~~ the monstrous mundane

[reenka]

Hands down, my least favorite moral dilemma in the universe is: do you do the kind, comfortable, reasonable thing or do you do the mad, passionate, unlikely-to-succeed thing. The problem is, everywhere I see this dilemma raised (in fiction anyway), people choose column A. This leads me to sputter and growl and go on about hating people.

Clearly, I always choose column B. My life kind of isn't the best for it, but it's worth it just to know that at least I'm not shoving my passion into a box and labeling it "done". But even as much as I hate seeing this dilemma applied to life in general, when applied to romance, it just maddens me. Infuriates and saddens and depresses. I mean, it makes sense-- picking partners 'cause they're safe and comfortable, on a purely evolutionary level. Mad monkey sex is all well and good, but eventually it grows dull and you want some good old cuddling on the TV couch, right? (Picture me strangling invisible things -here-).

Reading `(Do I Dare) Disturb the Universe' (definitely rec-worthy, but it did a number on me), this sort of hit me full force, because it kind of equates the William part of Spike to the sensible-thing and the Spike part to the mad-thing. There is still love binding it all, but it's different aspects of love, and all this is linked to growth-- the process of growing up, realizing that you can't live the life you used to live. That would be another thing that drives me insane, that idea. I realize life has stages, but the idea that insane adventures are confined to one's wild youth-- that chafes, man. That chafes something fierce. (More strangling ensues.)

And then tying this all to soulhood? Now that -really- messes with my mind.


I wonder, sometimes, why is it that I'm so obsessed with souls in the Jossverse whereas I'm totally blase about the theology of it all outside from that. I think mostly it's because the "Soul Question" in Buffy is really about so much more. It's all intangled with free will and destiny and one's capacity for love & good vs. evil and all those other things that comprise consciousness (which is my favorite overall subject). And it's interesting, isn't it, because one's knee-jerk reaction would be to say that souls -equal- consciousness. Or conscience, at the very least. And yet, Spike seems to completely contradict that view, so really, it's very hard to say -what- his soul -is- exactly. To me, it's much more important that he -wanted- it. I'm not one of those people who thinks he shouldn't have it 'cause it'd compromise his free will-- in fact, souls are supposed to -allow- you free will, aren't they? And if you have it without them, doesn't it follow that Spike -always- had a soul?

Part of the problem is, I don't think it's possible to seriously think about souls apart from their actual historical and theological grounding as an idea. That is, I don't think it's really possible to seriously think about souls in the Jossverse. I can't only refer to the Jossverse souls, especially because apparently Joss never explicitly defined what they represent in a final manner. On the other hand, no matter what they represent, I would have serious theoretical issues with the background ideas, simply because I believe so strongly that souls are an emergent property of all consciousness.

I realize that's a scientific versus a theological view (and the Jossverse is much more rooted in the latter), and maybe I just will never understand this whole separation between desire and will and need fully because I don't really have a Catholic grounding. I'd really be interested in a rigorous Catholic reading of the Jossverse's ideas in this area. So I don't know whether a Christian view would "fit".

I do know that a Freudian view doesn't really fit. If, for instance, you postulate that the soul is equivalent to the superego and the "demon" of a vampire is equivalent to the id, then it makes sense someone wanting/needing a soul, yeah? On the other hand, it would then seem imperative to also require a demon, wouldn't it. What kind of existence is it, being separated from your demon? What kind of love is it, if it's only love of one aspect of someone's self and not another?

I mean, the truth is, all of us humans have a 'demon" within us, and I think this view is arguable in the Jossverse also. These things seem inextricable to me. Demons have souls and souls have demons and if that equation doesn't work for some reason, you redefine either "soul" or "demon", but you keep the equation. That's just how it works-- it's a balance. Yin/yang, all that-- the eternal co-existence of polarities within one's self. In a way, these polarities aren't real, are only in our imagination-- because in "truth", the reality would be nothing so simple and clearly defined. But it does fit as a working theory, just not when you try to separate the demon and soul and attempt to priviledge one over the other. Then it seems like everything falls apart and the world becomes awfully 2-dimensional, like a diorama that fell flat on the table.

