|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Jun 14, 2008 19:42:46 GMT -5
I think that Angel & Angelus, non soul-Spike & soul-Spike are the same beings.
I have this alkohol-analogy.
When you become a vampire you gain a demon and lose a soul. Perhaps the soul is still partly there(the degree on souless depends on something), perhaps the demon lay dromant in the human and was awoken from the other vampire's blood.
When you drink (or in Angel & Spike's case) get forced to "drink" or take "drugs", rational parts of you, and your conscience, selfcontrol,etcetc change. You change as a person.
A vampire gain a soul. They're still drunk(have a demon), and have a hangover(memory of what they've done) but they're sober in a new way(have a conscience).
Spike or Angel can't be blamed for what they did as soulless creatures, since they couldn't defend themselves when they're were turned(they didn't even know what was coming). But that they have souls doesn't make them good people, it only makes them different. Not what they were as humans, but not the same as they were as soulless creatures. A part of the murderers they were as soulless will always be with them, since they still have the demon in them. But blaming Spike for what he did in season 6 or earlier is like blaming someone who has been drugged. Some people can stay themselves when drugged/demonic, but that seems to be different from demon to demon.
I don't think that a vampire is a shell with memories and a demon. I think that atleast a part of the human personlity stays. So they can't be seperate beings. Unless you argue that the true personlity is in the soul, and the preferences and thoughts of a fysical being is caused by the brain and hormones, etcetc. Then the "person" disapears with the soul(if it leaves the vampire to a 100%).
Since I believe that a vampire isn't just a body with the memory of someone's elses life (Spike did love his mother even after death), I don't think that all of a sudden, a soul causes Angel to turn into a completely different person.
Perhaps Angel&Angelus are different beings? They seem to think so. Or perhaps they can't stand the thought of the other one being a part of themselves, so they act as if they're different beings. I mean come on, I can't be the only one who sometimes talk to my inner voices. Sometimes I talk to the saint in my and sometimes to the devil, when I try to make desision. That might be the case with Angelus. He can't stand the thought of him doing good things, so he'd rather act as if he and Angel fight for the same body.
**********'
Why does Angel seek redemption? I believe that he's a catholic, if not a worshipping catholic, but a God-fearing one. He might fight so that he won't go to hell. Or maybe he wants to have a purpose. Perhaps he wants to make Buffy proud. Perhaps that's just the person Angel is. A champion of good.
Spike fights for more selfish reasons. I'm not sure if Spike would fight without getting credit for it. He wants to be the hero, and protect the people who are close to him. I'm not sure if Spike would ever give money to charity or something like that, if it was anonymous. Perhaps if they honored him for it. He's unlike Angel that way, I guess. Not that Angel doesn't like the fame, but he's more unselfish.
*************** Definition of soul and demon:
You have very interesting points Emmie. I believe that in the Buffyverse there are different kinds of souls, spirits, and unless destroyed, they're probably mortal. Although I kinda believe that the vampire-demon isn't a spirit per say (although Angelus & Angels fight in season 4 implies otherwise) it's more like an infection, a virus.
*******
Jun 12, 2008, 6:58am, buffyfanforever wrote: the way i see it is..
Angel and angelus same person different parts kind of like when xander got split but with angel its good and bad, when angel is controlling the body angelus is always trapped inside and when angelus has control angel is trapped. Maybe. What is the ether? Could it be everywhere at once, for example inside Angelus? a part of the soul will always be with him? or is it floating somewhere?
********* Buffy&Giles
They think that a vampire is nothing like the human, but let's face it, they're not all knowing. Considering that the Council seems to be rasists(I doubt they see any demon as innocent and good, perhaps just harmless) I would take everything they say with a lot of salt.
A vampire might be more of the person they were alive than they thought. And I wonder if Buffy haven't changed her opinion a bit since she learned to know Spike, even after the rape attempt.
