Question For Spuffies/Bangels

[Silum]

WOW.

Are you serious?

Angel, the poster vamp of brooding, guilt, and sacrifice, doesn't deserve her... but Spike does?

Personally? I contend that Angel deserves everything sooner than Spike. The decades of torturous guilt, the centuries in hell, the constant ritual sacrifice that he makes for people (including Buffy) every single day... and he doesn't deserve her?

For someone who cites the character as one of her favorites, you must not think a lot of him. 😛

I'd say Angel deserves happiness (with Buffy or whomever) to an extent far greater than anyone in this series. And yes, that includes Spike.

Were it ones 'guilt and brooding' that deserved sacrifice, sure, Angel wins hands down, he can out brood every demon and human alike in the buffyverse. Thankfully relationships are about real tangible actions, and more importantly in this case, stages in life. Spike deserved Buffys love for what he overcame, not what he was subjcted to.

What, him stalking Buffy at 15 is something to be admired is it? And why does Angel deserve happiness? Because you empathise with his situation? Was his 'fight for good' not just the logical step for a worthless drunk, followed by an evil vampire who did nothing worthy in his life, then continued to do nothing worthy in his life for the next 100 years with a soul? What precisely were Angels actions that were deserving of Buffy? Clearly you have some to make such a point.

Angel doesn't deserve to be with Buffy, lets be fair, the both of them deserve to be dusted. Angels continual fight (once getting over his rat eating phase) is completely nullified imo by a vampire who wants to do good, even where their is no gain to be had (shanshu or otherwise). Spike looking after Dawn was out of love, love for the memory of Buffy. You can try to make this as clear cut as you like "WOW, are you serious??"... yes, I do believe most the people in this thread are serious. 😉

Anyway, im tired

 

[Gideon]

I'm more than happy to discuss this, but if there's one thing I'm not interested in doing, it's arguing the merits of Angel vs. Spike with someone who is hellbent on whitewashing one of the characters.

If your goal is to essentially espouse the theory that "omg lawl spyke is purfect and even tho he tryed to rape buffy at least he didnt watch her from teh shadows witch is far worse!!1!" then color me uninterested.

Because voyeurism is far worse than an attempted rape. 😉

Were it ones 'guilt and brooding' that deserved sacrifice, sure, Angel wins hands down, he can out brood every demon and human alike in the buffyverse.

I certainly think that a murderer who displays guilt and remorse (Angel) is far more deserving of anything positive than a murderer whose guilt is more or less on the minimal side. Aside from his initial outburst in early season seven, we see that Spike is remarkably flippant about his former crimes. In s5 of Angel, "Damage," Spike tells Angel that it would be best if he could "let his guilt go."

There's nothing cute or badass about that.

Thankfully relationships are about real tangible actions,

Like rape, right?

(This would be me using your tactic. It doesn't bode well for either character if we pull every terrible feat out of their respective closets without context, yes?)

and more importantly in this case, stages in life. Spike deserved Buffys love for what he overcame, not what he was subjcted to.

Spike overcame what? Not slaughtering humans? Hmm. Funnily enough, I seem to recall a certain piece of technology that was forced into Spike's brain being responsible for that.

I must say: I'm beginning to lose my deep newfound respect and appreciation for the Spuffy perspective.

What, him stalking Buffy at 15 is something to be admired is it?

I love how a singular exposure to Buffy at 15 constitutes stalking. You're taking this bias thing a little bit too far when you manipulate the definition of words to suit your agenda.

It's almost as admirable as the rape. Not quite, though, since Spike was trying to rape Buffy to assist and protect her against the forces of darkne --

Oh, wait.

And why does Angel deserve happiness?

Averting the apocalypse, sacrificing his happiness for Buffy, "helping the helpless," and sacrificing his Shanshu to take down the Circle of the Black Thorne -- you know, the things that they spent five seasons (eight, if you include his time on Buffy) showing?

Likewise, what about Spike? Why does he deserve happiness? Because he went out to get a soul to get in a girl's pants?

Ah, yes. Chivalry and nobility are definitely alive and well with Spike.

Because you empathise with his situation? Was his 'fight for good' not just the logical step for a worthless drunk, followed by an evil vampire who did nothing worthy in his life, then continued to do nothing worthy in his life for the next 100 years with a soul?

Right, because Spike wasn't an evil vampire, butcher of two slayers, and unrepentant murderer for centuries --

Oh, wait.

What precisely were Angels actions that were deserving of Buffy? Clearly you have some to make such a point.

"Averting the apocalypse, sacrificing his happiness for Buffy, "helping the helpless," and sacrificing his Shanshu to take down the Circle of the Black Thorne -- you know, the things that they spent five seasons (eight, if you include his time on Buffy) showing?"

What about Spike's actions?

Ah, yes, I forgot! He wore a lovely bit of jewelry at the proper moment.

Who was responsible for that, again?

