way a reflection of Angel in S5 and Angel now.
Angel's own actions have made things worse. When he locates Spike - he doesn't do it to see if Spike is okay or Illyria is - but to accuse them of killing a demon. Spike and Illyria understandably rip him a new one.
To give him credit - he is trying. He's just so unself-aware. WRH turn him human - partly as punishment and partly to show him that it doesn't matter.
Gunn - I saw - as a condemnation of Angel and Angel's actions. Almost to a point in which I laughed out loud. Except, Gunn is a bit smarter than Angel - due in part to the brain upgrade that he still has - one of the consequences of the mind wipe.
Yes - the consequences are there. Angel is still paying for it. Illyria exists in part because of it. Wes is dead because of it. And Gunn is well where he is because of it. Taking on WRH did not solve the problem.
And the world Angel returns to...is well, not what you may think.
Re: Angel...-and Spike
The other thing along this line was the notion that there's an uber-apocalypse that Angel will someday participate in, whereas season 5 drove us to the understanding that the "real" apocalypse is ordinary human evil. I liked that move. It also served to darken Angel's reaction to it in ways that I thought were very interesting. And I was sorry to see Lynch blast past it.
Now, you are right that nothing has happened that would prevent future writers from taking that stuff more seriously. We've reset to the day Lindsey got executed. It's still allowed to enter into the mix. And the 'verse often left things for quite a while before tapping into them. Also W&H is available to come back and keep being the W&H we know. So for me the good news is that nothing has happened that makes the story irretrievable (except the news that the franchise is being put in the hands of someone we even know less of).
Small note: Angel rushed out to accuse Spike and Illyria of killing humans, not a demon. I still don't know how to make sense of Angel's traverse from twice acknowledging Spike as a true champion to that vile of an accusation. The fact that Lynch still thinks it's dramatically interesting to ask "has he or hasn't he turned" questions of Spike suggests that he doesn't know just how ridiculous that accusation is at that point. I'm Spike-centric. These things don't sit well with me. The interesting questions about Spike at this juncture are not about whether he's going to do the right thing. And since it's really Angel of whom we should ask that question, it's particularly grating. Now, if you could persuade me that Lynch knows just exactly how bass ackwards it is for Angel to assume moral superiority to Spike that'd be cool. But again, I just never saw authorial distance from it. And combined with other stuff Lynch has said it just led me to the view that for Lynch, Spike's certainly underappreciated by Angel, but still has much to learn from the master. I hope that's overstating the problem. I just don't like that I'm not sure. That Spike had no dramatic function in the book besides comic relief doesn't improve my mood on this stuff, though.
The world has changed in interesting ways. I'd really, really love a story that juxtaposes Angel's fame as a Legend with at least his character weakness on that front, and even better with the fact that the truth is considerably darker. And someone with a better imagination than myself could well have even more interesting possibilities. I do like that final move a lot.
One more small note: Lynch's notes have the different reactions about whether to jump or not as being meant to show that Angel is still all about being a champion, but that Spike's first reaction is to hang up his sword. Agree that the text is capable of being read in other ways. But it's one more piece of why I came to mistrust Lynch.
I'm still mistrusting. But in a better position to appreciate what is there. Many, many thanks!!!
Re: Angel...-and Spike
I appreciate your concerns, I've had them myself at times - even during the show.
I used to post on a general fanboard, populated by a lot of Angel-centric fans, who saw Angel as a hero and Spike as either comic relief or well, not a hero. A sort of snarky side-kick. (Those were the nice ones. I won't tell you what the others thought, except that I'm sure you've seen the Robin/Nikki/Spike icon?) So many of the concerns you raise above - were actually interpretations made of the show, of both series.
Spike and Angel's roles as hero have always been rather ambiguous. I don't think the writers will ever tell us exactly what they think - they can't, they'd piss off half the fandom. Remember - there are a few Angel-centric fans out there who do not want to see their favorite character portrayed in a certain light.
Lynch is skirting a delicate line. Angel like Buffy is a tough character to write well, because he's so complicated. Sometimes, it's not clear whether he's a hero or an anti-hero. So in response to your question above and my reading of the comics - I think the writers see Angel as both. He's not that interesting from a writing perspective if he isn't. Also, I think they demonstrate that they think he's both -the murderer of innocents and the hero. Heck - we even see it on the page. Remember that drawing of Angel killing hordes of people? HE does and he doesn't. Just as Gunn does and he doesn't. And Angel's perception regarding Spike and Illyria killing the humans (thanks for the correction by the way, I'd forgotten the specifics of the scene - it was a while ago that I'd read it) - that makes sense. He thought it was Illyria. And..as Spike stated in Destiney, Angel needs to think of Spike in derogatory terms because he wants Spike to be worse than him - Angel is, oddly enough, in competition with Spike - it's a sibling thing.