So, I mean, a fic like '(Do I Dare) Disturb the Universe'-- and possibly a lot of the Jossverse canon-- seem like the most horrible sort of -lies- to me. The world just can't work like that. Love can't split itself into loving the Good and hating the Bad and -survive-. It also can't split itself into loving the Good comfortably, on calm and easy days, and needing the Bad violently, on the dark days of youth. It frightens me, thinking that one's life is really ruled by seasons, and one could -outgrow- the darkness. That after some point, it becomes too much, and unnecessary. That's just a load of metaphysical crap. Crap, crap, crap.

Another thing that bothers the living daylights out of me is the equating of "soul" to a real breathing person. I mean, "William" is Spike's -soul-, even though William was a whole person while living. It doesn't make sense, really, on any level. A soul is noncorporeal. A person -is-. A person is more than the sum of their noncorporeal aspects, but as soon as you admit that, you can no longer in any way associate William-the-Bloody with that amorphous thing known as someone's -soul-. William himself had a soul (by definition, really). Supposedly, when it was taken away, he became "Spike".

Like I said earlier, if you think about this logically, it just doesn't make any -sense-. What, exactly, can possibly exist to animate a corpse if a "soul" is equivalent to "identity"?

And if it isn't, if it's only equivalent to "a conscience", then how could you reduce a whole human being to a conscience or condemn them to death without it? What the hell? How is this different than simply saying "Spike" is equivalent to "William" except that now "William" is "the Bloody"-- that is to say, a killer, who needs to be punished?

'(Do I Dare) Disturb the Universe' doesn't really address any of these points, but it is a good represenation of why I think Buffy/William fics are deeply misguided and nonsensical, really. How in the world can you ship or write about Buffy/William? How can you really get away with saying that Spike isn't William or that William isn't Spike in binary terms? I mean, you can say, William is -more- than Spike, but the only real -addition- that the "Spike" vampire persona has would be experience. And yes, I do think that experience makes one who they are to a large extent-- Spike proves that, doesn't he? Nurture over nature. The people who want unsouled Spike to be redeemed are probably bit nurture-over-nature free will classicists (whether they know it or not). I don't know what my own position makes me-- wanting both free will and innate Selfhood (soul?) to be in harmony. Together. Working at the same time, like in most human beings. I would never choose "Spike" over "William" or "William" over "Spike", though the fic I keep referring to forces the issue, and if I were forced... I would pick Spike, because I think by the end, he does encompass William but not vice-versa.

I do think that choosing William over Spike because William is more safe & normal & comfortable is just a horrible joke, really. William had to have -always- been William the Bloody in -both- senses. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't have become -Spike-: he would've become more like Angelus, who apparently was never a very conscious individual and was likely ruled by his id to start with, so he needs a soul as a metaphysical "fix". I mean, on the other hand, choosing Spike because he's more raw & harsh & exciting is a disservice to him also (as I think we see in Season 6, actually). People who think in those sorts of binary terms really freak me out. Maybe that's why I'm so obsessed with the Jossverse notion of "soul"-- because it hits on my pet peeves regarding binary distinctions and people's need to put things into stupid boxes.

I wouldn't say that a lack of morals or inhibitions is an "addition"-- in any person, the potential to be a murderous beast always resides, after all. So... a really -interesting- fic would be a fic where you show the Spike within the William-- a way of unlocking the deeper layers of his personality without vamping him. It's definitely possible-- just as it was possible to unlock the "higher" levels of -Spike's- personality and getting him to experience more refined emotions such as selfless love and guilt and so on.
~~

I think I've run out of steam. I just love the easy-illustration quality of this whole messy soul business. In HP, for instance, it's nowhere near this clear (in all its fuzziness), so people consistently go and call Draco "an evil brat" without any real mental work done. It's interesting, because in HP, the truly "evil" don't really have a chance for redemption in canon as far as I can see, because there's no nifty "soul" trick to fix anything. The idea of soul is entirely different, as seen through the Dementors. They give you the Dementor's Kiss-- and you basically die. Thus, one can't retain personality or life or -anything- beyond possibly a heartbeat, without a soul. So one assumes Voldemort has one-- it's what's keeping him alive, really, isn't it? As twisted as it is-- it's still -his-, isn't it. Then again, as "undead" as Voldemort is, his body is really always at risk moreso than his consciousness. In Buffy, it's the opposite, isn't it? You can easily be undead based on body alone. So it's a whole different world-view.


