The demon sex thread

[AnthonyCordova]

The problem (I think) between how different Angelus is from Angel, while Spike remains basically the same with or without the soul is that Angel was the established character, so a radical change with Angelus wasn't only possible, it was downright necessary to differentiate between the two characters, and do so with all of the subtlety of a sledge hammer. There had to be a radical change between Angel and Angelus.

Once Spike came along, his character was defined and popular prior to regaining his soul, so that sort of radical change would be, in effect, replacing the established, popular character, with someone else. Spike had to stay Spike, or there was a risk that the fans wouldn't accept the "new" character. The changes in Spike's character after he regained his soul were subtle at best, and downright nonexistent at worst because anything else would be taking a chance of losing fans.

I think that Buffy telling Spike in "Get It Done" that she "needed the old Spike, the one who almost killed me when we first met," was Joss and the writers trying to explain why Spike's change wasn't like Angel's. Buffy needed the "old" Spike, so that's what he gave her. I know that a lot of people disagree with me about this, and say that I'm just trying to justify Spike's behavior, but that's the way that I saw it. Spike got his soul to please Buffy, and he went back to basically his old character for the same reason.

All this about Spike just illustrates how inadequately the issue of vampires and their relationships to their old selves was worked out by the writers and creator of the shows. They made the whole issue confusing by not being consistent, whatever their reasons for that were. Now no one can really say with any certainty what the differences are supposed to be, because there is no consistency in the application of the idea.

 

[thetopher]

The problem (I think) between how different Angelus is from Angel, while Spike remains basically the same with or without the soul is that Angel was the established character, so a radical change with Angelus wasn't only possible, it was downright necessary to differentiate between the two characters, and do so with all of the subtlety of a sledge hammer. There had to be a radical change between Angel and Angelus.

Once Spike came along, his character was defined and popular prior to regaining his soul, so that sort of radical change would be, in effect, replacing the established, popular character, with someone else. Spike had to stay Spike, or there was a risk that the fans wouldn't accept the "new" character. The changes in Spike's character after he regained his soul were subtle at best, and downright nonexistent at worst because anything else would be taking a chance of losing fans.

I think that Buffy telling Spike in "Get It Done" that she "needed the old Spike, the one who almost killed me when we first met," was Joss and the writers trying to explain why Spike's change wasn't like Angel's. Buffy needed the "old" Spike, so that's what he gave her. I know that a lot of people disagree with me about this, and say that I'm just trying to justify Spike's behavior, but that's the way that I saw it. Spike got his soul to please Buffy, and he went back to basically his old character for the same reason.

I don't want to turn this into another Spike vs. Angel debate but there is a middle ground for writers here.
They don't have to go 'well, Angel and Angelus were radically different, but everybody loves Spike's character the way he is, so we can't change him at all, our hands are tied.'

Some character differences would've been good, some differing interactions with other characters besides Buffy. But the viewer doesn't get any, and that's what a large number of people have a huge problem with- Spike is the same in every significant way.

I mean souled and unsouled Darla are different enough in personality, and I'm not just talkiing about guilt/the return of her humanity- we get shown her differences in how she interacts with pretty much everybody around her.

Going by that logic then I would guess that Angel is very unlike Angelus in sexual predeliction- he's a romantic, sensitive, soulful guy who reads poetry and philosophy.

Spike is probably closer to his demon self in terms of sexuality, dramatic in love, but still very close to his more amorous urges.

We can actually see this in their reactions when Faith hits on them both (and remember, they both are in love with Buffy at the time)
Angel gently but firmly rejects her direct (clumsy) attempts at seduction, he's nice about it but its clear he's not interested.
And Faith, barely any more subtley (but waay hotter), flirts with Spike during there first real conversation and Spike happily flirts back.

Now I'm not saying 'oh, one loved Buffy more or anything like that', but it is somewhat of a comment on how they each view their sexuality pre-and post soul.

 

[bespangeled]

All this about Spike just illustrates how inadequately the issue of vampires and their relationships to their old selves was worked out by the writers and creator of the shows. They made the whole issue confusing by not being consistent, whatever their reasons for that were. Now no one can really say with any certainty what the differences are supposed to be, because there is no consistency in the application of the idea.