As for your annoyance about the whole - "has Spike turned evil" or "can we really trust Spike twist"? Sigh. I know what you mean. It got old in S7 Buffy. They've been doing that twist as far back as S2 Buffy, after a while it becomes redundant. I really wish they'd stop already.
That said, I think I understand why they are doing it - Spike is a bit of a wild card character or what I like to call "the trickster". He is opportunistic (I like that about him) and he's brutally pragmatic. He will take the shortest route. Angel is an overthinker and tends to make huge complicated plans. Spike is less predictable, he goes for the punch.
We really don't know what he's going to do. Or what priority he will put first. What Lynch was trying to do - by doing that twist, was to show Spike's soul's effect on him. A lot of fans have troubles seeing the difference between Spike with a soul and without one. I never did. He is different. Without a soul, Spike most likely would not have taken those people with him and Illyria and he would not have saved them. He would have saved Illyria perhaps. Also Spike without a soul would not have been horrified when Illyria killed Jeremy in Spike:After the Fall. Nor would he have offered to train Connor or for that matter asked Connor to help him save people at night. Spike without a soul did what was best for Spike, what Spike enjoyed, he had fun. He was the same person, just without a conscience, he did not care about anyone who did not in some way benefit him. Care may be the wrong word. He did not "think" about them.
TBC, because I'm long-winded.
Re: Angel...-and Spike
Angelus said that to Faith in Orpheus and to Angel. He said - I'm not going away. I'm part of you. I am you. And it's true. Even here. But if you want the writer's to come out and tell you that directly? I'm sorry, they won't. Because then it wouldn't be ambigious and the fan may not continue reading.
I'm not sure it matters what the writer tells you. Sometimes a writer will subconsicously communicate something, he or she isn't aware of. We have no control what others will or won't see in our art. But that is part of the fun of it.
The ending of the comic is eerie. Especially if you keep in mind what happened in Harm's way, and what is happening with Gunn - who desperately wants to just die. Overwhelmed now with guilt for what he's done. It still happened. Just because there was a reset, doesn't mean it didn't happen, that they didn't experience it. Both Illyria and Spike are reeling from their memories of what happened.
As for mistrust? Ah. I have that problem with both the Buffy S8 and the Angel comics. I'm also highly annoyed that there aren't going to be more Spike comics - because they probably undersold. Lynch isn't writing any more any time soon. Because I'm still invested in the character and wanted more of him. I do not trust Whedon to insert him in Buffy or do what I really would like to see - a Drusilla arc. I think there's a lot he could do with Spike and Dru, a lot of territory to explore. But I doubt I'll get it. Instead I get characters in Buffy S8 - that I would have been happy never to have seen again - Warren, Dracula, Amy, Harmony, Andrew...to name a few. And he kills off or briefly discusses characters that I miss - such as Ethan.
I think I know what Whedon is planning on Buffy or his end-game. He wants to tell the tale of how Buffy closed the door on the demons. How she changed the verse for good or ill. Never been sure what he planned on doing with Angel and Spike in regards to it. There's more than one way to go.
On Angel comics - I mistrust the writers there as well. Lynch at least seemed to love all of them. Kelley Armstrong worries me. She's introducing some new characters - and I think we have more than enough already, we don't need more. I can't tell what she thinks of the characters from her interviews. But as I said before, if I don't like it? I'll stop buying it.
Wish I could allay your fears on that front, but I share them myself. Just as I share your frustration with Lorne's arc - I don't think it was handled very well - but Lynch has admitted that he had one too many characters to play with and got a bit lost at times.
Re: Angel...-and Spike
Interesting spec. In a recent interview Joss said that s9 will be very different. After reading your analysis I think that s9 could feature the society similar to the Alliance in Serenity - the society that tries to achieve peace by neutralizing all aggressive impulses in people.
So far, I read only one work of fiction that tried to explore such situation - Lem's Return from the Stars - and it was a fascinating read.
I wonder if Joss would like to explore the idea further. He was definitely interested in it when he did Serenity.
(oh - and I want to add that your discussion with Maggie was very enriching. Thank you!)