There's no real bridge between what people -could- be and what they -are-, in HP. It's just... basically... that they -are- that way, for whatever reason. The Jossverse gives us humans going bonkers evil-twin all the time, and all that's needed is a way to reach the innate goodness in them (through love or magic, generally). Because by being -souled beings-, they contain this spark of innate goodness that can always be reached. So at least there's that. Whereas, I mean, since the books are Harry's pov, we don't get a lot of that sort of thing in HP.

People talk about "William" as the "man within the monster", but I really think that's a horrifically narrow definition of "man", I guess. It seems like by definition, the truly irrevocably "monstrous" would have no real consciousness or capacity for love, and Spike clearly demonstrates both from the start-- not -conscience-, just consciousness. And this potential, I think, defines him. Saves him. I just can't see monstrosity as so easily separable from who someone -is-. You can't really say, "this is the Bad Me" and "this is the Good Me", and even if it works with all other characters (*cough*Angel*cough*), it doesn't work with Spike as he's been characterized, 'cause he's so much in the grey. I suppose a working definition of "monstrosity" would be "lack of humanity", and maybe that's at the crux of my deep, deep issues with applying such a label to Spike, no matter what Joss or anyone else's intent was in writing him.

Clearly, killing in a constant indiscriminate rage isn't precisely "human", but! As soon as that gets "fixed" in any way whatsoever-- as soon as Spike gets beyond that in Season 5-- poof! He's no longer monstrous. I don't care if he's "redeemed" or "souled" or blah-blah-whatever. He's just not -monstrous-. "Evil" is such a distant, righteous term, isn't it? Who even knows what it means? I mean, I'd like someone to really describe it to me, 'cause I don't think most people -know- because their moral world is so tied to their own set of experiences, isn't it? What's "evil" is what you're familiar with seeing as "bad". And how does that apply to Spike? How many ex-killers do most people know, anyway?

Okay, I'm just going around in circles now. I'll stop. I think it's clear I'm not really making progress, but I like raising these questions even if the answers never satisfy me (and maybe they're not supposed to). I think I'm a bit miffed I don't have this much meaty goodness to work with in Draco, btw. It's just that Spike has all this -will-, all this independence and desire and the ability to follow through on it no matter what-- whereas Draco's definitely lacking in the "strong will" department. I mean, he's stubborn-- but to make him a leader, to make him fearless, you'd have to basically change him into something that acts like canon Draco only a smidgeon more than Spike generally acts like William. *sigh*

Also: I have now watched exactly one (1) season one (1) episode (the third one) and I'm now ridiculously in love with Xander. Whoa, man. What -happened- to him?? This is so sad. And-- today! I woke up in full possession of my faculties, and my obsession slightly more manageable. Yeay for team Reena.

Comments

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

Um, your post made my brain hurt.

I'll just respond to this:

picking partners 'cause they're safe and comfortable, on a purely evolutionary level. Mad monkey sex is all well and good, but eventually it grows dull and you want some good old cuddling on the TV couch, right?

Well, the point is that mad monkey sex eventually turns into good old cuddling on the couch, simply because, as monkeys, we're not designed for that kind of huge, heart-thumping passion/lust to last very long.

That's just the sad truth of the matter.

So, you either deal with it, or, you swing to another tree. :D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

....
You do realize you've just made non-monogamy, or at least serial monogamy sound good to me, right??



*shudder*

(easily swayed to the Dark Side, I am.)

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

Well, I've been in one relationship after another for the past 17 years. The longest was about six years long, and the current isn't much shorter.