******** Wenxina, considering that we only see Liam in a few backflashes, we can't really define is character. We saw him drink and that one barmaiden implied that he lied to get women to bed, but he was also hurt by his father and he seemed to like his sister, so this quote is a bit off; "Liam, wasn't exactly a boyscout either when he was alive, a whoring drunk amongst other sins; governed solely by the pleasure principle... " ****** xanderharris, you make an interesting point. Is Spike more noble than Angel, just because he was able to love more without a soul than Angelus could? Does that him a better person? Can you compare it that way, considering that they both have souls now and are different? Was Spike's soul "closer to the surface" than Angelus or is it just more righteuos? Or was William a more loving person than Liam ever was? Did Angelus only have to meet the right person, fall in love and be unselfish, just like Spike?
Something I strongly disagree with you tough is that Angel's recovery vs Spike's recovery shows that Spike is more noble. Angel grovelled, hated himself and showed respect and shame in front of the scoobies after he lost and gained his soul, while Spike only needed a few months to be over his guilt before he was rude and confident again. Doesn't that show that Angel is "nicer" than Spike and perhaps a better person? I mean soulless Spike did what he did because he wanted Buffy, not because his conscience told him too(probably).
After a century with a soul, who knows, Spike might be the better person. Right know, Angel is more... champion-like. As long as he has his soul.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jun 14, 2008 21:17:22 GMT -5
Wenxina, considering that we only see Liam in a few backflashes, we can't really define is character. We saw him drink and that one barmaiden implied that he lied to get women to bed, but he was also hurt by his father and he seemed to like his sister, so this quote is a bit off; "Liam, wasn't exactly a boyscout either when he was alive, a whoring drunk amongst other sins; governed solely by the pleasure principle... " I understand that what we've learned of Liam is from flashbacks, but if that's your argument, then I'd discount your analysis of Spike's character from flashbacks too. The point of the flashbacks is to show us glimpses of what the character was like at a point in time, give us a better understanding of what they were like, what made them tick, etc. I never denied that he had a strained relationship with his father, but that does NOT negate the fact that he was a whoring drunk. I also mentioned that he seemed to love his sister, so again, I'm not denying any additional dimensions to the character of Liam. I'm just saying that he wasn't exactly a model citizen. And the bit about being governed by the pleasure principle... it seemed like it. From all the flashbacks, there was never any mention of Liam actually working, or doing anything useful. If that's the light that Angel chooses to portray his past in, I'd say that it probably took up a fair amount of his short life. Surely that's a fair inference, given Angel's own account of what he was like; i.e. through his own flashbacks of what his character was like. So no, the quote, IMO, was not off.
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Jun 14, 2008 21:55:52 GMT -5
Wenxina, considering that we only see Liam in a few backflashes, we can't really define is character. We saw him drink and that one barmaiden implied that he lied to get women to bed, but he was also hurt by his father and he seemed to like his sister, so this quote is a bit off; "Liam, wasn't exactly a boyscout either when he was alive, a whoring drunk amongst other sins; governed solely by the pleasure principle... " I understand that what we've learned of Liam is from flashbacks, but if that's your argument, then I'd discount your analysis of Spike's character from flashbacks too. The point of the flashbacks is to show us glimpses of what the character was like at a point in time, give us a better understanding of what they were like, what made them tick, etc. I never denied that he had a strained relationship with his father, but that does NOT negate the fact that he was a whoring drunk. I also mentioned that he seemed to love his sister, so again, I'm not denying any additional dimensions to the character of Liam. I'm just saying that he wasn't exactly a model citizen. And the bit about being governed by the pleasure principle... it seemed like it. From all the flashbacks, there was never any mention of Liam actually working, or doing anything useful. If that's the light that Angel chooses to portray his past in, I'd say that it probably took up a fair amount of his short life. Surely that's a fair inference, given Angel's own account of what he was like; i.e. through his own flashbacks of what his character was like. So no, the quote, IMO, was not off. I'm not exactly sure of what exactly ticked you off but; I didn't have an argument, I was merely protesting your description of Liam, a person we don't know. We have seen how Angel, ridden with guilt, have remembered his sins. That doesn't mean that we should assume that Liam was "governed solely by the pleasure principle". In fact, if you read the rest of my post(albeit not very eloquently put) I agree with your argument; "The vampire may be a new creation, but it is composed of elements of both the demon and the host, and therefore, not entirely mutually exclusive." I only had a problem with that you seemed to judge Liam. Sure, his selfishness could very well have been made a part of Angelus, but I saw that "black&white" description unfitting. It served your argument well and was a good point, but I think you could have put it better. And about the Spike-flashbacks, I'm sorry if made it sound as if I knew William. But I was as you said, I'm analysing Spike, not teaching you about his personlity, which remains a mystery to me. Btw, saying that "If my analysis is wrong, yours is too" isn't really... nice? Fair? I have read through your posts and can't find that you have mentioned his sister(perhaps in another thread) and I've read through mine, and I can't find where I say "You denied that Liam had problems with his father". I used his family as an example against your poor(but not completely inadequate) description of Liam. There, I hope I made myself clear this time. I didn't know that my post seemed so offensive.