Your statistical sample is 2. Consistency would require that they be just about identical. Variables include their lives and personalities before they were changed, their vampiric natures, and their experience getting a soul - and all would have to also be just about identical to achieve consistency believably.

---------- Post added at 02:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 AM ----------

I don't want to turn this into another Spike vs. Angel debate but there is a middle ground for writers here.
They don't have to go 'well, Angel and Angelus were radically different, but everybody loves Spike's character the way he is, so we can't change him at all, our hands are tied.'

Some character differences would've been good, some differing interactions with other characters besides Buffy. But the viewer doesn't get any, and that's what a large number of people have a huge problem with- Spike is the same in every significant way.

I mean souled and unsouled Darla are different enough in personality, and I'm not just talkiing about guilt/the return of her humanity- we get shown her differences in how she interacts with pretty much everybody around her.

Going by that logic then I would guess that Angel is very unlike Angelus in sexual predeliction- he's a romantic, sensitive, soulful guy who reads poetry and philosophy.

Spike is probably closer to his demon self in terms of sexuality, dramatic in love, but still very close to his more amorous urges.

We can actually see this in their reactions when Faith hits on them both (and remember, they both are in love with Buffy at the time)
Angel gently but firmly rejects her direct (clumsy) attempts at seduction, he's nice about it but its clear he's not interested.
And Faith, barely any more subtley (but waay hotter), flirts with Spike during there first real conversation and Spike happily flirts back.

Now I'm not saying 'oh, one loved Buffy more or anything like that', but it is somewhat of a comment on how they each view their sexuality pre-and post soul.

If we just go from the two Faith experiences, I would say both Faith and Spike are flirting, and that this is also the just second time they've ever met. Neither intends to act on it, but heat is there. Angel and Faith have a far different relationship much deeper and full of meaning. So Angel had a serious situation with a friend which he handled well. And then what? Spike is evil because he flirted with the hot slayer he'd barely met? 😀

There are all sorts of random scenes we can pick to contrast between them. You will probably always be happier with the light-switch version - the complete division of Angelus and Angel into separate entities as stable as light and dark. I see Spike as having a lot more gray - more integration between the two - because he had three years as a predator where he could not kill and depended on others for food. Think of them as animals - one was completely wild and predatory before it was souled and one was tamed and dependent before it was souled. Different breeds and temperaments, but one was in a state of mind that no vampire has ever been in - so of course the souls and everything else about those two would be different.

I'm not gonna bother with the whole list of how souled Spike dressed differently, talked differently, and acted differently. You agreed with all my various points once before. Crazy!Spike dresses and acts completely differently. That's about six weeks. Newly souled Spike wore neutral clothing colors, didn't get defensive, obeyed Buffy, and went nowhere without her. Mid season Spike was told to prepare for battle - back to black.

And that blond maniac who was dressed in all his Spike glory, he was the one who was the most different from Spike because he chose to burn to death, and the most like Spike because he died laughing.

 

[Kana]

Many of the things Angelus does are not just things that Angel would find taboo, but are things that Angel would never, ever do, such as Angelus' often severe cruelty, his aesthetic and artistic enjoyment of cruelty, murder, rape etc. to name just a few obvious things.

I was talking more specifically about sexual behaviour. I'm aware that the issue of personal identity is complex when it comes to vampires and their preceding human counterparts. I said in a previous post that this psychological difference may affect their sexual behaviour.

I don't think it's just a lack of inhibition that is the chief difference, but more than that. Especially when I regard Angelus and Angel, I see nothing but striking differences in who and what they are. They share far less in common than otherwise. Angelus' personality is also extremely different than Angel's. They're nothing alike to me.

I wouldn't say there is a complete disconnect. Angel himself was about to disagree with Buffy that the vampire has nothing to do with the human personality. As Darla said "All that were informs all that we have become.

So on the topic of Angel's sexuality, I likewise don't think anything that Angelus does or says or likes is relevant at all to what Angel would do or say or like.

Actually I was using the reference from Angelus to make a case that it's likely that Angel identifies as het.

Like you, I'm inclined to believe that Angel is heterosexual...however, if he did turn out to be bisexual, it would be for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with Angelus' reasons. Angel is human and Angelus is not, and like I've said already, I don't find them to be at all alike in any way.