Re: Angel...-and Spike
In a recent interview Joss said that s9 will be very different. After reading your analysis I think that s9 could feature the society similar to the Alliance in Serenity - the society that tries to achieve peace by neutralizing all aggressive impulses in people.
I hadn't read that interview. But that is very interesting. And yes, I think you are correct - I think that is where Whedon may be going. He's a been a bit obsessed with this theme lately - I see it in what I've been reading about Dollhouse as well.
And I certainly saw it referred to in Fray, although it was more subtly done - how the walling up of the bad bits - only caused them to be repressed and leak out, until Fray had to be called.
I think he is already paving the way for S9 - with Harm's Way and issue 16 of Angel. I also think both Harm's Way and issue 16's ending may be Whedon and his writer's reaction to the popularity of Twilight and True Blood or a snarky swipe at that fandom, as well as at reality shows. But I'm not sure how much attention he pays to those things - I'm guessing quite a bit, because of all of the pop culture references that already appear in his work. But I could be wrong. So what happened in HArm's Way and the reaction people in the comic had to Angel in issue 16 - hit two points, one tongue in cheek and one a serious plot point.
Buffy is in a weird place - is she fighting for the "peace" by neutralizing all aggressive impulsives or is she fighting for what the Serenity team is fighting for? Which is side is she on, and for that matter, which side is Angel and his team on? Angel and his team are clearly on the aggressive side of the fence - they tried the peace and harmony bit with Jasmine and that did not end well, and they tried order with WRH - also did not end well. Not sure about Buffy.
Whedon's stories seem to be focused on the balance between order and chaos, not necessarily good and evil per se. And he seems to feel that you have achieve a balance between the two - go to far one way with order and you get the Alliance (a fascist organization) or everyone dead from boredom. Go too far the other way - and you end up with the world in Hell-LA or the chaos before Buffy sealed the hole in the fabrics of reality in The Gift. It's a recurring theme in his work - I see it as far back as Toy Story and Alien Resurrection (which he wrote but despised the direction of). I find Whedon fascinating, even when he drives me crazy.
Re: Angel...-and Spike
I think Whedon is concerned with good and evil. It's just that he understands that evil is a seemingly necessary part of the attribute of free will, and he's understandably reluctant to give that up. So it's not so much that he's not interested, as it is that he's interested in the best way of coping with a world where evil seems to be ineradicable.
I think there's a more personal element in the Buffy story he's telling, also. It's something like what happens when a righteous person no longer has a watcher, i.e. anyone she's answerable to? Because the ineradicable evil is also in her, it's bound to bubble up, likely in the pernicious guise of doing good. You see very well how that dynamic works in Angel. But it's always been in Buffy too, more latent, but there. (I'm thinking we're going to swing from seeing the problems with watchers to seeing why they were necessary).
Other stuff in the mix as well. All very interesting.
I agree with Moscow Watcher that the general direction is to align Buffy with the start of Fray. Whedon himself has said that. It's interesting because the last slayer in Fray got rid of all magics and demons; and that's what Twilight is after. So there's going to be some interesting shifting going on.
Re: Angel...-and Spike
I think it was a major plot point, but at the same time poking fun at and commenting on some pop culture items that the writers most likely have mixed feelings about.
Sort of both. Two birds with one stone, as the saying goes.
So Whedon has more or less validated my opinion that he's trying to align the Buffyverse with Fray? Good to know. I thought I'd read somewhere that he had, but couldn't remember. Thank you.
part 1
It may sound a bit impertinent - but may I rec you two wonderful reviewers -
I hadn't read that interview.
Joss did a big interview for The Write Environment DVD
http://www.thewriteenvironment.com/shoppingcart/products/The-Write-Environment%3A-Featuring-an-Interview-with-Joss-Whedon.html
Parts of the interview were transcribed by fans - ikafreak did the Spike part
http://icafreak.livejournal.com/267794.html
and enisy did season 9 part
http://community.livejournal.com/newly_legion/99883.html
Re: part 1
part 2
I also think so. I think the "celebrity" twist may be a set-up for a situation in which Buffy, to prevent the end of the world, will have to turn all slayers, including herself, into ordinary humans. Or it will be the consequence of getting rid of all the demons. And season 9 will be about Buffy struggling in a fascist utopia and finally restoring her power.
I'm curious who do you think is Twilight? My guess is Caleb.
It's a recurring theme in his work - I see it as far back as Toy Story and Alien Resurrection (which he wrote but despised the direction of).
