Characters: big flaws vs. little flaws

[desmndlibrarian]

I found a post on Tumblr saying that Willow doesn't deserve anyone better than Kennedy. The reasons being mind raping Tara; committing murder; threatening her friends; and almost destroying the world, whereas Kennedy is just bossy and that's it.

That got me thinking: why do we love the characters with the biggest flaws and don't care for the one who have little flaws?

Why do we hate Riley more than Angel or Spike, even though they did far worse things to Buffy. I mean Spike attempted to rape Buffy and yet Riley is considered the worst!

Does it have to do with the performance of the actors? Is it the development or lack thereof? What do you all think?

 

[Buffy Summers]

I think it depends on the person, because obviously not everyone hates Riley more than Spike, or anyone more than Willow, in my case 😀

I think you are more willing to be forgiving to your favorite characters, and a character like Riley doesn't always have the chance to become your favorite before they screw up. I also think, you are more likely to be forgiving of characters (like Riley) on a second, third etc. watching than you are the first time around.

🙂

 

[Taake]

Interesting question. I think it's in part what we ourselves relate to and how we percieve flaws. I mean I've seen things written about the actions of Riley that I myself never even read into at all so obviously I never considered those flaws at all.

It's probably part the performance but also the chemistry between the actors and - again - how we relate to the story.
What are we willing to overlook? What aren't we? How does it relate to our desires/experiences/preferences?
Those are highly subjective matters. I mean someone might view Riley being dull and that that's a flaw, heightening his other minor flaws, whereas they view Spike as passionate and are therefor in a willing position to overlook minor flaws in light of what they consider a benefit. Whereas someone else might conceive Spike's passion as a flaw and Riley's lack thereof as a benefit...

Though the bit about Willow not deserving anyone better than Kennedy is a bit harsh.
A.) Because it's up to the person who loves/is interested in Willow in return to determine whether or not she is worthy of them. (e.g. Xander doesn't think Spike is worthy of Buffy... but Buffy does.)
B.) If Willow 'doesn't deserve better' - isn't that giving Kennedy the short stick? I mean if they're going after 'awful deeds make you unfit for future relationships' then being bossy hardly seems deserving of getting a murderer/world-destroyer on her lot.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Oh I forgot to say that I LOVE the idea that Willow deserves Kennedy 😀 😀 😀

* whistles and waits for BEG to come yell about how wonderful Willow is 😛 *

 

[Skanky Vamp]

"why do we love the characters with the biggest flaws and don't care for the one who have little flaws?"
I don't think it's the size of the flaw but how you use it. Flaws make characters human and relatable and allows the consumer to form a connection with an aspect of the character on a personal level. But ultimately it falls upon the writer to craft and create the character, flaws and all, in a manner in which you become vested in them. If you do not have something vested in the character they can have the biggest flaws (like Warren did) and you still wont find the character worthwhile.

Additionally, and I think this addresses more to the 'why do we love the character with biggest flaws' statement. People (generally speaking at least) love to root for the underdog; so the bigger the flaw the bigger the underdog.

 

[Blaze]

I know that for me, I enjoy two types of characters. The characters that I connect with for personal reasons. And the characters that are interesting to study because they are well written characters. Characters with big flaws, or characters that commit certain insane acts are of the latter category. Characters that do thing that should make you hate them are fun to analyse and try to understand. This is why villains are often well liked characters, yet we'd dislike them in real life. As long as a character is well rounded, it's not as simple as a character has this flaw and nothing else going for them. So it will be a combination of factors.

 

[EVIL UU]

It's not about the flaws. Charisma. Magnetism. Attractiveness. However you want to call it. Screen time too. That's what's important. Yeah, Spike's a misogynist, a rapist, a monster and...who ****ing cares? He's cool, OK? Great looks, great lines, great entertainment. Angelus? Yeah, a monster too but go watch "Innocence", the scene when he meets with Spike and Dru, lights a cigarette, kisses the blond and damn, is this guy awesome or what? Damn straight he is and that's why I love him! Willow, yes, of course, a rapist, killer, ultimate evil among other things and that's what, a bad thing? Are you St. Peter or something? This isn't about moral judgement, it's about entertainment. Fun. Characters can be good or evil but they cannot be unentertaining. That's the difference between Riley and Spike.