Well both of them found Darla attractive, liked the ballet, art etc. Angelus' initial anger was fuelled by Liam's frustrations. I'd say there are stark differences in his behaviour and the feelings that inform that behaviour, but I don't see them as entirely separate.

I would extend the same observation to Druscilla, judging from what we saw of what she was like before she became a vampire and after: two completely different people entirely.

It seems that it varies from vampire to vampire. The mind is a complex thing, so I have issues with the concept that vampirism affects different individuals in a variety of ways.

But then there is Spike and many other vampires, who blur that line in ways Angel/Angelus do not.

My simple, Watsonian and likely unsatisfactory answer to that is...Spike isn't Angel. He simply responded to having his soul differently.

To be honest, I don't think it was something that the writers and creator of the show had worked out completely, at least not to my satisfaction (the nature of vampires and their relationship to the original person).

Oh, absolutely! There is still no real answer to the question: "What is the soul"?

There is contradictory evidence and different suggestions during the course of both shows, and some vampires are confusing in this context. This isn't meant to be a criticism of Spike, but Spike doesn't really change all that much in my opinion (not in fundamental ways) after he gets his soul back. I always wondered why Spike didn't radically change back into the meek and sensitive man he was before he became a vampire. That would have made more sense to me. Instead, he doesn't really seem to change much at all.

While I understand the questioning how Spike's soul affects him, I wouldn't expect him to return to William's personality. A lot of Spike's changes have been down to a conscious reinvention of his personality. He chose to speak in a cockney answer. He chose to portray himself as the 'tough guy'.

Anyway, I've gone on long enough.

No, no, there were some interesting points. I will try and get into it more when I have more time.

 

[white avenger]

I don't want to turn this into another Spike vs. Angel debate but there is a middle ground for writers here.
They don't have to go 'well, Angel and Angelus were radically different, but everybody loves Spike's character the way he is, so we can't change him at all, our hands are tied.'


I mean souled and unsouled Darla are different enough in personality, and I'm not just talkiing about guilt/the return of her humanity- we get shown her differences in how she interacts with pretty much everybody around her.

Going by that logic then I would guess that Angel is very unlike Angelus in sexual predeliction- he's a romantic, sensitive, soulful guy who reads poetry and philosophy.

Spike is probably closer to his demon self in terms of sexuality, dramatic in love, but still very close to his more amorous urges.

We can actually see this in their reactions when Faith hits on them both (and remember, they both are in love with Buffy at the time)
Angel gently but firmly rejects her direct (clumsy) attempts at seduction, he's nice about it but its clear he's not interested.
And Faith, barely any more subtley (but waay hotter), flirts with Spike during there first real conversation and Spike happily flirts back.

Now I'm not saying 'oh, one loved Buffy more or anything like that', but it is somewhat of a comment on how they each view their sexuality pre-and post soul.

Angel/Angelus and Spike are the two vampires who we know far more about than all the other vampires combined on both series, so it's hard NOT to bring them up as examples, especially in a subject like this, since they are conceived as being so different from each other in so many ways.

I've always compared the changes between living human and vampire with what happens in Robert Heinlein's "Puppet Masters" (the book, not the movie) in that, once the Master took command of the body, it quickly discovered that its host body could feel pleasure, something that the Masters alone were incapable of. If the possessing demon who occupies the dead body of a turned victim, or host, is similarly unable to feel much of anything on its own, then I think that its reactions would be just about the same as Heinlein's Masters was. Basically, if it feels good, do it. That would apply to just about every physical endeavor, including sex. It feels good, so they do it. The gender, willingness, or even species of any chosen partner would be irrelevant, and probably the more violent such activity was, the better they liked it

As for our two ensouled vampires, one of the things that having a soul equates with in the Buffyverse is having a conscience, therefore a sense of right and wrong. Assuming that both Liam and William were guided by the moral standards of their upbringing, they would likely have an inhibition against any sort of sexual orientation except heterosexual, or at least an inhibition against displaying any other sort of sexual orientation. With that in mind, neither Spike nor Angel might have been willing to express or act on such feelings, even if they still felt them.

Whedon never depicted any sort of deviant, if I may use that term without insulting anyone here, sexual activity between vampires, or pretty much anyone else, on his shows (we know that there was some flack about Willow and Tara, despite the fact that the fans loved them together) more in deference to the sensors than any desire to depict his vampires in a more realistic fashion.