|
|
cheryl
Novice Witch
[Mo0:37]
Posts: 246
|
Post by cheryl on Jun 14, 2008 22:28:13 GMT -5
Two separate beings. A pure demon = Angelus. A souled vampire with a demon inside him = Angel.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jun 15, 2008 0:22:18 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure of what exactly ticked you off but; I didn't have an argument, I was merely protesting your description of Liam, a person we don't know. We have seen how Angel, ridden with guilt, have remembered his sins. That doesn't mean that we should assume that Liam was "governed solely by the pleasure principle". In fact, if you read the rest of my post(albeit not very eloquently put) I agree with your argument; "The vampire may be a new creation, but it is composed of elements of both the demon and the host, and therefore, not entirely mutually exclusive." I only had a problem with that you seemed to judge Liam. Sure, his selfishness could very well have been made a part of Angelus, but I saw that "black&white" description unfitting. It served your argument well and was a good point, but I think you could have put it better. And about the Spike-flashbacks, I'm sorry if made it sound as if I knew William. But I was as you said, I'm analysing Spike, not teaching you about his personlity, which remains a mystery to me. Btw, saying that "If my analysis is wrong, yours is too" isn't really... nice? Fair? I have read through your posts and can't find that you have mentioned his sister(perhaps in another thread) and I've read through mine, and I can't find where I say "You denied that Liam had problems with his father". I used his family as an example against your poor(but not completely inadequate) description of Liam. There, I hope I made myself clear this time. I didn't know that my post seemed so offensive. Erm... I wasn't ticked off. I was just explaining myself on the issues you brought up, and yes, i did see that we were in agreement. That wasn't the point of my reply though, so I guess I forgot to acknowledge it. Just to be clear, I wasn't ticked off. I've mentioned the sister somewhere... but I don't think it's in this thread... there are so many bleedover discussions that I hardly know where to look anymore. As for denying his issues with his father, I took the bit where you were telling me that my opinion that Liam is governed solely by the pleasure principle to be inaccurate, as he was also hurt by his father to mean that I denied that element of Liam's character. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize... it was unclear what you meant then. However, I will point out that Liam's issues with his father spawn mainly from Liam's constant misconduct. There are many layers of daddy issues there, which I find to be less pertinent for my points; he can't please his father the way his father wants to be pleased, so instead, he just goes about on his merry way, doing things that his father frowns upon (although there is a suggestion that Liam's father is a hypocritical lout) for attention, etc. I did NOT judge Liam. I was merely drawing a parallel between Liam, and Angelus. In fact, there's an episode (I think it's on Angel, not Buffy), which shows him right after he's killed his family. Darla tells him that no matter what he does now, his father's won as he (Liam) cannot prove his father wrong anymore... again with the the pleasing, or at least wanting to please, for the sake of self-justification (i.e. pleasure). As for the analysis of character from flashbacks, the whole "if my analysis is wrong, then yours is too" bit is fair, because it's exactly that. I didn't mean for it to come out harshly... it was rhetorical, and not meant to be offensive, so I apologize. Any analysis is equally valid, so long as you can back it up. That was my point, sorry if it got lost in the pseudo-offense. I'm pretty sure that's all the bases I meant to cover. And hey, I'm just positing an opinion, not laying down gospel. You're free to disagree if you will... EDIT: Found the bit where I mentioned Liam's sister (as well as family)... it's on the "I Support Scott Allie" thread, since that's where this thread originated.
