[we can be heroes/ just for one day....]
Jan. 16th, 2004 06:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaSuddenly, it occurs to me that it's never even a question in my mind, whether to redeem Spike or not (in a fic). My first instinct would be-- of course, isn't that what you'd do to anyone who could use it? Heh. What does a character like that -do- if they're not growing, being reformed to some degree? They die, right? Eventually, all criminals either rule and become the law or they are destroyed by the law. I don't want Spike to die, since clearly he's not going to defeat Buffy (nor would that be a good idea). Thus, I want him "redeemed". Pretty simple, eh?
It's just that... I don't think people's personalities really change, whether they're killing people or not. I mean, this is an interesting question, and I have little real background to go on, in terms of criminal psychology stuff. I realize people write "unredeemed" characters because darkness is interesting and so on. I personally find people's whole personality interesting (or not), rather than their darkness-- if I like the character, anyway. So it's weird to me to think of this one aspect of them as "them", and then to ask yourself-- do you want to -keep- that.
It seems to me that Spike is defined more by how he's different from other vampires than how he's the same. I mean, the sameness clearly exists, but it's the differences that make him interesting, no? And it seems like people think "redemption" would mean making him the same as other -humans-, rather than just allowing him to be -Spike- (who he is), except a version of himself that has learned certain things. It's a balance. But no matter what, shouldn't characters change, and for the better, in stories? I mean, as an ideal.
I think to me, "should Spike be redeemed" is equivalent to "should Spike grow and change". I wonder why so few other people seem to see this question in a similar way. Is it just a religious brainwashing thing? People seeing "redemption" as this moral dilemma, and if you morally oppose the majority (whatever -that- means), then you morally oppose redemption. I've seen this. And then people -support- redemption because they want Spike (or whatever ambiguously moral person) to be "good". I don't want Spike to be good. I don't want anyone to be good. Good & bad are simplistic and narrow concepts. How about being who you are, allowing yourself to change as your life changes?
I think I bring this up so much 'cause the people who use terms like "non-redemptive" to describe a fic just really annoy me. It means they're forcing this character into a box-- they know who Spike is, and he's going to stay that way, come hell or high water. The reason I do love the last two seasons of Buffy-- and the reason I adore book 5-- is because the main characters all change, but in a way that allows them to be more themselves. It bothers me that people resent that. It bothers me that people want the characters they love to remain static, unmoving, like little dolls.
This has nothing to do with "darkness" or "light", to me. That's why people who're all about being/admiring Slytherin or Gryffindor annoy me, too. Why are so few people proudly outside the lines?? Why? Why do people ask, "well, some of the main characters don't fit into the House guidelines-- JKR must've made a mistake". Why? What if that was the point? What if JKR -wanted- Harry to be not Slytherin and not Gryffindor? Why can't people accept that? These divisions are fictional-- in a fictional school, a fictional universe-- and still people cling to them!
Similarly, why does Spike have to always be a perfect little snarky tough vampire & Buffy remain a perfect little Slayer? What's the point of that? Where's the depth in that? What's the point in fiction that's so predictable, describing a -life- that's so predictable?
I've been reading a bit of season 3 B/S fic, and it makes me sick. It's like season 6, except Buffy doesn't have any excuse, really, so it's all wrong-- and Spike doesn't have a chip! My god! The darkness is clearly so much more important to these writers than the logic behind these characters. You can easily write dark fic-- go ahead, there's a lot of room. But why write use fake darkness which doesn't ring true, when there's so much real darkness within these-- or any other-- characters? Sure, none of it would lead to sex between Buffy & Spike in season 3/4 without some sort of stupid spell, but.... *sigh* This just shows why I don't read Buffy fanfic, generally. I think the show as written was already nearly ideal in terms of character development arcs.
Why can't more people write ambiguously redeemed/redeemable characters? Joss did. Come on, we all know that there are -tons- of fanfic writers as good as Joss, ahahahahah. Okay, yeah, I know, silly. But! I still get very frustrated because people seem to have these rigid, preconceived notions of characters, and they won't allow them to change. And it's not even about "canon" adherence issues, 'cause plenty of canon-obsessed people rebel against canon they don't like-- like season 6 of Buffy or OoTP. They even fault the creator for creating canon they don't like, that doesn't "fit", according to them!
So I get this sense of-- "no redemption!" like it's equivalent to "no surrender!"-- because clearly, change and growth is for sissies.
To sum up: people bother me. :/
It's just that... I don't think people's personalities really change, whether they're killing people or not. I mean, this is an interesting question, and I have little real background to go on, in terms of criminal psychology stuff. I realize people write "unredeemed" characters because darkness is interesting and so on. I personally find people's whole personality interesting (or not), rather than their darkness-- if I like the character, anyway. So it's weird to me to think of this one aspect of them as "them", and then to ask yourself-- do you want to -keep- that.
It seems to me that Spike is defined more by how he's different from other vampires than how he's the same. I mean, the sameness clearly exists, but it's the differences that make him interesting, no? And it seems like people think "redemption" would mean making him the same as other -humans-, rather than just allowing him to be -Spike- (who he is), except a version of himself that has learned certain things. It's a balance. But no matter what, shouldn't characters change, and for the better, in stories? I mean, as an ideal.