Oh, yes, Alien Resurrection. His first attempt to combine a human and a monster in the same person. It was a very interesting experiment, but I think it was doomed by default because two demiurges (and I regard Jeunet as a demiurg) with absolutely different sensibilities can't co-exist in one universe.
I find Whedon fascinating, even when he drives me crazy.
Same here. (I remember reading your articles back in 2000-2003. I didn't know that you follow comics. Today Maggie mentioned your discussion on Dark Horse forum and I rushed to read it.)
Re: part 2
Re: part 2
Re: part 2
Re: part 2- Why it isn't Xander.
Re: part 2 - Why Twilight isn't Angel or Spike
(Anonymous) - 2009-01-27 17:46 (UTC) - ExpandRe: part 2 - Why Twilight isn't Angel or Spike
Re: Angel...-and Spike
I agree that ME wants us to see hero and anti-hero at the same time. That's why I love the show. Though at times, reading fan reactions, it's easy to get worried about what the writers were really after. Certainly lots of fans just see Angel as The Hero. My whole thing has been trying to decide whether Lynch is with the writers, or with those fans. And maybe I'm willing at this point to say that he's not with the fans, though he may not yet be all the way to the writers of the series.
We'll see what he does with W&H. That's pretty big. I decided last night that I'm hoping that W&H WANTED Angel to get himself killed, and that he has obliged them. Now they can leave him thinking he's defeated them, and they can find new and better ways to keep him as ensnared as he always was. (They do play him like a violin). Maybe the outbreak of publicity will be an important vehicle for that. A move like that would exonerate Lynch from the charge that his vision of the uber-apocalypse is very lame when compared to the understanding of the apocalypse that the series was working with. Cause if it went like this, the uber-apocalypse vision was just a lie to tempt Angel to forget what he knows about the ineradicable nature of evil.
I disagree with you a bit about Spike. He certainly was a trickster figure (big time) as he streaked through Sunnydale and literally upended everything. But now that he has the soul, one that he fought for, I think his room for being so unpredictable is reduced. He's achieved a kind of unity and it would seem random to undo that enough to make him behave randomly. Not that there aren't stories to tell about him. But not so much about whether there's doubt as to his fundamental commitment to the good. Maybe stories about mistakes he makes about what the good is. Dunno. I expect Whedon to make it clear how Buffy came to be robbing banks, so I don't want to say that a good story teller couldn't get Spike to turn evil again. But I do think it would take some work, and the "will he or won't he" stories really are silly in that context. (I think they are all really meant to play off an audience that tends to misperceive Spike, cause though he's gold, he sure as heck doesn't glitter).
Spike isn't perfect, of course. But the huge struggle is over. I'd say the same about Faith. She's had her fall, and her redemption. I expect her story to be a pretty straight-forward one of a slayer with good instincts but massive lack of self-confidence. It's the title characters who are still in play. Their foils/contrasts have already done their work in making us see how complex the eponymous heroes are. Again with caveats that I haven't the imagination a really good story teller has.
I retain trust in Joss. Not that I think he's perfect. Season 7 really is a mess. Willow-magic-crack-what-a-waste. His feminism is clumsy as hell and interferes with good storytelling from time to time. But I trust him to tell a story worth reading here. Unlike season 7 where he might have been tired, he's gone out of his way to start this project up. I'm assuming there's a reason for it. But Joss could blow it with me. This whole thread started with me basically laying down a gauntlet. I expect him to connect these characters back up with the ones we last saw in The Chosen. He had better be planning on explaining the evolution of BtBR. etc. etc. He just hasn't blown it yet. (I held AtF open for six issues; you might be convincing me to reopen it; season 8 is still open for me.)
Lynch on too many characters: Word. Big word. It's not one character too many. More like at least five.
Re: Angel...-and Gunn
I'd add that Angel sees it as all being his fault except when Spike lays it all on him, in which case it wasn't all his fault. (Small point, and yes, someone can want to have it both ways; which is to say I think it's a good elaboration of the basic point).
