[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}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 03:42 am (UTC)I know exactly what you mean about choosing one's destiny. I want Buffy to love Spike as-is, just as I want Harry to love Draco as-is. On the other hand, I still want change & movement, because otherwise things stagnate, y'know. I can really get behind the idea of Spike wanting to get a soul for Buffy-- that makes complete sense to me. Of course Buffy wants it-- and of course Spike would do anything for her to look at him the way she did in their very last scene together.
See, to me, it's about -them-... about their trust issues and him wanting to prove to her that she could trust him. I mean, that's what he said-- that he did it for -her-, to be "the kind of man who" [deserves her]. That's Spike all over. So yeah, he did what he wanted to do, because he loved her and he couldn't deal with her issues with him anymore. It wasn't just Spike who had to change-- it was Buffy, too. And Buffy wasn't budging, even if I think Spike would save the world anyway-- he did already! Season 5, man! He already proved that.
I don't know if they succeeded (probably not), but I don't think Season 7 Spike was supposed to have it easy. I mean, yes, it was simple back-to-basics evil, but they already did the "we're all evil inside" bit the previous season. This was kind of... putting all the lessons together and pitching in and doing what they were born to do as a team. I don't think it was about Goodness-- just doing what they had to do. There was no other choice. They were all in it together-- I think that was the idea, anyway. They were watching each other's backs, and there was no time for self-searching anymore. The others needed them.
I watched this vid which I think show brilliantly why Spike got his soul and throws Season 7 in a good light-- here (http://www.immortallove.net/videos/Prayer.wmv). It makes me cry, watching it. I think... well... I think for Spike, it wasn't really destiny that made him wear that amulet. It was Buffy saying she believed in him. So Spike can be seen as in-character there.
As far as why Buffy believed & whether that was a cop-out... I think yeah, maybe.
I think it's just... I think she felt that he finally wasn't pursuing her, and that was what was important. He was finally loving her in a softer way, he was finally thinking about others, and that's what she'd always wanted. It's not that she thought he -was- different now, as much as she seemed to think that now he had more room. I dunno. It felt like she didn't -need- him to be good, like she would defend him no matter what, now, because he took that step of -wanting- it, as you said. The wanting it was the getting of the soul, I think, in the first place, which was rooted in chipped-Spike's psyche.
I want heroes who live in the grey, too. I don't think Spike could ever really -stop-. I think -everyone- lives there, whether they know it or not. Self-awareness is a Good Thing, though~:)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 06:05 am (UTC)Okay, now you've got me thinking about this in a new way.
Have you checked out the fic archive at All About Spike? It's probably the best site around. And if you haven't read