I think to me, "should Spike be redeemed" is equivalent to "should Spike grow and change". I wonder why so few other people seem to see this question in a similar way. Is it just a religious brainwashing thing? People seeing "redemption" as this moral dilemma, and if you morally oppose the majority (whatever -that- means), then you morally oppose redemption. I've seen this. And then people -support- redemption because they want Spike (or whatever ambiguously moral person) to be "good". I don't want Spike to be good. I don't want anyone to be good. Good & bad are simplistic and narrow concepts. How about being who you are, allowing yourself to change as your life changes?
I think I bring this up so much 'cause the people who use terms like "non-redemptive" to describe a fic just really annoy me. It means they're forcing this character into a box-- they know who Spike is, and he's going to stay that way, come hell or high water. The reason I do love the last two seasons of Buffy-- and the reason I adore book 5-- is because the main characters all change, but in a way that allows them to be more themselves. It bothers me that people resent that. It bothers me that people want the characters they love to remain static, unmoving, like little dolls.
This has nothing to do with "darkness" or "light", to me. That's why people who're all about being/admiring Slytherin or Gryffindor annoy me, too. Why are so few people proudly outside the lines?? Why? Why do people ask, "well, some of the main characters don't fit into the House guidelines-- JKR must've made a mistake". Why? What if that was the point? What if JKR -wanted- Harry to be not Slytherin and not Gryffindor? Why can't people accept that? These divisions are fictional-- in a fictional school, a fictional universe-- and still people cling to them!
Similarly, why does Spike have to always be a perfect little snarky tough vampire & Buffy remain a perfect little Slayer? What's the point of that? Where's the depth in that? What's the point in fiction that's so predictable, describing a -life- that's so predictable?
I've been reading a bit of season 3 B/S fic, and it makes me sick. It's like season 6, except Buffy doesn't have any excuse, really, so it's all wrong-- and Spike doesn't have a chip! My god! The darkness is clearly so much more important to these writers than the logic behind these characters. You can easily write dark fic-- go ahead, there's a lot of room. But why write use fake darkness which doesn't ring true, when there's so much real darkness within these-- or any other-- characters? Sure, none of it would lead to sex between Buffy & Spike in season 3/4 without some sort of stupid spell, but.... *sigh* This just shows why I don't read Buffy fanfic, generally. I think the show as written was already nearly ideal in terms of character development arcs.
Why can't more people write ambiguously redeemed/redeemable characters? Joss did. Come on, we all know that there are -tons- of fanfic writers as good as Joss, ahahahahah. Okay, yeah, I know, silly. But! I still get very frustrated because people seem to have these rigid, preconceived notions of characters, and they won't allow them to change. And it's not even about "canon" adherence issues, 'cause plenty of canon-obsessed people rebel against canon they don't like-- like season 6 of Buffy or OoTP. They even fault the creator for creating canon they don't like, that doesn't "fit", according to them!
So I get this sense of-- "no redemption!" like it's equivalent to "no surrender!"-- because clearly, change and growth is for sissies.
To sum up: people bother me. :/
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Just a thought....
Date: 2004-01-16 11:09 pm (UTC)I'm confused. I'm not sure if it's just the way you put it, or what, but.
"A person of disguise"? Do you mean a person of disgust? And by that, do you mean "disgusting person"? If that is, in fact, what you mean, I'm still confused. Which ideal are you referring to? And what does holding an ideal have to do with being a certain kind of person....? Ideals are only disgusting if they make you do disgusting things, as far as I can tell. Me, I'm harmless. :>
How and why would someone find an ideal of personal growth such as I expressed disgusting? And why would I care if they did, especially this general "they" you're referring to? How in the -world- does wanting people to become better human beings make anyone a disgusting individual, by any stretch of the imagination? I just don't get it.
Who is this "they" you're referring to, anyway? Why should I care about this amorphous "they"? Lots of people think lots of things, a lot of which are wrong and stupid, and some of which aren't. Without specifying what you're talking about, I can't pick which, in this case. Your comment was very very general to the point of incoherence.
I wasn't really saying that I would -want- a character to be one-sided. In fact, I was saying that I wish there was more ambiguity in people's perceptions of right and wrong & a character's particular moral make-up.
I don't entirely see how this bit about perception really relates, because I wasn't arguing against it at all, so that seems to come out of the blue. Trying to guess at what you're saying ("in general"), you're talking about people who're narrow-minded and solipsistic being at risk of being seen as immature selfish brats. Or something. Either that, or you're telling me -I- am, but let's say you weren't because quite clearly you don't know me.
But anyway, okay. I'm still confused how that relates, though. Were you saying that my ideal is too one-sided? If not, then I don't see how this relates. If so, then I would argue that solipsism and passionate belief in some ideal one doesn't necessarily share with others doesn't automatically make anyone only capable of mental masturbation, etc. Solipsism often only means one is extremely introverted and withdrawn, has social phobias or issues. It doesn't make anyone into a selfish or basically ineffectual person. You're being very broadly judgemental here.
Your phrasing was a bit jumbled, so maybe I'm not getting something. Also, I'm thinking of disallowing anonymous comments, 'cause people who don't sign their anonymous messages freak me out a bit, and now that livejournals are free, there's no reason to comment anonymously.
So yeah. Hi, my name is reena. I hope I addressed your points sufficiently.