So yeah, if you want to hear all about monogamy and the challenges thereof, give me a call. ;)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

*sigh* Oh yeah, I've heard (and lived) the horror stories, man. It's a depressing sort of jungle out there. It's just... I can't help but feel (stubbornly) that it's all about the right person, y'know? The right person for -you-, that will... I dunno, keep you burning. 'Cause lust/passion isn't about bodies, right? It's about always being surprised and shocked and thrilled. I mean, most people never find that, and I think most people can't -handle- that and don't even really -want- that, but. I think it's that people burn out, not that passion burns out. And if you're both people who live for the burn-- I feel like something could be arranged.

Both people have to be a bit mad, a lot passionate, and pretty romantic & willing to overlook things. They have to be rather hedonistic and probably rather immature. But I think it's possible-- just that most people don't -really- want it enough to hold on to it.

I know because it's pretty hard staying passionate about -anything-. Like writing, even. Or living. But the trick is the same-- being really willing to be vulnerable. 'Cause I think the comfortability is just another way of shutting off your emotions, being numb.

It's not about monogamy for me, see. It's about being wild-- and people associate that with non-monogamy, right? Except I think that part's immaterial. Like... I could easily see how Spike & Dru slept around on each other and maybe even didn't live/sleep together for years or decades, y'know? But they were still passionately in love because they never -grew up-, really, never saw each other in a different way. So it's a question of not growing up all the way, of not -changing- too much.

And it's not like you can stop yourself from changing, really. But hopefully that raw hungry part in you that wants -more-... hopefully that could find a partner to feed on and never run dry. Someone who'd feed on your passion as you feed on theirs.

See, old married couples still get angry at each other, right? Still have knock-out-drag-down fights. There's that adrenaline. If you want to rip out their hair by the roots and stomp on their entrails and bite down on their mouth until they bleed-- you're on the right trail. I think. I'm sounding scary & insane, aren't I? :>

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

Oh Reena, you're misunderstanding me. It's not depressing and it's not a horror story. It's just real life, and I think real life is always more interesting than fantasy.

Real life has the passion, but it also needs the moments of boredom and stillness and trust and companionship because passion is exhausting and it is not something that nature intended to last long-term. And the kind of passion you're talking about is something that burns out between two people fairly quickly. It can be rekindled between them in various ways, of course, but you can't live your life that way. It's just not possible.

And thank god, because otherwise nothing would get done.

Let me put it this way: when you fall in love with someone, for the first couple of years, you spend all your time looking deep into the other person's eyes. But eventually you take the person's hand and together you both stand beside each other and look at the world together. And engage with it.

This is real life, and I don't find that depressing ... I find that much more challenging and exciting and, when you think about it, a lot more romantic than any fanfiction you see out there.

I think it's a terrible and sad mistake when people think that the end of passion means that love is gone or that this person is not the right person for them. And then they drop the person and move on. The kind of heart-pounding-in-your-chest lust that you're talking about always ends in a relationship (ALWAYS), and to be honest, I don't think it has anything at all to do with love anyway. Love, rather, is what's around when your hormones stop screaming and mating frenziedly. Love is not lust and passion and infatuation. Love is something a lot messier and more prosaic and a hell of a lot more difficult to attain, and hence worthwhile. The lust and the passion is just one element of that.

And sure, you can have the kind of relationship that relies upon adrenaline-pumping fights to keep the excitement going for decade after decade. But when you think about it, that's a pretty sad way to keep love alive. In fact, it sounds like a strategy to avoid real intimacy.

"Comfortability" is not about being numb, it's about trust and vulnerability and knowing that someone loves you enough to go out in the middle of a blizzard and get you cold medicine, and who thinks you're beautiful first thing in the morning, and will stay up all night talking with you about your work because you both find it so interesting.

All of these things, for me, are very passionate gestures. Whereas fighting is really not all that fun. ;)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...Oh man. I have that happy feeling of sanity returning once again that is especially of the type you seem to give me~:) If anything, it's because I do already believe all this, I do, it's just that... I forget. I don't know why that happens to me, this forgetting and regression and all that. I've wanted what you're talking about-- partnership and understanding and complementary functionality-- since I was little. Since before I read all those romance novels and they'd messed with my head, I'd wanted... this. That's partly why I slash, too-- I tend to want people who work well together to -be- together. That's why I was always so enamoured of the strength of Spock & Jim and Mulder & Scully-- and I wanted that for myself, that endless strength.