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Jun 15, 2008 12:44:23 GMT -5
Good that I didn't piss you of, but since you started with the Spike-flashbacks in your reply, I assumed that you were angry, since you weren't presice about how my analysis must be flawed if yours were. It seemed as if you were critisizing my use of Spike's memories seen on the show as a way to miscredit my opinion on your analysis. I didn't know that you were rethorical, because I didn't understand how my statement could be compared to yours, since the characters have different flashbacks and different epsiodes dedicated to their early selves. It doesn't really make sense to me rethorical or not, but that seems like another thread. As for denying his issues with his father, I took the bit where you were telling me that my opinion that Liam is governed solely by the pleasure principle to be inaccurate, as he was also hurt by his father to mean that I denied that element of Liam's character. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize... it was unclear what you meant then. No you were right, I did assume that you didn't take his good sides into account because it suited you. I guess in that way I was saying that you were in denial. I didn't think about your answer long enough to see that I did that. Could be because I didn't read the whole Scott Allie thread and thought that it was a bit agressive of you to bring up the sister as an counterargument, since I had no chance of knowing that you actually had talked about her. I still disagree with that statement, mainly because I would have put it in a more diplomatic way(yeah, I know, I'm such a girl), but I see that you have analyzed Liam with more thought than I... thought. It wouldn't be surprising if a hurting 26-year old man of a "good" family mainly thought about himself and his pleasures, but I'm willing to keep an open mind.
|
|
XanderHarris
Potential Slayer
I've been unreasonable, because I've lost all reason.[Mo0:16]
Posts: 125
|
Post by XanderHarris on Jun 15, 2008 15:11:47 GMT -5
Spike made a somehow more difficult transformation. He entered a "human-like" behaviour when the chip was implanted. He was forced to hold back his animal urges - a very similar function to what a soul does. With the exception that he still wanted to kill and drink blood. The biggest turning-point was the time he fell in love with Buffy. Her love combined with the restrictions by the chip made him a very soul-like being. He was neither able nor intended to do harm to people. So you could say, he, in contrast to Angel, earned his soul-like status. He was not forced to become a better being but did it for the love for Buffy. Except that the chip was implanted forcefully. He didn't opt to have the implant, thus at that point, his condition was very much like Angel's. Except that Spike still wanted to hurt people, he just couldn't. Angel, on the other hand, was torn because the demon in him demanded nourishment, but his soul reeled from the memories of the horrors and atrocities his body had been used to commit. This may seem nit-picky, but I think Spike sought his soul more so under the delusion that the only reason Buffy couldn't love him was because of his lack of soul, not so much because he loved her. He didn't need a soul to love; Spike's been in love before, first with Dru (I'm discounting Cecily/Halfrek here since it was unrequited) then Buffy. The Judge (as I've previously mentioned) said that Spike and Dru reeked of humanity, because of the way they displayed affection. When Spike reaquired his soul (Note: From free will and with great effort) he exceeded Angel on the "soul-level". What was once forced on Angel and took him half a century to overcome, was earned and burdended by Spike withing just a few months. This makes Spike much more noble and gallant than Angel could ever be. Okay... I've always been mildly peeved at this bit. It always seemed that Spike wanted to get the chip removed, not have his soul restored to me. The restoration of his soul was always an ironic slap in the face to me. So the bit that peeves me is that it's canon that he was actually seeking his soul. True, the whole thing could've been one big mislead, but still... As for nobility... Spike hardly lost any sleep for the acts that he had committed while soulless. Angel on the other hand was tormented by his memories. As for recovery time, Spike had Buffy believing in him. I'm not sure if she ever really loved him (despite her declaration at the end of "Chosen"), but she did believe that he could be a better man, and that