I hadn't thought of Gunn as a mirror to Angel, but you are right. But there is a difference, and this has been puzzling me. Angel does bad things to achieve "good ends" as a souled vampire. Gunn is presented as being unable to see that the bad means to achieve good ends is a huge problem BECAUSE he's a soulless vampire. A lot of fans on the boards take this as yet another example of how souls make all the difference. There's an irony here which would be interesting if Lynch intended it. Souled Gunn had learned his lessons about the ends not justifying the means. He had accepted punishment, and he was clearly getting back to the actual mission. Souled Angel in NFA was basically where soulless Gunn is now. Not quite so extreme, but the same basic idea. Angel had not figured it out the way human Gunn had. But I don't know that we are meant to see either the negative commentary on Angel (i.e. that Gunn has to become a soulless vampire to fall to his level) or the injustice of things (Gunn, who was remorseful, becomes a vampire while Angel who still didn't get it becomes a human). The latter is not so keen when Angel has to give up his humanity. (And I'm really responding to fans who thought it was great that Angel became human and wanted him to stay that way -- a desire that requires that you miss things like the fact that souled Angel can be meaningfully compared to soulless gunn.)
I'm also not sure I'm convinced that a soulless vampire can still want good ends, but be entirely unable to see that there's a problem with killing innocent humans. Season 5/6 Spike was a good example of a soulless vampire who wants good ends (basically) but who has a very flawed understanding of how to get there. The differences are more subtle. Here we get bludgeoned with it. And I really never knew quite what to make of it. (Gunn isn't stupid, but he'd have to be to not notice the contradictions. The people who are evil in the cause of good are interesting because their actions are not so obviously evil that they can't deceive themselves about the evil.)
I like the smaller things you point to, though. Using the Fish and his underlings, for example. That is classic doing evil in the cause of good stuff. And it's much like Angel.
On to your next. BTW, I really, really appreciate this!!
Re: Point of View
Re: I'll try but with the following caveat.
I've decided to respond post by post because I'm lazy that way. So this is me writing without having read the next four.
We have important common ground: I'm massively Spike-obsessed. My ability to continue to be engaged by season 8 is a testimony to my interest in Whedon's work, because emotionally speaking it's never going to matter to me one way or another as long as Spike's story isn't a part of it.
This might be a difference: I'm post-Spuffy. I think it was a totally fabulous relationship. Hugely important for both characters. This whole post started because I think it defies imagination to say that we can understand who Buffy is now if we don't know what she knows about Spike. And I think it's obvious that Joss knows this. I can live without there being a Spuffy future, partly becasue I see Buffy as the sort of person who will never be in a long-haul relationship and partly because I think Spike has literally given everything he can for Buffy, and she really can't do the same. Your remark that Lynch doesn't understand Spuffy is alarming because, of course, it's central to how one understands Spike.
I have not read extensively in the non-Lynch Spike comic book world. (Boy that's a clunky way of putting it.) I have read all of Lynch's Spike stuff. I did like Asylum very much. With an important caveat. It seemed off about where Spike is vis a vis Angel, depending on where in the season 5 arc you thought it was. That didn't matter so much because it was a stand alone that had no clear tie to the arc of season 5. (Not canonical and all of that). A big disappointment in AtF is that Lynch seems to see that relationship as not having advanced through season 5. Minor caveats were that I don't see Spike as someone who is a braggart about sex. There were the teeniest hints of that in Lynch's earlier Spike work, it became very much a nails on the chalk board thing for me here.
Indeed, a fair amount of my energy about the books is that for all that Lynch does love Spike (and I know he does), he's not leading me to deeper insights or understandings about the character I adore. And he's regressed him in some ways. (We'll see if the POV thing helps here, but I think that just shifts the problem to Angel). And because I'm Spike-centric, I have a rather visceral reaction to the idea that Angel is the sort of guy who would jump from a 10-story building to help someone, while Spike would take an elevator. I might just be petty enough to have let that color my whole engagement with the book. (It was a one-two punch in that fatal issue of First Night: Spike in the elevator, and Lorne getting his groove back).
Continued...
Re: I'll try but with the following caveat.
This might be a difference: I'm post-Spuffy.
On this we actually agree. I'm post-Spuffy too. Like you, I don't see the character of Buffy in a long term romantic relationship - something Buffy has actually come to terms with as have both Angel and Spike. Buffy riding off into the sunset with Spike never quite worked for me. In some ways I find it far more interesting that they didn't do that.
What I want is the exact same thing you do in regards to that in BS8.
I am not sure, however, that I share your confidence that Whedon will do it, I hope he will - but I'm not sure if he sees it much the same way he saw Cordy and Angel in what he told Lynch - which was Cordy's arc was completed, don't bring her back unless absolutely necessary.
Your remark that Lynch doesn't understand Spuffy is alarming because, of course, it's central to how one understands Spike.
I think from Lynch's pov, Spuffy made Spike less cool, weak, and not the snarky cool guy.