Why do we hate Riley more than Angel or Spike, even though they did far worse things to Buffy. I mean Spike attempted to rape Buffy and yet Riley is considered the worst! Does it have to do with the performance of the actors? Is it the development or lack thereof? What do you all think?

Well, I'll put it this way, who would you rather ****?

I found a post on Tumblr saying that Willow doesn't deserve anyone better than Kennedy.

Yeah, Kennedy might be a bitch or whatever but as a girlfriend? She's OK, can't say she's worse than Tara. Oh, right...Tumblr. Man, I have one rule when it comes to Tumblr - enjoy the pictures, don't read the text. Recommend it everyone.

Kennedy is just bossy

Never towards Willow.

 

[desmndlibrarian]

Kennedy is just bossy

Never towards Willow.

What about in Empty Places when she snapped at Willow for attempting to defend Buffy and calm her down.

But that's just how I feel.

 

[thetopher]

Characters with flaws are the best kind of characters- that's just a truth of fiction. The trick is to balance positive and negative traits to create a unique, interesting character that you can invest yourself in, root for, be intrigued by etc.

I like Buffy because of her faults as well as her strengths. Same with Wesley. Same with Angel. Same with Faith. I like them because they have admirable traits but also because they're layered and worthy of analysis- but the balance has to be there. Positive to negative.

Bottom line- I never thought of Willow as boring, I liked her a lot and I enjoyed the journey her character undertook even if I ultimately didn't like what she turned into by S7. I still like to think 'decent' Willow is in there somewhere.

But Kennedy is both incredibly irritating and boring. I have no interest in seeing her journey because I don't see any layers there, there's just nothing to hold my interest. Combine that with unpleasent character triats and I'm moving on.
If being with Willow means that Kennedy gets more spotlight then its Kennedy that doesn't deserve Willow, not the other way round.

Riley? His main problem is that he didn't have enough faults, he was boring.

Angelus? Fun but ultimately he got just the right amount of exposure so that I didn't tire of him. Beyond 'really nasty' there ain't much there. Good villain, boring character.

I don't particularly care for Anya. I look at her and see plenty of faults but no depth, no nuance. Which is a crazy thing to say about a 1000 yr old character.

Spike? Interesting to a point. Layered to a point. But ultimately way too many faults/overexposure made him boring...no, that's not exactly right. I think during S7 I came to the conclusion that Spike wasn't actually that interesting a character, but only because he was just a collection of tics/quirks that went from unsouled demon to souled without anything remarkable changing in his make-up.

The trick with being a writer is finding that golden fomula that makes a character just the right side of the balance. Nobody's going to want to read about a boring character and they're not going to root for an unpleasent one.

 

[white avenger]

I don't hate either Angel or Spike. Actually, I'm rather fond of them both. Flawed heroes, and no one here can deny that both vampires have their flaws, soul or no soul, are always the ones who seem the most interesting to me. Riley, however, was simply pure eye candy, so good that he was unbelievable. They had to actually invent the idea that having the blood sucked out of your veins was some sort of guilty pleasure, like visiting prostitutes, in order to create a flaw for him, because he had been written as just one step below perfection, with no human weaknesses or flaws. people like that are just plain B...O...R...I...N...G.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

Flaws are a part of what make us human, and people can relate to that. We all make mistakes, we all have made bad choices or decisions and we all have flaws. If we didn't then people would be pretty boring. We watch tv and movies and read books to be entertained. No body wants to watch or read characters that are perfect and boring. For me, I love Faith because I can understand her(to an extent). Buffy is a great character because even though Buffy has high morals, always does the right thing and is self sacrificing she also has made mistakes. Now there are tons of other reasons to like a character as well. Buffy is just a bad ass with funny quips and I love her. Where as I don't really care about Tara and a part of that is I think she is boring. And don't get me started on Anya, it'll just frustrate me. lol

 

[thetopher]

They had to actually invent the idea that having the blood sucked out of your veins was some sort of guilty pleasure,

Really? I alway thought that this was something that was obvious after Graduation Day pt2. The Buffy/Angel bite scene is pretty much sex, at least that's what Joss was going for. It's not much of a stretch to see that if something is pleasurable then some human somewhere will get addicted to it.