Oh, yes... Angel.

Angel doesn't deserve to be with Buffy,

Yes, he does.

lets be fair,

Your argument suggests an inability to do so. Fortunately, there's enough ammunition for the opposition to blow Spike away as well.

the both of them deserve to be dusted.

No, neither of them do.

Both have a shot at redemption and both have made attempts to do good.

Angels continual fight (once getting over his rat eating phase) is completely nullified imo by a vampire who wants to do good, even where their is no gain to be had (shanshu or otherwise).

The shanshu didn't come into play until the very end of season one. Angel had been doing good prior to that. And that's the difference between us: I don't think you can "nullify" either Spike or Angel's good deeds.

Spike looking after Dawn was out of love, love for the memory of Buffy.

Lust, you mean? It's understandable to confuse the two; both invoke strong feelings and happen to be four letter words starting with the letter 'l'.

You can try to make this as clear cut as you like "WOW, are you serious??"... yes, I do believe most the people in this thread are serious.

Your argument suggests otherwise.

Anyway, im tired

Great.

Anywho, back on point, this sort of discussion represents the kind I don't like. Your response was extremely biased and petty, and I felt inclined to respond in kind to show you that pettiness solves nothing. You can spew opinions ad infinitum, taking events out of context and bringing up Angel's darkest deeds and only discussing Spike's best ones.

But your opponent can do the exact same thing. You can paint two redeemable characters out to be beyond redemption. Which gets us nowhere.

The bottom line is that I think both of them have a shot at happiness and deserve it. But the truth is that Spike hasn't been through the same stuff that Angel has. What was his sacrifice, his life? His suffering ended. Angel's sacrificed happiness and reward multiple times, throwing his life on the line. That's not to mitigate Spike's accomplishments: he has become a good man. Does he deserve Buffy's love? Obviously, or she wouldn't have given it out.

And the same applies for Angel. At the end of the day, we can give our opinions, but who are we -- even as an audience -- to decide who or what deserves love? You can't really quantify it, rationalize it, or proportionalize it. Both Spike and Angel have histories as creatures of evil who have ultimately, due to the influence of one woman, decided to act as forces for good.

There is a beauty to that connection that links the three of them.

But it's patently and irretrievably stupid, in my opinion, to suggest that Angel deserves neither love nor happiness when the cold, hard fact of the matter is that while he has done more evil than Spike, he's also done more good.

After all of the crap he's done, he deserves the shanshu, Buffy, and a continent of his choice! Not that Spike doesn't deserve it, too, or is incapable of deserving it, but that's not the issue.

But that's why, at the end of the day, I think Angel shouldn't get any of it. His character is altruistic, noble to a fault. As Angel, he represents the very incarnation of compassion and nobility and as Angelus, he represents the ultimate evil. That's the intrinsic dichotomy of his character.

The signing away the Shanshu in the last episodes? That is proof -- right then and right there -- that unlike Spike, he's not out for a grand reward or Buffy. There was no hesitation when he thought he had given it up.

That sense of altruism is why, to me, he deserves it. There's an old saying that those best suited for power are those who do not seek it.

That's the key to Angel. He deserves Buffy the most because he's not obsessed with her, doesn't plot every move to make her love him. Not like Spike. Angel never had to fight for Buffy's love; he had it from day one.

 

[InsaneMystic]

I really don't think suffering and brooding make you deserving of anything, by themselves. They just make you idle away your so-called life in depression, there's nothing noble about that. (And believe me, I know what I'm talking about. If anything, Angel is too similar to what my life has been for me to sympathize with him.)

As to the "Angel has done more good than Spike" - well, take into account how much more time he had. On the "good done per year", I think Spike wins out (seeing he never spent the best part of a century moping and eating rats 😛 ). Also look at how unsouled Spike did noble things (like his protection of Dawn - no way you can chalk that up to merely lusting for Buffy, even though I certainly agree that a LOT of things unsouled Spike did were out of lust, and not love, for Buffy) that, IMO, often put ensouled Angel to shame.

Besides, as I said in my post above, I disagree about the "getting a soul to get into a girls pants" part. That's no more true than saying that Angel only stopped eating rats to get into a (15-year old) girls pants... and where's the nobility in that motivation for becoming a champion? 😉

To finish it up, there's major disagreement from me with your last point:

That's the key to Angel. He deserves Buffy the most because he's not obsessed with her, doesn't plot every move to make her love him. Not like Spike. Angel never had to fight for Buffy's love; he had it from day one.

Spuffy (more precisely, S7 Spuffy) is more about what I would call love than Bangel ever was. Spuffy is about overcoming a troubled past (including the rape scene, for which, like I said, Buffy and Spike are equally responsible), taking responsibility for your actions, and arriving at love despite all baggage from the past.