helps. Angel was spurned by Darla, and all his "family", a tainted being, neither fully demon, nor human. Note, I'm not a Spike hater, but on the cosmic level, I've always believed Angel to be the bigger person, and the truer champion. Spike's story arc's nothing short of heroic, but his impulses and damn stupidity (face it, he's not much of a thinker, as admitted by himself in his "You're the One" speech to Buffy) makes him just that, a hero. Not a champion. I totaly understand what you mean, but for me Spike is still "better" because though he had "just" the chip implanted, he fought for his love for Buffy. This behaviour is rather self-absorbed and not very champion-like, but still, for me it takes a lot of guts to fight for his soul (with the knowledge of its torment), than being forced on someone on coping with it. His motifs are selfish, yeah, but he had to suffer as Angel did. If my memory serves me correctly, Spike went mad because The First appeared as his former victims to him, didn't it? And Spike, though just a short amount of time, went mad. Yeah, it's pretty awkward he dealt with his past that fast, but he suffered. Skytteflickan88Your first bit is very, very brain-recking. Very difficult for me to answer. I just think Spike is/was a more human-like vampire than Angel. Not only because Spike's reputation is not as "colourful" as Angel's, Spike always made the impression he really liked this world, feelings and human feelings. Unlike Angel he never intended to destroy the world or something like that. He is more human than demon, with Angel being the other way round. So the distance from "Vampire"-Spike to "Human-like" Spike is shorter than the distance between "Vampire"-Angel and "Human-like" Angel. This means (to me) that Spike's effort to regain his soul is easier to understand. And that Angel, to some point is indeed the more tragic figure, but the main point to me is, that Spike seized the initiative to get his soul with every consequence. Angel had to suffer more, but was forced to bear this burden. I hope I could express what I am trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Jun 15, 2008 17:53:18 GMT -5
Skytteflickan88Your first bit is very, very brain-recking. Very difficult for me to answer. I just think Spike is/was a more human-like vampire than Angel. Not only because Spike's reputation is not as "colourful" as Angel's, Spike always made the impression he really liked this world, feelings and human feelings. Unlike Angel he never intended to destroy the world or something like that. He is more human than demon, with Angel being the other way round. So the distance from "Vampire"-Spike to "Human-like" Spike is shorter than the distance between "Vampire"-Angel and "Human-like" Angel. This means (to me) that Spike's effort to regain his soul is easier to understand. And that Angel, to some point is indeed the more tragic figure, but the main point to me is, that Spike seized the initiative to get his soul with every consequence. Angel had to suffer more, but was forced to bear this burden. I hope I could express what I am trying to say. Oh, I didn't expect you to answer the questions in the first paragraph. It was just food for thought, questions that came to mind when I read your post. That would make on hell of a post, trying to answer all that. And yes, soulless Spike is less evil than Angelus, I just think that you can't say that soulfull Spike is better than soulfull Angel because without souls Spike is the "nicer" one. Because that was what you were saying right? It sounded as if Spike with a soul was more noble than Angel with a soul even before he got out of the basement, because of what he did in Grave.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Jun 15, 2008 19:01:42 GMT -5
Good that I didn't piss you of, but since you started with the Spike-flashbacks in your reply, I assumed that you were angry, since you weren't presice about how my analysis must be flawed if yours were. It seemed as if you were critisizing my use of Spike's memories seen on the show as a way to miscredit my opinion on your analysis. I didn't know that you were rethorical, because I didn't understand how my statement could be compared to yours, since the characters have different flashbacks and different epsiodes dedicated to their early selves. It doesn't really make sense to me rethorical or not, but that seems like another thread. The rhetoric lies basically in the fact that we both used flashbacks for our character analyses. So, if one's usage of a flashback is wrong because flashbacks are inadequate