 

[Silverspike]

Whedon never depicted any sort of deviant, if I may use that term without insulting anyone here, sexual activity between vampires, or pretty much anyone else, on his shows

No but imo he's hinted at such activity now and again.

For example in The girl in Question and Dru's request to Darla for another 'pony ride' and holding her under the water comes to mind.

I think when somebody becomes a vampire all bets are off when it comes to their sexual predilection. 😀

My simple, Watsonian and likely unsatisfactory answer to that is...Spike isn't Angel. He simply responded to having his soul differently.

Exactly. Come to think of it no other vampire seems to have invented another name to label their vampire side except Angel. Darla has no 'Darlaus' nor Dru 'Drualis'. 🙂

 

[janas]

Much of this thing of bisexuality in vampires Whedon's, to me, it's pure invention fanon. I'm not interested what Whedon says in his interviews, what he has to say about the characters, he must say so in the show and not in statements out screen.
There has not been never one time that Angel showed his bisexuality, so I think this's destined to live only in slash fanfiction. JW showed bisexuality especially in humans, and particularly in women. I don't remember any vampire or demon bisexual, well, maybe Lorne.

 

[Blaze]

Much of this thing of bisexuality in vampires Whedon's, to me, it's pure invention fanon. I'm not interested what Whedon says in his interviews, what he has to say about the characters, he must say so in the show and not in statements out screen.
There has not been never one time that Angel showed his bisexuality, so I think this's destined to live only in slash fanfiction. JW showed bisexuality especially in humans, and particularly in women. I don't remember any vampire or demon bisexual, well, maybe Lorne.

The problem is that Spike and Angel did sleep together, we know that this much is canon. Some people refuse to acknowledge this fact because they say it's just a "stupid" comment Spike made, but the fact that he said it and Joss even went as far as confirming it off screen (which I agree is not good enough of a reason on it's on, but in this case it is confirmed on the show).

Whether this confirms that vampires are bisexual or simply that they would screw pretty much anyone is open for debate.

 

[thetopher]

If we just go from the two Faith experiences, I would say both Faith and Spike are flirting, and that this is also the just second time they've ever met. Neither intends to act on it, but heat is there. Angel and Faith have a far different relationship much deeper and full of meaning. So Angel had a serious situation with a friend which he handled well. And then what? Spike is evil because he flirted with the hot slayer he'd barely met? 😀

Man, didn't I just get through saying that I wasn't trying to say that? *sigh* 🙂

All I was saying is that Spike seems far more comfortable with his more passionate urges, and I think its more than just Angel's curse- For the first half of S2 Angel, not knowing about his soul, was pretty much the sensitive, brooding boyfriend type towards Buffy.

I mean maybe Spike and Faith wouldn't have acted on it, maybe they would've. I'm pretty sure that Faith would've- but backed off when she realised that there was something between Buffy and Spike, she's over the boyfriend stealing by now.
Spike probably would too, unless he thought he had a chance with Buffy- some people think he was genuine in his 'love her from afar' schtick, some people don't.

Both are vampires react differently, neither reaction is intrinsicly better than the other. But it does inform their distinct characters.

And I have to say that Angel has plenty of moral grey in his character, he goes 'dark' about once a season, and yet even then he never really resembles Angelus, with all that sadistic glee and evil.

'Dark Angel' is different from Angelus in many ways, but still morally interesting, I just wish that the writers had put that much thought into how to make souled Spike that morally interesting, without just being lazy and making him a grade A jerk. 😛



Back on topic I'm usually a big fan of 'fanon' ships, but really only if they make some kind of sense- if they fit the characters.

Otherwise its just 'ooh, these two actors are soooo pretty together, I wonder what would happen if...', imo that gets boring after a while.

I want to see what two personalities bring out in each other, why and how would they get involved, how would the relationship change them, what type would it be?
That's part of the fun. 🙂

And honestly I tend to think that both Spangel and Druala/ Darsilla (?) pairings bring up all those questions, so I'm cool with it. 🙂

 

[Silverspike]

Script for Destiny

DRUSILLA
You're not cross with me, are you?

ANGELUS
Cross?
(grabs William's arm and holds it out into the ray of sunlight beaming through the closed curtains)
Do you have any idea what it's like having nothing but women as travel companions, night in and night out?