Bangel, in contrast, is about a hormone-driven teenager's crush on a darkly handsome mysterious stranger combined with a clinically depressive guy's desperate craving for meaning in life in the shape of a lively female. (The latter, again, is something I've gone through myself so often it makes me cringe.) To quote Giles: "It's not love, it's obsession. Childish, silly obsession!" A sentence that, while not meant for Bangel, sums it up perfectly. (I'll freely grant you that the same can be said about S6 Spuffy, too - but not S7. In S7, Spuffy reached heights of true love Bangel can probably not even dream of. 😛 )

 

[Silum]

To be fair, it is a little hard to debate this when you resort to mocking the others position just to try and make your point. Calling me petty because I dont share your opinion, doesn't give you credibility btw. All you'll get is sarcastic responses in turn, so ill try and address what your actually saying. Hopefully you can take this a little more lighter, it is all a good bit of fun afterall 🙂

but if there's one thing I'm not interested in doing, it's arguing the merits of Angel vs. Spike with someone who is hellbent on whitewashing one of the characters.

Funny because it appears that is precisly what you have done with Spike. You may notice a similarity in a lot of the comments I will make...

Because voyeurism is far worse than an attempted rape. 😉

A 240 year old vampire (with a soul) stalking a 15 years old is pretty much on par with a rape in my book. There's a reason its called statutory rape. Either way, I find it funny that Angels excuse is 'Spike is worse'... ? Ohh, Spike didn't have a soul.

I certainly think that a murderer who displays guilt and remorse (Angel) is far more deserving of anything positive than a murderer whose guilt is more or less on the minimal side.

Spike shows a rationality if anything. He was under the control of a demon. Angel has often stated that as Angelus he was there but had no control. The fact that Spike can overcome the actions he had no control over is something to be applauded if anything.

Like rape, right?

(This would be me using your tactic. It doesn't bode well for either character if we pull every terrible feat out of their respective closets without context, yes?)

I like your last sentence there considering how much you are comparing refromed Angel with evil Spike throughout your points.

Anyway, rape sucks. But its what I would expect from a vampire without a soul who is fighting at every turn between an evil monster in control and his humanity bursting out.

Spike overcame what? Not slaughtering humans? Hmm. Funnily enough, I seem to recall a certain piece of technology that was forced into Spike's brain being responsible for that.

Spikes humanity was present long before that. Hence why he "reaked of humanity"

I love how a singular exposure to Buffy at 15 constitutes stalking. You're taking this bias thing a little bit too far when you manipulate the definition of words to suit your agenda.

It wasn't a singular exposure. Angel described how he 'loved her from the very first moment" he saw her. He described how he had never loved anything more when he first saw her changed to a slayer.

Because he went out to get a soul to get in a girl's pants?

Oh dear.

Right, because Spike wasn't an evil vampire, butcher of two slayers, and unrepentant murderer for centuries

If you want to use Spikes souless actions, would be so kind to also uses Angels? Remember no 'whitewashing of characters' now.


.... These points can go on and on, but you want to argue without bias while being entrenched in bias. It all boils down to you comparing Spike and Angel at different stages.

Where did I state that pre-soul Spike was deserving of Buffy? He is an evil monster, but a monster with humanity. It has nothing to do with a chip, it has to do with the humanity of a evil monster. What we saw with Spike was a man who wanted to be worthy, even if its only something as trival as love...but do you not see how huge that is for a vampire? Once he fights for his soul (again, the fighting isn't the issue, he could have got it off ebay for all I care, its the vampire actually wanting one that means something) then, and only then is he deserving. His actions before that give us great insight into his character (looking after Dawn), but their relationship was a product of self hate not love so no, Spike pre soul doesnt deserve Buffy.

Things I have against Angel being worthy of Buffy have to do with his actions, as a ensouled being performing actions that just dont 'cut it' for me. For him to fall in love with a 15 year old as an ancient grandpa is just creepy for me, sorry, unless you have your blinders on. Besides, that was only 1 of my points. How about how he continually kept information from her? Or failed to see her point of view on the whole faith issue? Or stealing a day of wonderful love and perfect happiness from Buffy, while he gets to hold onto that? These are the actions that display character in its truest form imo. Angel in 'I will remember you' doesn't have any repercussions for those actions, it is something where he has a choice to do the right or wrong thing without anyone to witness it.

 

[Gideon]

To be fair, it is a little hard to debate this when you resort to mocking the others position just to try and make your point. Calling me petty because I dont share your opinion, doesn't give you credibility btw. All you'll get is sarcastic responses in turn, so ill try and address what your actually saying. Hopefully you can take this a little more lighter, it is all a good bit of fun afterall 🙂

I called you "petty" not because you and I disagree, but because of the tenor you used in your response. It was essentially the tune of "Spike is perfect, Angel sux!" I can promise you that to the eyes of the world and courts, a voyeur/Peeping Tom is far lower on the totem pole than a rapist; and that's being generous to your argument, since the reality is that Angel was obviously neither perverted nor a voyeur; Joss has made it abundantly clear, even as late as Paleyfest '08: "It may not have been legal, but it was real," deferring to the "Juliet was 13!" argument.

