Forgive the thread title, I couldn't think of a better name.
There are always a range of opinions on the actions of Angel and Spike, both with and without souls, and I've noticed that a lot of the time the two of them don't get held to the same standard, which I don't understand. There are those who don't hold Angel accountable for the actions of Angelus, but at the same time tag Spike for things he did without a soul. There seem to be an equal number of people who still blame Angel for killing Jenny Calender, but don't blame Spike for any of the evil he did without a soul.
So my question is...why? I really don't get it. For me (and it's possible my perception is colored because I like them both), I don't hold either of them responsible for things done without souls. It's pretty cut-and-dried. Neither of them chose to become vampires, and both of them actively fight for good with souls. Neither of them would do the things that their un-souled counterparts would do with souls. So why the ambiguity?
Other than their cool factors and fighting skills, I don't think either one is truly "different?" than other vampires. They both display human traits without souls, just as Harmony and Holden Webster do, when it suits them but ultimately both are still "bad". And with souls, both are clearly, pretty indisputably heroic.
I think that the main reason for the double standard, and it is exactly that, for Angel and Spike is that there was a distinct character established as Angel, then when Angelus appeared, he was totally different. There was a definite, recognizable difference between the two, even to the point of having different names.
Then Spike comes along, only supposed to last a few weeks, and Joss kept finding things to do with him, aspects of his personality to explore. He's not just the mindless monster that most vampires on the show seem to be. He has a history, he has a mate, sort of, he even has a cool leather trench coat and accent. He makes a couple of appearances after his arc should have been over, then becomes a regular in Season 4, at which time the writers have no choice but to expand on the character, give him habits and a history, while establishing that he can no longer kill humans. He actually becomes, to the great dislike of some fans and the delight of others, one of the good guys, or, in deference to the Spike detractors, at least begins to fight on the Slayer's side, and becomes someone who she actually trusts.
Time passes, things happen, and, for whatever reason (let's don't get into that in this thread, since we're already embroiled in it elsewhere) Spike regains his soul. Now comes the perceived (by some) problem. Spike is an established and relatively popular character. Changing him as drastically as the Angelus/Angel split would be the equivalent of introducing a new character (William, maybe?) and losing the Spike that we have all grown to know. Rather than do that, Joss makes the decision to keep the old Spike personality and just add the soul. The Spike fans are happy because they get to keep their old favorite back, and the detractors now have something to REALLY sink their teeth into. "He's still the monster," "He doesn't (sit around brooding) show ant remorse for what he did," and so on. So, now, the Spike fans are happy because he has a soul, and the Spike haters are happy because they have something really solid to complain about. And what makes both groups equally happy is the same thing.
SPIKE ISN'T ANYTHING LIKE ANGEL!!!!!!!!!
Two distinctively different vampires, with two distinctively different personalities, regaining their souls by two distinctively different methods, and, once they get those souls, they remain, two distinctively different vampires. How could such a thing possibly be?
The soul, as defined in the Buffyverse, is basically a conscience, an inner voice, if you will, whispering in its owner's ear the difference between right and wrong, and causing a feeling of guilt and regret for all of its wrongdoings. Both Angel and Spike are shown being overwhelmed by guilt for their past crimes immediately upon regaining their souls, Spike possibly worse than Angel. The biggest difference in how the two men adjusted to their new status, in my opinion, was the support, or lack thereof, that they each received from the people most important to them.
Darla saw Angel's soul as a curse, something that destroyed "her boy," and she rejected him immediately, then later allowed him to come back, but never saw him as anything but a shadow of the monster that he once was.
Buffy saw Spike's soul and his efforts to regain it as an attempt by him to become a better man, and praised him for risking everything in order to be that better man.When her friends still saw Spike as the monster who had done so many evil things, even tried to rape Buffy only a few short months before, even when, under the influence of the First Evil, began killing again, Buffy defended him and never lost faith in him. She even went so far as to name him her Champion in the final battle.
Angel was told from the very beginning that his soul was a curse, something that made him less than what he formerly was. Spike was told from the beginning that regaining his soul was an admirable act, something that made him a better man.
Frankly, I would have been surprised if the two HAD turned out the same.
Plus, Angel is dull as a table lamp. Who would want that in Spike?