WILLIAM
(angrily yanks his sizzling hand away from Angelus)
Touch me againà¯Â¿Â½

ANGELUS
Don't mistake me. I do love the ladies. It's just lately... I've been wondering...
(holds his own fist in the beam of sunlight)
what it'd be like...
(watches his hand sizzle)
to share the slaughter of innocents... with another man.
(turns his hand over so the palm is in the light now; looks admiringly at it as it smokes)
Don't... don't think that makes me some kind of a deviant, hmm?
(pulls his hand back close to his face)
Do you?

Yeah, no sub text there. 😀

 

[white avenger]

Spike's comment in Season 5, "Except for that one time," isn't really any sort of admission, or even real evidence of, bisexuality, unless you want to assume that Buffy's two night stand with Satsu makes her bisexual. We have no idea what the circumstances were that triggered "that one time." That's not an argument in favor of, or opposed to, the question of Angel and/or Spike being bisexual, but I just thought that I would mention it.

 

[Blaze]

Spike's comment in Season 5, "Except for that one time," isn't really any sort of admission, or even real evidence of, bisexuality, unless you want to assume that Buffy's two night stand with Satsu makes her bisexual. We have no idea what the circumstances were that triggered "that one time." That's not an argument in favor of, or opposed to, the question of Angel and/or Spike being bisexual, but I just thought that I would mention it.

You're completely right. It's a similar situation to Willow loving Oz but later on labeling herself as a lesbian. Dating and sleeping with someone of the same/opposite sex doesn't make you straight/bisexual/gay or whatever else. But it does put the characters on a spectrum, or whatever spectrum there is in the vampire world. Who knows.

 

[janas]

The problem is that Spike and Angel did sleep together, we know that this much is canon. Some people refuse to acknowledge this fact because they say it's just a "stupid" comment Spike made, but the fact that he said it and Joss even went as far as confirming it off screen (which I agree is not good enough of a reason on it's on, but in this case it is confirmed on the show).

Whether this confirms that vampires are bisexual or simply that they would screw pretty much anyone is open for debate.

I respectfully disagree. All this talk about Angel and Spike sleeping together it's based solely on a word pronounced by Spike. "Intimate"
But there isn't any explicit reference to sex, in fact the whole scene suggests exactly the opposite. Illyria is talking about intimacy and she certainly doesn't refer to sex.

ILLYRIA: You'll have proof soon enough. A corrupted ruler on such a path sees treachery and betrayal all around him. He cannot suffer intimates and will eventually turn against them.

Spike's response, if anything says that they aren't intimate.

SPIKE: Guess I don't have to worry about that, 'cause Angel and me have never been intimate. Except that one...

but we don't know exactly what it refers Spike. Being intimate doesn't mean perforce sleeping together.

 

[thetopher]

Spike's comment in Season 5, "Except for that one time," isn't really any sort of admission, or even real evidence of, bisexuality, unless you want to assume that Buffy's two night stand with Satsu makes her bisexual. We have no idea what the circumstances were that triggered "that one time." That's not an argument in favor of, or opposed to, the question of Angel and/or Spike being bisexual, but I just thought that I would mention it.

I'm sorry, but if you sleep with a member of the opposite sex and then say 'it was one of the best nights of my life', and then do it again, I'm not sure labels matter that much anymore.

Sexuality is pretty fluid in Buffy anyway, leaving aside the vampire question. Willow finds Xander and Giles attractive, sleeps with Oz and clearly loves him but later labels herself as gay when she's with Tara.
It was really only after Tara's death that the writers decided 'okay, Willow is gonna fall for another girl, she's gonna stay on that side of the fence, the girl-loving side'- up until S7 it was still very much up in the air (mixed metaphor much? 😛)

Basically all we're doing is inferring from offhand comments, which is pretty tricky, but it's also a mistake to go 'that person's definitly straight, that person's totally gay, they're hetro they'd never do that...' and so on, because ultimately there's no evidence for that either, unless its stated otherwise. 🙂

 

[Silverspike]

I respectfully disagree. All this talk about Angel and Spike sleeping together it's based solely on a word pronounced by Spike.

And to be fair Joss Whedon. 🙂

And yes we can all pick and choose what to take on board when it comes to what he says, but it doesn't negate the fact thats what he's on record as saying.