The entire first half of my response was intentionally designed to be equally petty. The point is clear: trying to besmirch Angel's character to elevate Spike's is ridiculous and a precarious position; Spike's done his fair share of dark deeds that one could easily paint him in an equally vile manner.

It's best that one tries to be as objective as possible, which is why my contention is that both of them deserve her love and that both of them have transcended their natures to become good, if flawed, men. Yours was more or less ANGEL IS PURE EVIL AND I HATE HIM AND HE DESERVES TO SUFFER FOREVER BWAHAHAHAHA.

Which I neither respect nor understand.

Funny because it appears that is precisly what you have done with Spike. You may notice a similarity in a lot of the comments I will make...

As I clearly explained to you, the first half of my rebuttal was farcicle in nature; I was mocking the pettiness.

A 240 year old vampire (with a soul) stalking a 15 years old is pretty much on par with a rape in my book.

Please explain how a singular exposure constitutes stalking.

There's a reason its called statutory rape. Either way, I find it funny that Angels excuse is 'Spike is worse'... ? Ohh, Spike didn't have a soul.

Spikes humanity was present long before that. Hence why he "reaked of humanity"

I think we should stop here, because I don't appreciate the double standard. For Spike's crimes, you wave your magic wand and ignore it, citing that he was soulless. When the subject changes to Spike's goodness, you cite that he "reaked of humanity!" even without a soul.

Before a discussion can take place, one should make up one's mind (though of course be willing to change it). This is a painfully aware double standard. Either Spike is the truly, morally evolved specimen of vampire that Joss and Spuffies say he is -- with the capacity to love even without a soul -- or he is equal to Angelus and beyond redemption.

If he's evolved enough to love, to genuinely love, then he's morally culpable, unlike Angelus.

You can't have it both ways to suit an agenda. At least not if you want to discuss the issue with me.

Me? I don't have an agenda. I'm a firm believer that Angel should never get his Shanshu (even though he deserves it); I believe the relationship with Spike and Buffy could have evolved into one of true romantic love, and that it's hard to imagine Buffy and Angel truly winding up together after all that's happened.

But I also happen to love both Spike and Angel as characters and am not so bound by preference as to attack one to make the other look good.

Just my two cents. 🙂

Spuffy (more precisely, S7 Spuffy) is more about what I would call love than Bangel ever was. Spuffy is about overcoming a troubled past (including the rape scene, for which, like I said, Buffy and Spike are equally responsible), taking responsibility for your actions, and arriving at love despite all baggage from the past.

Bangel, in contrast, is about a hormone-driven teenager's crush on a darkly handsome mysterious stranger combined with a clinically depressive guy's desperate craving for meaning in life in the shape of a lively female. (The latter, again, is something I've gone through myself so often it makes me cringe.) To quote Giles: "It's not love, it's obsession. Childish, silly obsession!" A sentence that, while not meant for Bangel, sums it up perfectly. (I'll freely grant you that the same can be said about S6 Spuffy, too - but not S7. In S7, Spuffy reached heights of true love Bangel can probably not even dream of. )

I completely disagree. As per Joss, "it was real [love]" (Paleyfest '08) and even as of season 8? Buffy cares more for Angel than Spike according to Jeanty (as per Joss's directive). That's enough for me, since he created all of these relationships.

But that doesn't mean Buffy doesn't care for/love Spike, either. I suppose it's about being objective enough to recognize the facets and nature of both relationships without being clouded by bias.

Not to mention Buffy initiating a kiss with Angel during "Chosen" and giving the speech that she still thinks about a future with him; doesn't reconcile the theory that it's just a hormone-driven crush.

But I digress. 🙂

 

[Silum]

It's best that one tries to be as objective as possible, which is why my contention is that both of them deserve her love and that both of them have transcended their natures to become good, if flawed, men. Yours was more or less ANGEL IS PURE EVIL AND I HATE HIM AND HE DESERVES TO SUFFER FOREVER BWAHAHAHAHA.

Which I neither respect nor understand.

I honestly did not read beyond this point.

I have dealt with people like you before where your undeniable passion doesnt allow you to see others point of view. If you honestly see that as my point of view, that I hate Angel, and thats why he doesnt deserve Buffy, then you have misunderstood me. I would ask you to reread my posts, but you would still reread them with the glasses of Angel "is altruistic, noble to a fault...he represents the very incarnation of compassion and nobility" 🙄

I don't think I will even extend the curtosy of any further explanation. Your disrespect is palpable with every "BWAHAHAHAHA"

 

[Gideon]

I honestly did not read beyond this point.