I don't agree with that pov. But having read one of comics outside of the Whedonverse by Lynch - the guy likes his characters snarky, his dames either tough or damsely. Depth isn't his strong-suit. He tends to be very pulpy as a writer. His Spike comics are actually the best ones.
I have read all of Lynch's Spike stuff. I did like Asylum very much. With an important caveat. It seemed off about where Spike is vis a vis Angel, depending on where in the season 5 arc you thought it was.
My guess is that it was shortly after Smile Time - due to Lorne references and references to Smile Time, but I could be wrong.
Minor caveats were that I don't see Spike as someone who is a braggart about sex. There were the teeniest hints of that in Lynch's earlier Spike work, it became very much a nails on the chalk board thing for me here.
How so on the sex part? Do you mean locker room bragging? As guys do about women they've shagged? I think most men do that and that's a guy thing. Lynch probably does it and is projecting. Let's face it men can be pigs. Hee.
Would Spike? Well, we know he has issues with the ladies. In fact the man not only loves women, but they are his achillees heel. And women love him.
Also he is a bit of a (excuse the term) pig at times - this was established on both shows. And as a vampire has no inhibitions. I can see him bragging about sex. He likes to brag. That was his intro in School Hard: "I don't like to brag...what am I talking about, I loooove to brag." But in the bragging he makes fun of himself.
Spike is the opposite of Angel in this regard, he brags, he chats, he talks, he likes being around people, and he makes fun of himself and things in general verbally. Angel isn't a verbal character. Spike is.
In Buffy's dream - she says to Angel - we were never very good at talking.
That's because Angel isn't into to talking about things. Spike - Angel comments in ATF - talks all the time, when he doesn't have his cigarettes or something. He also says it in Angel S5.
Lynch does love Spike (and I know he does), he's not leading me to deeper insights or understandings about the character I adore.
Well, I agree, nothing "deep". We've gotten more guilt.
And we've gotten more self-loathing. But nothing clear-cut. Nothing worth analyzing. But he hasn't done it for any of the characters. And I'm not sure Whedon's doing it either on BS8 at the moment.
I have a rather visceral reaction to the idea that Angel is the sort of guy who would jump from a 10-story building to help someone, while Spike would take an elevator.
I saw it as pragmatic and smart. And Angel's action as deeply stupid. Angel broke his back in the fall. Spike is in some respects a little more pragmatic. He also learns from his mistakes - something Whedon pointed out, while Angel seems to keep making the same ones over and over again.
If I were Spike, I'd have taken the elevator. Jumping off the building could cause problems - you might land in the wrong place, it would hurt (they still get hurt, just heal fast), and he wouldn't have the element of surprise. Plus, reluctant hero - part of him is thinking, this hell, dammit, why am I bothering? A perfectly rational response.
TBC because I ran out of room.
Re: I'll try but with the following caveat. (pt. II)
Where we are not on the same page: I think you are not reading "internal" and "external" the way I mean. When I say that I see Angel as internally driven, I mean that his tragedies are all a product of his actions and his character. Bad things don't just happen to him. They don't even just happen to him because that's part of the package of being the PtB's boy toy. Bad things happen to him because he's wrestling with Angelus, and because he wants to maintain an image of himself as a champion that isn't really reflective of where he is. Angel's obsession with Darla had a lot to do with this, and consequently Angel's feelings about Connor have a lot to do with this. Angel's relationship with Lindsey is also a big reflection of Angel's internal character issues. The tragedy with Connor has a sort of karmic aspect to it since Connor was begotten in a shockingly irresponsible act of despair. Angel's own reaction to his tragedy with Connor served to remind us just how far Angel is from his own ideals. That gap was very large at the start of season 5, which was a totally fascinating story of how he deals with that gap -- with very, very large questions at the end about whether he was actually closing the gap, or cementing it as some sort of huge chasm, or maybe even closing the gap by giving up on the possibility of redemption. Many fans see Angel as a champion who has a lot of very bad luck. My fear going into AtF was that Angel would be written as someone who has very bad luck. The following things made me think that my fears were going to be realized: Lynch's front page introduction to the first hardcover collection, where he talks about being riveted by the stream of bad things that happen TO Angel; Lorne got his groove back; the argument between Spike and Angel is about unforeseen consequences of NFA, not about the dark side if the things that happened in NFA (and what they meant about where Angel is internally). Admittedly, I really did disengage after First Night, reading the following issues, but not all that carefully. So I might have missed some moves that were reassuring on this point. If so, it would help a lot to learn what they are.
And maybe that crops up in the next four posts! On to number two.