 

[Blaze]

I respectfully disagree. All this talk about Angel and Spike sleeping together it's based solely on a word pronounced by Spike. "Intimate"
But there isn't any explicit reference to sex, in fact the whole scene suggests exactly the opposite. Illyria is talking about intimacy and she certainly doesn't refer to sex.

ILLYRIA: You'll have proof soon enough. A corrupted ruler on such a path sees treachery and betrayal all around him. He cannot suffer intimates and will eventually turn against them.

Spike's response, if anything says that they aren't intimate.

SPIKE: Guess I don't have to worry about that, 'cause Angel and me have never been intimate. Except that one...

but we don't know exactly what it refers Spike. Being intimate doesn't mean perforce sleeping together.

Again respectfully (I'm really not trying to say that my opinion is the right one), I just don't see it.

As two vampires without souls, I'm not sure what else intimate could mean. Vampires are certainly not intimate on an emotional level, they are intimate on a bestial level, which directly refers to sex in my mind. Just my two cent.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

I was talking more specifically about sexual behaviour. I'm aware that the issue of personal identity is complex when it comes to vampires and their preceding human counterparts. I said in a previous post that this psychological difference may affect their sexual behaviour.

I understood you were talking about sexual behavior. I was implying that, since there are many things that Angelus would do that Angel would never do (accompanied with a short list), that the same could be said about anything else one might be compelled to compare them by, including sexual preferences really. It's not just a lack of inhibition, it's much more than that: Angel definitely would not and could not do a lot of the things Angelus does (e.g. his severe cruelty, his artistic and aesthetic enjoyment of cruelty, and on and on). If we all can admit this, than why would sexual preferences be any different? If much of Angelus' personality and actions and thoughts and feelings are things Angel would and could never do, then why should anyone assume that Angelus' sexual preferences/orientation are a reliable indicator of Angel's sexual preferences/orientation? I should have been a little more explicit I guess. I was also using your original post to address others who have voiced similar opinions to the one I was trying to undermine.

When you say "human relationships on a meta-level are somewhat nuanced and complex things and this encompasses sexual orientation as well" I agree with you. Where I disagree though is when you say "They (vampires) are essentially human/demon hybrids with many of the desires, emotions behaviours familiar with their human counterparts." Not in Angel/Angelus' case, not in Druscilla's case either.

Actually I was using the reference from Angelus to make a case that it's likely that Angel identifies as het.

Yes, I understand that. You used Angelus' expressed opinions ("he didn't swing that way") as proof of Angel's orientation (Since Angelus is so much less inhibited than Angel), and I wanted to say that it struck me as the wrong way to understand Angel's orientation. Like I've already said, I find the use of the demon as a reliable indicator of the human's feelings/thoughts/whatever dubious. That was what prompted my entire post in the first place. Basically, my opinion is, if you want to know how Angel feels, explore and scrutinize Angel, not Angelus. Why doesn't that make more sense? I have a question about Angel so I'll look at....Angelus?!? (These last points aren't addressed to you Kana so much as the original poster of the thread).

Well both of them found Darla attractive, liked the ballet, art etc. Angelus' initial anger was fuelled by Liam's frustrations. I'd say there are stark differences in his behaviour and the feelings that inform that behaviour, but I don't see them as entirely separate.

Do you think the reasons Angel found Darla attractive were the same reasons why Angelus found Darla attractive? They both liked the ballet...but for the same reasons? I think that obviously they liked those things for completely different reasons, their own different and distinct personal reasons, because however you draw it, in the final analysis they have to be considered as two different people. If it turned out that Angel was bisexual, would he like the intimacy of a man for the same reasons of Angelus? They both like women, but do they like them for the same reasons? Obviously not. So if the two of us both find a third person attractive, does that mean our positions are the same? No, because I'm certain our reasons for finding that hypothetical third person attractive would be different and distinct from each other. I'm wondering if I am really making myself clear (obviously I didn't in the original post). Sure, like any two people compared, you are eventually going to find some things in common between Angel and Angelus. But does that mean there is a close relationship between the two? Examining Angel and Angelus, the few similarities or common opinions you can find are really just superficially similar or common.