I have dealt with people like you before where your undeniable passion doesnt allow you to see others point of view. If you honestly see that as my point of view, that I hate Angel, and thats why he doesnt deserve Buffy, then you have misunderstood me. I would ask you to reread my posts, but you would still reread them with the glasses of Angel "is altruistic, noble to a fault...he represents the very incarnation of compassion and nobility" 🙄

I don't think I will even extend the curtosy of any further explanation. Your disrespect is palpable with every "BWAHAHAHAHA"

Direct me, then, to the part of this discussion where you gave Angel the credit he is due, as I have done for Spike.

I'll happily apologize.

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------

I've sent Silum an apology via PM, but I have to say that I stand by my assessment. From what I have seen, stalking these boards, there is much bias. I realize that it is subjective and that you obviously prefer some characters to others, but I come from a school that teaches that criticism isn't necessarily a reflection of all that one has done wrong; when one renders a critique, one should point out the margin for improvement as well as what the critic feels that the object did right.

That's why I don't go around just bashing characters or trying to tear them down. I think Spike and Angel are two absolutely brilliant characters whom I adore, each with their own set of strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vices.

It just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth when all one sees is people ganging up on Angel to make Spike look better.

Just my two cents, though. I'm sure you all don't see it that way.

 

[Silum]

Well it will leave a 'bad taste in your mouth' if you view Angel as darn near perfect. I don't think that has anything to do with viewing things critically or remaining unbiased. I think some of your comments in this thread state quite the opposite...

Eh?

I've seen... absolutely nothing that suggests that her feelings for Spike were anything compared to what she feels for Angel, much less when the two of them were actually dating.

Do you not see how subjective this all is? You arn't just weighing the options, you are decided how to view things. Why would we be having this discussion otherwise? Your bias leads you to the same conclusions that my own brings me to my very separate ones. Don't pretend that your school has taught you to view things so critically that you have the magical power to view the entire situation without bias. Your posts have proven exactly opposite. And I dont need to discuss Angels honour to understand his dishonour.

Anyone who views Spike not as the monster forced upon him, but as humanity fighting to escape is viewed as 'whitewashing the facts'. Angels faults are conveniently neglected and the focus has to be on Spikes flaws as a souless vampire for you to make your point.

 

[Gideon]

Well it will leave a 'bad taste in your mouth' if you view Angel as darn near perfect. I don't think that has anything to do with viewing things critically or remaining unbiased. I think some of your comments in this thread state quite the opposite...

I'm not sure what you're keen on arguing here. You believe I think Angel is "darn near perfect," I believe you think the same thing about Spike. Obviously neither of us believes that this is the case. For the record, the fact that Angel displays a selflessness that exceeds Spike's own (in my opinion) doesn't make him faultless. Angel in s2 of his own show made it abundantly clear that he was capable of great evil even without reverting to Angelus, so I don't think he's darn near perfect in any shape or form.

Do you not see how subjective this all is? You arn't just weighing the options, you are decided how to view things. Why would we be having this discussion otherwise? Your bias leads you to the same conclusions that my own brings me to my very separate ones. Don't pretend that your school has taught you to view things so critically that you have the magical power to view the entire situation without bias. Your posts have proven exactly opposite. And I dont need to discuss Angels honour to understand his dishonour.

That's just the point, you see. You can still be biased and discuss the subject somewhat objectively; you don't have to rabidly stay in your favorite character's corner the entire time and argue their moral superiority. Holland Manners is my favorite character in the Buffyverse, but you won't see me defend his actions as ethical or justified. The same applies for the evils of Angelus and Spike. Preference doesn't matter; looking at what canon is shown, taking it all into account, and it is possible to arrive at a conclusion that doesn't constantly fellate or aggrandize a character we happen to like.

It seems to be a recurring theme amongst fandom that we have to reconcile the flaws of certain characters in order to make them appear to be perfect. It's the opposite with me. It is the flaws of characters like Angel and Spike that endear them to me so; Spike's obsessive lust for violence (soulless or otherwise) and Angel's pettiness and random bursts of anger and self doubt.

You can't justify it, you can't defend it. You seem to try to be turning vice into virtue, which isn't the point.

If Spike or Angel were perfect, morally, physically, or intellectually, they'd be unbelievably boring.

Anyone who views Spike not as the monster forced upon him, but as humanity fighting to escape is viewed as 'whitewashing the facts'. Angels faults are conveniently neglected and the focus has to be on Spikes flaws as a souless vampire for you to make your point.

Where have I ignored Angel's faults? All you have offered is that he was "stalking" a 15 year old girl; Joss Whedon has made it abundantly clear that the feelings shared between Buffy and Angel were born from love. As the creative genius behind this, I don't see that that's something you're free to argue. Is it questionable that an individual of Angel's age would be interested it all? Absolutely. But it wasn't as though he was unaware of it or that he was constantly peeking into the rooms of teenaged girls across the centuries.

