Exactly, it went further than taking just weapons or other equipment though, coming home with a skull ( or ears, teeth, other body parts ) of a fallen Japanese soldier was actually quite common ( it's why I mentioned Nikki's skull ) even stuff like using bones to make knife handles and such wasn't unheard-of.
Leather coat? Still civilized enough all things considered, I mean, for a soulless monster.
I know this was a few pages ago, but I wanted to comment on it.
Yes, real life soldiers did this, but that still doesn't make said action anything less than totally screwed up. Killing in war is pretty much self defense, and in that regard it is understandable, but I will never view the death of a human being as cause for celebration. The "us vs. them" mentality often comes with a dehumanizing element, which is the case here with bringing back body parts that should have gone to the soldiers' families. Anyone who brought home a human skull as a trophy is pretty sick and in desperate need of therapy.
Spike's coat is tame in comparison, yes, but he's not a soulless monster anymore. Killing Nikki back in his evil days was part of the natural order of things, and he's right that he couldn't help being what he was. But boasting that he took her life and using it to uphold his badass reputation/feel good about himself? That's just being an asshat, and is really pathetic. He can't change his past, but having a soul means that he should know there is nothing badass about his past actions. If you don't want to be viewed as monster anymore,
stop acting like one. Give the coat back to her son; if he still hates you that's his choice, but it'd be the right thing to do regardless, and would show that Spike is taking steps to being a better person without the need for something in return.
I realise I'm in a minority from this conversation in not thinking that Angelus and Angel are totally different. I can't remember who was saying Spike and soully Spike were kinda the same and Angel and Angelus v different, as it was 4 or 5 pages back ;-)
Angel is broody, obsessive, vengeful... He's a classic Heathcliff character. The view of Liam pre-vamping is of a lout: drinking, gambling, self-destructive and unpleasant to the women in the scenes.
I think it's interesting that Angel is shadowed by the character of Oz: Willow says "I too know the love of a taciturn man and you have to judge them by their actions". Oz shows the other version of the brooding love interest, because he is deeply humanitarian and empathetic, just quiet.
The analogy of a lover who turns on their woman is played out in Angel's reaction to losing his soul: it's all about traditional masculinity, he's upset that he was made weak by his soul, he holds Buffy responsible for his taming and he feels the need to reassert his dominance by ridicule, hurt and disempowerment of Buffy.
In contrast, Spike is modelled on the Byron idea of an anarchic charismatic person who takes us away from ourselves. The punk styling is the modern version of this, he won't play by the rules and that is exciting.
He embodies the other masculine model we have, the action man. He doesn't care about his status but he won't stay down for long. He's driven by his emotions (especially the low down tickly ones) but isn't defined by power in the same way.
You can see the dynamic play out in season 5 Angel, with interactions based around Angel saying, I'm the alpha male and getting frustrated that Spike won't accept the paradigm.
With Buffy, he is so driven that he doesn't care that it's a disfunctional relationship, he doesn't add up what the violence means for how they're interacting and doesn't realise until after the attempted rape that something is really wrong.
It's not surprising that the two characters are so divisive for us fans, it depends on which ideal of masculinity you grew up with, which one you find easier to forgive and empathise with.
I have a problem with traditional masculinity a la Angel, because I associate it with the thin end of a wedge that ends up at misogyny, domestic violence and honour killing. But I have a similar problem with the Spike model too because it includes a lack of reflective thinking that leads to stalking, consent issues and following your needs rather than your lover's. However, Spike when soulled becomes more reflective, a journey that's being explored in season 10, whereas Angel imo becomes a better man but keeps the worrying paradigm.
I don't know, Angel/Angelus isn't really the one I'd peg as misogynist. Outside of "Innocence," where the metaphor of an older guy acting nice to a younger girl to get in her pants is used. But that metaphor is not that prominent throughout the rest of the season, where he is too focused on her. I'd describe him as sadistic and obsessive, but not misogynist. Yes he is an alpha male, a brooding, square jawed action hero. But he also has many stereotypical feminine traits: he cooks for his friends and is a bit of a neat freak in season one of his show, he often times plays the "damsel in distress" role on BtVS, he's affectionate and nurturing to baby Connor, is content to act as emotional support at times for Buffy (a role usually reserved for the girlfriends of male heroes), and he does it all without being an overly flowery romantic and still acts like a petty jerk on occasions. In short, he seems like an actual guy in a post-feminist world: well meaning, partaking in some "girly" gender roles and being content with it, but his old fashioned chivalry can come across as condescending at times.
Spike, meanwhile, acts like a devoted love slave who adores his woman on the surface, but that's only for as long as he gets what he wants. "Crush" shows him reacting violently when women don't respond to his fantasies. He blames Buffy for making him weak in his love for her (leading to him almost shooting her in the damn face), casually refers to her as "bitch" or
his "bint" when he's rubbing their affair in Riley's face. When he gets his soul, he puts a lot of the blame for their dysfunctional affair on her (this, despite the fact that he was the one who resorted to sexual assault). He later makes a snide comment about Buffy showing Wood her "weapon's chest" in "Get it Done."
It's true Angel is an alpha male figure, but Spike is the one who chooses to be threatened by it. He boasts about "putting it to Buffy" to get under Angel's skin, expresses jealousy at everything Angel has without really understanding the situation, and blames Angelus for making him a monster. And while I detest the comics, I've glanced at them enough to see his "Nice Guy" rant to Angel in that one issue of A&F where he expresses annoyance that Buffy doesn't love him after all he's done for her.
The worst thing? All of this seems accidental on the part of the writers. I honestly feel like they want us to love Spike and are rooting for him despite his childish behavior. Maybe this has to do with many of the writers being white male geeks who have some issues with the jocks and cheerleaders who might have given them trouble in high school and developed a chip on their shoulders.