I'm looking over your last post, and you basically agree with me here when you say: "I'd say there are stark differences in his behaviour and the feelings that inform that behaviour, but I don't see them as entirely separate". My question is, since whatever similarities are really just surface and superficial at best between Angel and Angelus, why not just acknowledge that they are essentially two different people, as opposed to saying they are "not entirely separate", when a substantive and compelling connection between the two is so dubious? I would rather just say they are essentially different people, because the similarities aren't enough and aren't deep enough to say otherwise.

My simple, Watsonian and likely unsatisfactory answer to that is...Spike isn't Angel. He simply responded to having his soul differently.

I fault the writers and creator of the shows here at this point. In the context of this discussion (the relationship of vampire to former human), it seemed to me that initially they had largely defined what that was, tacitly. Angelus, Druscilla etc. showed, at least to me, that the relationship between vampire and former human is a tenuous one at best. Then came things like Spike...and they confused the whole issue with a re-ensouled human who for all intents and purposes is the exact same person as the former vampire. Maybe I spoke too soon by saying Spike should have gone back to being the sensitive poet type he was before...but it makes no sense that they are not different in any way. Maybe some but not all of Spike/William's former feelings or inclinations could have reemerged in some way, or maybe Spike could have just...been different, in some interesting way (for the sake of entertainment and the show)....something, anything. If this theory that is currently floating around is true (that the writers and creator didn't want to change Spike because he was already so popular just the way he was) that would be, to borrow one of Spike's many expressions, bullocks. What an incredibly ingratiating orientation towards the fan-boys to take. This, from the people who stood up against homophobia and put the first girl-girl kiss on television. How shameful is that...we're scared of the fans so therefore we are not going to change/develop him out of fear?!? How disappointed and ashamed I would be if this rumor is true. On top of all of this, that attitude is incredibly lazy.

 

[white avenger]

Try this one:

Heteroflexible: You are open to fooling around with someone of the same sex, even though you generally consider yourself straight. Also known as bi-curious, questioning, experimenting, or mostly straight.

from this site:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/madison-moore/2010/10/flextuality-nobody-is-straight-sexuality-gay/

Maybe that's what vampires are, and we just haven't been using the right term all this time.

 

[Silverspike]

we're scared of the fans so therefore we are not going to change/develop him out of fear?!? How disappointed and ashamed I would be if this rumor is true. On top of all of this, that attitude is incredibly lazy.

Well to look at it the other way around imo If a formula works then why change it for the sake of a few folks complaining from the sidelines that he's dealt with having a soul differently to Angels?

that would be, to borrow one of Spike's many expressions, bullocks.

I think you're find thats 'Bollocks'. Bullocks are male bovines. Common mistake on the old fan fiction fandom circuit that one. 🙂

 

[AnthonyCordova]

Well to look at it the other way around imo If a formula works then why change it for the sake of a few folks complaining from the sidelines that he's dealt with having a soul differently to Angels?



I think you're find thats 'Bollocks'. Bullocks are male bovines. Common mistake on the old fan fiction fandom circuit that one. 🙂

Oh shit, I misspelled it! I knew the difference, really I did!

Well, about the Spike thing....I like Spike, I do, even later Spike. And he's one of the funniest characters to me. So it's strange for me to say "they should have changed Spike" because I enjoy Spike in S7/AngelS5 a lot anyway. In the context of this conversation though, it would have made more sense and kept some consistency there as pertaining to the relationship between vamps and former or reensouled human.

Whatever the reasons were, Joss and co. should never have made any decision in the show simply out of fear of what the perception might have been (from fans or critics or anyone else). I thought that was what Joss and co. was about: constantly challenging things. If it's true that they didn't want to change Spike for fear of the fans or just out of concern for the fans, than that's b.s. That's disappointing to the highest degree to me. That is IF they wanted to change Spike but were compelled to leave him alone for sake/fear of fans.

As I said, I like late Spike anyway, but it would have made more sense to offer changes post reensoulment...at least some new sides to Spike we hadn't seen before, or some old William sides come back in some interesting forms. And really, in the end I would have preferred this and liked this much more.

The formula was definitely working with Fred...then they killed her and tried something completely new for Amy Acker as Illyria. I was sad to see Fred go, but Illyria was a great new idea and direction. Change can be a very good thing. No reason to be afraid of it.