What else? That Angel makes decisions without consulting other people involved? Absolutely, I agree. It's an annoying thing; as someone who is an avid fan of the relationship between Buffy and Angel, it pissed me off royally that he would just terminate the relationship, for whatever the reason. But I also understood where he was coming from: he loved Buffy enough that he wanted her to have some facet of a normal life; a boyfriend who could give her children, make love to her, and take her into the light. Someone with whom Buffy did not have to restrain her passion. That he turned back the day in "I Will Remember You"? Again, it was annoying for someone who was a fan of the relationship, but as the Oracles themselves admitted: it was an act of utter selflessness. He gave up his humanity to become damned again in order to spare Buffy torment and death. Is it that he remembered the day and she didn't? I don't recall him setting the terms: the Oracles allowed him the memory so he knew enough to prevent the day from repeating itself.

And I'd argue it ultimately spared Buffy's feelings. Was it right? From a certain perspective. Was it wrong? Also from a certain perspective, and I sympathize with both. But intent means a great deal; it's more or less the reason why I sympathize with Wesley in season three: he didn't kidnap Connor for the hell of it, he did it out of love. Was it misguided, perhaps ill advised? Yes. But the intent was noble.

The problem is that you're confusing Angelus and Spike. Spike, as per the Spuffy code of canon and Joss's own words, is an evolved creature; he retained a latent capacity to love, to feel affection, to be human. It was why he "reaked of humanity" to echo you and the Judge. It was why he was so devoted to Drusilla, to Buffy, and why he ultimately drove himself to get a soul for her. That's a beautiful thing.

But that does not make Spike morally just or perfect. Much of his rehabilitation had to do with the chip; it prevented him from assaulting a human being, thus giving him the circumstances to change. It's not as if he suddenly became a pacifist, Silum, and swore off all violence. He was still a ruthless, unrepentant killer for a long time.

Angelus, in comparison, is also an anomaly, but most decidedly of a different stripe. The demon within Angel is far more terrifying, evil, and dangerous than the demon within Spike. Unlike Spike, Angelus is incapable of any sort of humanity and affection. His obsession with Buffy is not born from positivity or love; he just wants to hurt her.

The problem is that one cannot contend that Spike "is special" or "morally just" and aggrandize him because he was "human enough to get a soul!" and yet throw out "well he didn't have a soul when he tried to rape Buffy" as though it is a valid excuse.

That's what you call a double standard. Either Spike possessed an evolved sense of morality, and was capable of genuine love and affection without a soul, and is thus morally culpable for his crimes without a soul... or he was simply obsessed and deluded himself that he loved Buffy. Angelus, in contrast, is not morally culpable. He cannot love; it's not a conscious choice, it's just what he is. He is pure evil.

That's why I don't blame Angel for Angelus's crimes but why I can see someone blaming Spike for his crimes without a soul.

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 PM ----------

Fanatic? lol

"Calling me pettyfanatic because I dont share your opinion, doesn't give you credibility btw. All you'll get is sarcastic responses in turn, so ill try and address what your actually saying. Hopefully you can take this a little more lighter, it is all a good bit of fun afterall 🙂"

 

[ubi4soft]

he deserves the shanshu, Buffy

Buffy is not a prize! If and when she will find herself she will choose what to do about her life.

Not to mention Buffy initiating a kiss with Angel during "Chosen" and giving the speech that she still thinks about a future with him

The cookie dough was then and always will be a "I don't know if I'll ever be with you or anyone else" speech and not a "I'll be with you, specifically, when I'm ready" speech. On a bitter tone, we could say it changed the "forever" to "if ever"

TVGO: Now that Buffy is free to do whatever she likes, how will you explain why she doesn't make a beeline for Angel?

Whedon: Well, I think I did in the episode. She said very specifically she doesn't want to go and find a boyfriend. She wants to go and find herself — spend some time becoming a grown-up and finding out who she is, and then she can stop to find out who fits with that. That was the point of the whole cookie dough speech. Her internal search isn't for a boyfriend, it's for herself. And then if true love fits into that, that would be the best thing ever. But if she instantly went off and attached herself to Angel, she'd be throwing away everything she'd just been given, which is her freedom. It would be the last thing she would do. Well, not the last thing. She wouldn't do it until sweeps.

 

[Gideon]

Buffy is not a prize! If and when she will find herself she will choose what to do about her life.

Buffy isn't a prize, you're right. But the topic was do Angel or Spike deserve her love. Absolutely. Both of them do, otherwise she wouldn't have given it to them.

The cookie dough was then and always will be a "I don't know if I'll ever be with you or anyone else" speech and not a "I'll be with you, specifically, when I'm ready" speech. On a bitter tone, we could say it changed the "forever" to "if ever"

Her final caveat on the subject was that she still thinks about a future, the implication being with him. Is it a guarantee? No. Is he necessarily the only one she considers? Doubt it.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Joss Whedon has made it abundantly clear that the feelings shared between Buffy and Angel were born from love. As the creative genius behind this, I don't see that that's something you're free to argue.