proxy's of character (and I'm not arguing interpretation here, just the usage of flashbacks themselves), then the other analysis must be wrong too. Rhetoric... the slippery slope of Logic 101. No you were right, I did assume that you didn't take his good sides into account because it suited you. I guess in that way I was saying that you were in denial. I didn't think about your answer long enough to see that I did that. Could be because I didn't read the whole Scott Allie thread and thought that it was a bit agressive of you to bring up the sister as an counterargument, since I had no chance of knowing that you actually had talked about her. I still disagree with that statement, mainly because I would have put it in a more diplomatic way(yeah, I know, I'm such a girl), but I see that you have analyzed Liam with more thought than I... thought. It wouldn't be surprising if a hurting 26-year old man of a "good" family mainly thought about himself and his pleasures, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. And I apologize again for not checking out if I had mentioned the sister in this particular thread before. I'm hardly the most PC person at times, and may come off harsh. But it kinda seems that you're not as opposed to the statement as you say; your last sentence sounds otherwise. But hey, I can soften my statement a little; Liam, like Angelus seemed to be governed mostly by the pleasure principle. Better?
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Jun 15, 2008 19:58:05 GMT -5
Good that I didn't piss you of, but since you started with the Spike-flashbacks in your reply, I assumed that you were angry, since you weren't presice about how my analysis must be flawed if yours were. It seemed as if you were critisizing my use of Spike's memories seen on the show as a way to miscredit my opinion on your analysis. I didn't know that you were rethorical, because I didn't understand how my statement could be compared to yours, since the characters have different flashbacks and different epsiodes dedicated to their early selves. It doesn't really make sense to me rethorical or not, but that seems like another thread. The rhetoric lies basically in the fact that we both used flashbacks for our character analyses. So, if one's usage of a flashback is wrong because flashbacks are inadequate proxy's of character (and I'm not arguing interpretation here, just the usage of flashbacks themselves), then the other analysis must be wrong too. Rhetoric... the slippery slope of Logic 101. Oooh, but I wasn't critizizing the use of flashbacks, the are very helpful when studying characters. I was critizizing the interpretation of them, not their... eh, realisticness-thing. we don't have enough flashbacks so that we can honestly say that we know William&Liam, but they can most definitly be used to form theories and conslusions. No you were right, I did assume that you didn't take his good sides into account because it suited you. I guess in that way I was saying that you were in denial. I didn't think about your answer long enough to see that I did that. Could be because I didn't read the whole Scott Allie thread and thought that it was a bit agressive of you to bring up the sister as an counterargument, since I had no chance of knowing that you actually had talked about her. I still disagree with that statement, mainly because I would have put it in a more diplomatic way(yeah, I know, I'm such a girl), but I see that you have analyzed Liam with more thought than I... thought. It wouldn't be surprising if a hurting 26-year old man of a "good" family mainly thought about himself and his pleasures, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. Yes. You just had to add the word "seemed" and I was happy. I guess that says more about me than you. i'm very.... anal? sometimes
|
|
willowsummers
Respected Watcher
Quality time with Mr. Gordo?
Dabbling with magic[Mo0:9]
Posts: 579
|
Post by willowsummers on Dec 5, 2009 22:43:29 GMT -5
I feel like Angel's soul coming and going is an example of how hard it is for us as humans to always be good. Yes he has a soul, but it's still his choice to do good and he does A LOT of good. I think him "losing" his soul is just a metaphor for times he slips. He was at one time a person who could do unspeakably evil things and you can't completely take that out of a person. Like he said, he dreamed of killing people and he enjoyed it. But it doesn't lessen him in my eyes, in fact it makes him more extraordinary because he is able to overcome it. Having a soul doesn't MAKE him good. HE makes him good.
|
|