[we can be heroes/ just for one day....]

[reenka]

Suddenly, 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. :/

Comments

[morganmuffle]

The basic gist of this I get and agree with. The desire for characters to stand still is stupid, pointless and, for me, completely beyond the realms of logic. I like realising that my favourite characters have grown and changed. (Have you ever read Discworld? Because that's one place where I have talked to people who complain about the differences in characters as the series goes on and to me that just means that Pratchett is improving as a writer and developing them)

Having said that, two things I though of whilst reading this.
1) Change, development, character arcs etc do not necessarily have to be upwards or "redemptive." Some of the most fascinating stuff I've read has been watching a character sink and although it's hard for a vampire to sink further we could explore the vampire side of Spike rather than his ensoulledness (which isn't a word I know).
2) One of the main reasons I dislike redeemed Spike fic is that it is so very often like a little light switch has been flicked. That's not good writing and it's not interesting and it's certainly not character development. Taking Spike from a dark creature who has fed off of humans for hundreds of years and then suddenly making him all sweetness and light is just wrong to me.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Re #1.... yeah, this is true. We've watched Willow and Buffy & Spike all sink in different and interesting ways, in the show itself. To me, one can't exist without the other, in any story-- you have to have both upward and downward movement in order to achieve some contrast, if not balance. But there's a difference in also exploring Spike-as-is and proclaiming loudly that in -theory-, you just like Spike as-is. I mean, in fic, one can explore issues in many different directions-- one can write a fanfic with all the possible outcomes of any given arc if one wanted. But it's different to think of a character that way outside of any particular fic, y'know?

Like, to me, whatever happens in any fic I read or write, Harry & Draco should be together-- I want to see them together. Doesn't mean I'll only write fics where they end up together-- it just means I think in theory, that's what would be ideal for their development. That's why I used the word "ideal", though I know I didn't expand on it. An ideal doesn't have to exist in any particular fic-- but it informs one's writing and perception of the character-- as well as the source material, I think.

Re: #2... yeah, that's the common reason for disliking redeemed characters. Personally? I think Spike was redeemed in the last episode of the show-- or at least, his arc had gotten to the point where it was just a matter of time. Fic is now extraneous. That's partly why season 3/4 S/B fic feels so wrong to me. It's like-- their arcs are still such a ways from intersecting, it's very unnatural. But bad writing isn't something that should influence the -theory- of things, even though I know it's hard.

I would easily say that no one-- out of all the hundreds of fics out there-- NO ONE has redeemed Draco believably. I mean. You'd think! Out of aaaaaaall the damned fics out there. But no.

Still, the idea's sound~:)

[morganmuffle]

#1 I see what you mean, I hadn't noticed the use of ideal before. Your right though Spike-as-is with no movement is only appropriate for very brief character sketches or PWP.

#2 There's very little way to argue Spike was unredeemed at the end, that's very true. Although I don't watch Angel but I've heard rumours there may be more Spike there in which case it might become an issue again.
As for the Draco comment, you do realise I'm now going to rack my brains to try and come up with one. I can't off the top of my head though. It's not an easy thing to write, that's for sure!

Just a thought....

[(Anonymous)]

I understand the point what you are trying to say;however,if they found what you call "ideal" disgusting,YOU will be a person of disguise.

Because,whatever you "express" to the world can not be one sided.
Any character, yourself, your image or whatever can only exist in the balance of perception of yourself and others.
Otherwise, you may be at the risk to be appear as a very immature and selfish person
who can only do mental masturbation, but unable to make, or even reach any kind of real relationship.
Well, I just wanted to say something general......
Sorry, if it sound too true for you.

Re: Just a thought....

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Um.....
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.

[orangewatcher.livejournal.com]

Why can't more people write ambiguously redeemed/redeemable characters? Joss did.

Of course, I would argue that he really, really didn't. Which explains why I can't think about BtvS post mid-S6 without stabbing things. And don't get me started on S7. Conversely, this is why I love AtS (until S5) because for me, the ambigiousness, both in terms of success/failure of 'the mission' and what the mission actually entails, is explicit and workable.

For me, I think my chief issue with this idea is that you seem to be interpreting redemption a lot more fluidly and broadly than I see canon as doing, so for me 'redeemed spike' = S7, and so I stab my eyes.

[carrielee.livejournal.com]

Why are so few people proudly outside the lines??

Because lines are comfortable? Because it's hard to think outside of black and white? Part of what makes characters like Spike so very interesting to me is their ability to exist comfortably in the grey. I'll even argue that you can be redeemed and still be there. Part of what really, really bugged me with the last two seasons of Buffy was the insistence on some of the writers' parts to try and make things so simplistic as soul=good, no soul=bad. After "grey-ing" it up for years with Spike's storyline and Anya's storyline it was suddenly back to good vs evil. I struggle daily with my own moral compass and I can identify with characters who share this internal combat. It is through this that we grow and become better--or worse, but definitely different. Ideally I'd have love to have seen a chip-less, soul-less Spike fight the good fight because he chose to do so. And ideally, I'd love to see a Harry and Draco who make the tough choices, not because it's what they should do or because some path is destined, but because it's what they want to do. Growth is a tricky thing. I think it so scares some people because it requires you to turn the lens on yourself and perhaps dwell in places that aren't comfortable--living in the grey, perhaps. Some folks just need those lines.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm. Initially, at first watching, I didn't enjoy the second half of Season 6 & most of Season 7 (except for the Spuffy bits, 'cause yes, I'm just that much of a sucker). I mean... I think it's just... that was kinda...forced, maybe? I didn't feel the heart behind Season 7, as much, except in bursts. But there were moments, I think, in the beginning. Where Spike was breaking down & going crazy & being all broken and sincere and Buffy was responding to that.... And I don't think that was about morality, y'know? That's how I see it. It was just about -him- and his pain.

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~:)

[carrielee.livejournal.com]

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

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 wiseacress 's stuff you should go read it right now. (She's at All About Spike too.)