Two things I'd want to say to that:

1) Word Of Joss is not the same as canon. Same point that I've made time and again about the unnamed Slayer that was called after "The Gift". 😉 Absolutely nothing in the show suggests that there was none because "the only Slayer line ran through Faith". I'll happily disagree with what amounts to one person's (even if that person happens to be Joss Whedon 😛 ) opinion if it has nothing shown in canon (i.e., ON SCREEN) to support it. So, just like the Third Slayer, the question whether Angel and Buffy ever loved each other is open to interpretation, just like the question whether Spike and Buffy ever did.

2) Even outside the show, there's more than one way to define love, so it probably happens every day that someone calls something "love" which I would call "emotionally confused obsession". Nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of fact that humans (including myself, of course) are physiologically incapable of objectivity, and thus will always disagree about their subjective perceptions and definitions of things. Until Joss gives us a clear cut definition of what "love" means for him, it's a moot point debating if something Joss calls love really is love. (And if and when he does, we'll still be free to challenge the definition and keep arguing till the end of days. 😉 )

 

[Gideon]

I believe Joss Whedon knows better, read again the quote

This is becoming more of a chore than a labor of love, but I will try to communicate the point once more.

TVGO: Now that Buffy is free to do whatever she likes, how will you explain why she doesn't make a beeline for Angel?

Whedon: Well, I think I did in the episode. She said very specifically she doesn't want to go and find a boyfriend. She wants to go and find herself "” spend some time becoming a grown-up and finding out who she is, and then she can stop to find out who fits with that. That was the point of the whole cookie dough speech. Her internal search isn't for a boyfriend, it's for herself. And then if true love fits into that, that would be the best thing ever. But if she instantly went off and attached herself to Angel, she'd be throwing away everything she'd just been given, which is her freedom. It would be the last thing she would do. Well, not the last thing. She wouldn't do it until sweeps.

This is the quote from Joss you provided verbatim. The bold indicates emphasis, mine. What is Joss saying here? That Buffy wants to go off and "find herself" before she moves onto someone else. I didn't say that the second she got out of Sunnydale that she'd run off into Angel's arms; but she did make heavy implications (which according to Joss was a means of addressing their relationship) that she still "sometimes thought that far ahead" of a future with him. Does that mean she doesn't think of a future with Spike? No. Does that mean she will end up with Angel? No. It means that she still considers ending up with him somewhere along the line.

This quote does absolutely nothing to change the point I've been making.

Two things I'd want to say to that:

1) Word Of Joss is not the same as canon. Same point that I've made time and again about the unnamed Slayer that was called after "The Gift". Absolutely nothing in the show suggests that there was none because "the only Slayer line ran through Faith". I'll happily disagree with what amounts to one person's (even if that person happens to be Joss Whedon ) opinion if it has nothing shown in canon (i.e., ON SCREEN) to support it. So, just like the Third Slayer, the question whether Angel and Buffy ever loved each other is open to interpretation, just like the question whether Spike and Buffy ever did.

Then I suppose you're free to do so. Personally, I don't like to get contentious about this sort of thing. Ultimately, you are only seeing their physical interactions: you cannot get inside a TV character's head like you can for a novel. That's why I trust the dialogue, the events, and the guidance of the writers. Even as far as season seven goes, Buffy makes constant references to her love for Angel; this transcends a hormone-induced schoolgirl crush. So to are her feelings for Spike.

2) Even outside the show, there's more than one way to define love, so it probably happens every day that someone calls something "love" which I would call "emotionally confused obsession". Nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of fact that humans (including myself, of course) are physiologically incapable of objectivity, and thus will always disagree about their subjective perceptions and definitions of things. Until Joss gives us a clear cut definition of what "love" means for him, it's a moot point debating if something Joss calls love really is love. (And if and when he does, we'll still be free to challenge the definition and keep arguing till the end of days. )

Human beings are capable of objectivity; we don't have to be slaves to our bias. When I came to this board, I was a full fledged Bangel. But in just a few short days, after rewatching season seven and reading the arguments provided by Spuffy fans, it's opened doors for me. I simply cannot look season seven in the eye and conclude that they didn't care for each other deeply; and I'm not sure how someone could do the same for Buffy and Angel.

I think there's just too much emphasis on divisions and factions. Realistically, is Buffy capable of loving only one of them? I consider myself now both a Bangel and a Spuffy; it's not really a competition. Angel will always be a part of Buffy, just like Spike.

But we can agree to disagree. And that's okay. 🙂

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

WOW.

Are you serious?

Angel, the poster vamp of brooding, guilt, and sacrifice, doesn't deserve her... but Spike does?

Personally? I contend that Angel deserves everything sooner than Spike. The decades of torturous guilt, the centuries in hell, the constant ritual sacrifice that he makes for people (including Buffy) every single day... and he doesn't deserve her?