I do agree that the Riley/vamp prostitutes was badly plotted - it did feel lazy and contrived, but only because of the thought of Riley having that sort of 'dark side'.
He was never that interesting to begin with.

 

[The Bronze]

There's two different ways to like characters in fiction. There's the real life way of thinking that they seem nice and you'd go for a beer with them. Then there's liking the enjoyment value added by a character to the show. For example BTVS needs villains to work. So you can "like" a villain because without them there's no show, doesn't mean you like them on a personal level or condone their flaws.

So with Kennedy and Willow, we have Willow going through so much over a seven year period. People like her because she adds so much enjoyment value to the show. Doesn't mean they condone some of her more unpleasant decisions. Kennedy shows up for a few months and is mostly loud and irritating. She doesn't add much enjoyment value for a lot of people.

 

[sk]

Yeah, I don't think it is about flaws or no flaws. Not for me anyway.
When it comes to fictional characters it's all about entertainment (like EVIL UU said).

You like the characters that you enjoy watching, for whatever reason.
Flaws can of course be a part of that, good or bad. But it's not a deciding factor.
It can just as well be because they are good looking, has an interesting story or the character is just plain cool.

/SK

 

[white avenger]

Really? I always thought that this was something that was obvious after Graduation Day pt2. The Buffy/Angel bite scene is pretty much sex, at least that's what Joss was going for. It's not much of a stretch to see that if something is pleasurable then some human somewhere will get addicted to it.

I do agree that the Riley/vamp prostitutes was badly plotted - it did feel lazy and contrived, but only because of the thought of Riley having that sort of 'dark side'.
He was never that interesting to begin with.

But wasn't Buffy's experience the exception rather than the norm? And her thrill at that moment was more likely resulting from the joy of saving her lover's life than any pleasure from having two rather large holes drilled into her jugular. We never saw that kind of reaction from any other victim of a vampire attack on either show. Consistently, we saw shock, pain, fear, but never any sort of sexual release. Then, suddenly, there are vampire prostitutes active in Sunnydale, a situation that Giles apparently was aware of, but never bothered to tell Buffy.

And I agree, Riley never really struck me as anything more than somebody to punch Parker in the nose after he made that crack about freshmen and toilet seats. After that, he just served as a reminder that, as someone very wisely put it, at that stage of her life, Buffy needed a little monster in her man.

 

[thetopher]

But wasn't Buffy's experience the exception rather than the norm? And her thrill at that moment was more likely resulting from the joy of saving her lover's life than any pleasure from having two rather large holes drilled into her jugular. We never saw that kind of reaction from any other victim of a vampire attack on either show.

Buffy was sacrificing her life for Angel, I don't think 'joy' is the appropriate term here. She maybe should be releaved- but she clearly feels pleasure during the entire act. It's not just slayers- what sense would that make if it were a unique slayer thing?

We see other instances of the bite being pleasurable on the show (plus in almost all vampire mythos) but this was the first time it was explicitly shown.

Liam feels pleasure when Darla bites/turns him. William feels pleasure when Drusilla turns him (he also feels pain, so obviously there is still some pain even if the act is 'gentle')
Buffy also feels pleasure when Dracula bites her, so it wasn't just an Angel thing.

And they've even made it canon in the comics in a conversation between Angel and Willow in S9.

The vampire bite is a metaphor for a sex act, always has been. Mostly its a violation/penetration by a vampire. But there can be a more overt sexual/seductive aspect if the vampire chooses to be gentle, (like say turning the victim) but even if not there's a good reason why victims stop struggling as soon as their bitten.

The fear of victims seems mostly comes from the fact that a) the person attacking you has a deformed face/big teeth/snarling like an animal and b) that they're not being too gentle while their draining you dry.

 

[white avenger]

Buffy was sacrificing her life for Angel, I don't think 'joy' is the appropriate term here. She maybe should be relieved- but she clearly feels pleasure during the entire act. It's not just slayers- what sense would that make if it were a unique slayer thing?

We see other instances of the bite being pleasurable on the show (plus in almost all vampire mythos) but this was the first time it was explicitly shown.

Liam feels pleasure when Darla bites/turns him. William feels pleasure when Drusilla turns him (he also feels pain, so obviously there is still some pain even if the act is 'gentle')
Buffy also feels pleasure when Dracula bites her, so it wasn't just an Angel thing.