For someone who cites the character as one of her favorites, you must not think a lot of him. 😛

I'd say Angel deserves happiness (with Buffy or whomever) to an extent far greater than anyone in this series. And yes, that includes Spike.

What I mean is that Angel could not be there for her physically (obviously) and emotionally because he always cared about his mission more than her. Just my opinion, man. 😉 Remember when she said that he could never give her what she wanted?

I LOVE Angel, really. But being a fan is also having the ability and willingness to criticize characters.

Do I think Angel deserves happiness? Of course!!! What I mean is that Buffy deserves someone who can "take her into the light" and love her and all that. If Angel can be that man, so be it. At this point he's not. Maybe someday. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps I was not clear.

Also, you know Spike is my favorite character - so of course I will defend him! I do think he deserves Buffy, and she deserves him. We'll have to agree to disagree. 🙂

 

[Flannen]

Hear me out on this one, even if I admit it may be hard to bear reading it. If there ever was a (note: FICTIONAL!) example construed of a woman who "had it coming to her", it was Buffy in S6. Let's see: We have a woman who is physically stronger than the man in question, knows that he has no soul (and thus can be assumed to have no conscience/sense of right and wrong), goes to exploit him sexually knowing that he's emotionally smitten with her, initiates and quite seems to enjoy violence as a valid form of foreplay, and on at least one occasion ("Gone") shows no respect for taking no as an answer. Adding all that, I don't really think it's fair to blame Spike alone for the bathroom scene. Yes, it's horrible, but I think "rape" is, in this context, too strong a word for it. You can't really expect him to accept that "no means no" after she's basically groomed him not to. What happened on that bathroom floor is Buffy's responsibility just as much (neither more nor less) than Spike's, and that's why I find it a powerful feminist message that Buffy does NOT go around putting all the blame on him and try to stake him after it or whatever. She knows her part of the responsibility for what happened, and lives with it. Kudos to her, it's what a strong role model should do!

I've been thinking about this for a while, which is a compliment to you. 😛

I think what you've said here is a fair point, not to mention brave, but I do have to disagree (if you don't mind, haha). I see what you're saying, that Spike never knew where he stood and Buffy was constantly saying 'this isn't going to happen/again' and then falling into bed with him. However, I think that doing that and cowering away, begging him not to do it, are two very, very different things. And if Spike could love as much as some people think he did pre-soul then he really should have recognised that difference.

I'm pretty sure I had more to say than this, but it seems to have fallen out my head. I'll add to this if I remember it!

 

[InsaneMystic]

And if Spike could love as much as some people think he did pre-soul then he really should have recognised that difference.

See, that's where I'm torn. I'm not sure if Spike really could love before he got his soul. He certainly had a degree of decency/nobility in him lacking in other vampires, leading to him caring for people (Dawn, Dru, and of course Joyce) even before he got chipped, let alone ensouled... but I'll readily admit his feelings for Buffy pre-S7 smack more of lust and obsession than of love. Come S7, though, I have no doubt Spuffy is love (and mutual, mind you 🙂 ).

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

See, that's where I'm torn. I'm not sure if Spike really could love before he got his soul. He certainly had a degree of decency/nobility in him lacking in other vampires, leading to him caring for people (Dawn, Dru, and of course Joyce) even before he got chipped, let alone ensouled... but I'll readily admit his feelings for Buffy pre-S7 smack more of lust and obsession than of love. Come S7, though, I have no doubt Spuffy is love (and mutual, mind you 🙂 ).

Yes, I am also undecided. His obsession with Buffy pre-ensouled can certainly be argued as more of an infatuation than a real love. Yet, call me a romantic - I like to believe Spike did love her without a soul.

 

[Tammarie]

i'm pretty full on spuffy, but because of the show's relationship between buffy and angel i often read bangel fanfics and such, even though it it were up to me Buffy and Spike would live happily ever after in fairy tale land, i can't deny that before the Spike era of buffy, i was pretty much just bangel.
I think, Buffy and angel would be really nice together, great even. but i just can't resist all the major flaws in the spuffy relationship that make it so interesting.
That sound confusing, but let me put it this way. If i were Buffy, i would want angel, but from a fan perspective, Spuffy all the way!
That might have been a little off topic...or not

 

[PrincessBuffy16]

I think Buffy cared about Spike. She maybe loved him. But when I see them together on-screen I just don't feel that thing I feel when I see her with Angel. When I see them smile is on my face, and I can feel fire inside of me. You know, it hits me, look love is true. It's really true. But when I see her with Spike I'm always afraid something bad is gonna happen.

 

[InsaneMystic]

But when I see her with Spike I'm always afraid something bad is gonna happen.

Hey, it's the Jossverse. Whenever I see any couple, I know something bad is gonna happen. 😉