And they've even made it canon in the comics in a conversation between Angel and Willow in S9.

The vampire bite is a metaphor for a sex act, always has been. Mostly its a violation/penetration by a vampire. But there can be a more overt sexual/seductive aspect if the vampire chooses to be gentle, (like say turning the victim) but even if not there's a good reason why victims stop struggling as soon as their bitten.

The fear of victims seems mostly comes from the fact that a) the person attacking you has a deformed face/big teeth/snarling like an animal and b) that they're not being too gentle while their draining you dry.

I seriously doubt that Buffy actually thought initially that Angel would kill her. That he would have killed Faith, maybe, even probably, but she was counting on him to stop in time. But the look on Buffy's face after she kicked the lamp or whatever it was, was fear, not passion. Maybe she finally realized that what was feeding on her wasn't Angel, but the beast who she had awakened by striking him. Maybe she was flashing back to the last time that a vampire had bitten her, or maybe she just finally realized the gravity of her action, but, orgasm or no orgasm, when Angel actually started feeding, she was afraid. Maybe she finally realized that it wasn't her Angel who was draining the blood out of her, but the demon inside him, the demon she had awakened by striking him. Angelus.

Dracula has always been portrayed as having the power to enthrall his victims, and, yes, his bite is always a metaphor for seduction, but he has also always been portrayed as unique among all vampires, even going so far as to remain in human form when he bites his victims. No snarling beast with bared fangs there, so using him as an example of all vampire attacks doesn't actually work. On the other hand, Angelus' victims, the few that we ever saw, didn't seem to be that happy about being bitten, and that snarling beast that you mentioned was definitely present, just as it was when he bit Buffy. I would say that Angelus' feeding was more a metaphor for rape than seduction. As for Darla biting Liam, or Dru biting William, in neither case did the victim know on advance what was about to happen. Buffy did know, or at least knew what might possibly happen, and she said at one point in the show that being turned was one of her greatest nightmares. Maybe Angel wouldn't ever turn her, but the beast who she had awakened quite possibly would, before Angel could bring it under control again.

 

[thetopher]

Well, Buffy moaning and groaning and almost wrapping her legs around Angel sure makes it look like a sexual act/pleasurable, and Joss has stated as such that this is what it was meant to be.- pure Bangel passion.

As for Darla biting Liam, or Dru biting William, in neither case did the victim know on advance what was about to happen.

But doesn't that prove my point? Without the bumpy face/hungry draining of the typical vampire-feeding then the emphasis is on the forbidden pleasure/taboo nature of the act itself. Liam and William are 'seduced' and don't know what's going to happen- there is no fear, just physical sensation.

It's true that Dracula isn't a typical vampire on the show, but he does fit the established pattern- that vampire feeding can have a dark, seductive lure to it.

 

[white avenger]

Well, Buffy moaning and groaning and almost wrapping her legs around Angel sure makes it look like a sexual act/pleasurable, and Joss has stated as such that this is what it was meant to be.- pure Bangel passion.



But doesn't that prove my point? Without the bumpy face/hungry draining of the typical vampire-feeding then the emphasis is on the forbidden pleasure/taboo nature of the act itself. Liam and William are 'seduced' and don't know what's going to happen- there is no fear, just physical sensation.

It's true that Dracula isn't a typical vampire on the show, but he does fit the established pattern- that vampire feeding can have a dark, seductive lure to it.

As I said, Buffy's initial sensation when Angel bit her might have been, as you say, the equivalent to some dark forbidden pleasure, but I still think that, after that initial thrill passed, the reality of her situation began to sink in. Look at her expression as the camera fades to black. That is fear, not passion.

And Dracula, in the Buffyverse, is plainly depicted as most certainly NOT fitting the pattern as established there. It's even gone so far as to have Buffy consult Dracula in Season 8 about that very uniqueness. Dark and seductive, he might be, but every other vampire who Buffy has encountered, Angel and Spike included, are snarling, wrinkle faced, fanged monsters. In this case, what Hammer Films and the other studios depicted Dracula as being isn't really relavent.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Dracula was also able to transform into a bat or in Buffy, he could become an insubstantial mist, a construct we see again in "After Life 6ABB03" where she cannot fight the apparition without a solidification spell from Willow.