I don't know what it is, that makes me not want to live in the real world, where the quiet strength is, where the real rewards are. It's a sort of denial, but I don't even know of -what- anymore. I think it's like... thrill-seeking, you know. Things that make you feel -alive-, things that -burn-. It's addiction and I know it, but without it I just fade away. I think if you're healthy, that's what life is like-- it's sharing and looking at the future together and helping each other and understanding. And yeah, having to fight in order to connect -is- pretty fucked up, and I don't know when fucked up became more attractive to me than healthiness.

Because, you know, I -admit- it's fucked up, I just -like- it more. And I think when I take my own issues & I try to figure out theory, the theory I come up with is necessarily skewed, of course. I mean, I retain the ability to see clearly if I -try-, it's just most times people don't call me on it (and I really appreciate it when they do-- it's like a breath of fresh air).

*sigh*
I just -need- passion-- not necessarily love/lust-type passion, but passion in general, so much. And it used to be that my outlet was work-- my passion was writing and dreaming. But it easily transfers to romantic love for me, and then I forget that another person isn't the same deal as the stuff inside me, which is okay to keep burning because there's always more. And maybe that's not true either, and I can't keep burning myself either-- I probably can't, but it's just when I don't, I feel all flat and empty and I hate that.

I mean, thanks, you know. I haven't thought about it in that way, because yes, it -is- about avoidance, really, even in the stories. Buffy/Spike, Harry/Draco (from Buffy & Harry's pov, which is what I identify with) are all about avoidance, I think. Grabbing at the pointy sharp dangerous thing because there's a sort of desire for one's own annihilation involved. If one does achieve balance, happiness, then it all evens out... maybe that's why I don't like to read about how it turns out.

But you're right. That's not love. I mean, it's a part of love, it's just not -all- of love-- and I know that, I do. I'm so afraid of boredom, though, of mundanity. I love -life-, reality, all of that, but I don't fit in very well so it's hard to accept it. A part of me is always insists that if I can't live my dreams, I don't want to live, period. Not in a suicidal way, just in an avoidant way.

Er. That was prolly way tmi, but.
Still, have to disagree about the fighting not being fun-- depends who you're fighting with, and whether it turns both of you on. Some people are crazy, it's true~:)
And I think it's a choice, of a sort, whether one finds "mundane" life depressing or not, y'know. Expectations, all that.

[aphedas.livejournal.com]

I do know that a Freudian view doesn't really fit.

Actually the Freudian view was the one I thought of (I have no idea why, since I think he's a tosser mostly) when I first watched Buffy. Although I thought about it slightly differently. I saw the demon as being Id, yes, but an id that took over from your previous id - replaced your wants with its wants. The soul is, in this theory, pretty obviously your superego, and a demon doesn't have a superego, and that was the part that was killed.

However what Spike made me think of was the Ego part of this theory. Because some vampires lose their personality altogether when they become vampires. Spike always seemed to have a very strong ego/personality. (I'm not sure if equating ego with personality is entirely correct in a Freudian sense in retrospect). Anyway Angelus otoh seems all demon - completely changed from his souled self. Liam having a weak personality, the demon takes over completely.

I can't help but wonder if the reason Spike could shake off the demon to love Buffy (and Drusilla - think of what the Judge said about them) was because his personality is so strong. William may have been a loser, but that doesn't stop him from having a powerful ego. But that does, I think, fit with what you're saying about Spike's greyness. I'm not sure if this makes sense?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, that totally makes sense! I'm really excited about this theory, 'cause it does fit. There is that problem of totally equating ego with personality (since "personality" would probably be the sum of all parts), but yes, I think I was missing the crucial element of there being a -new- Id. That's the crux, I think. A new Id. Yes!

A more powerful Id. Hmm.... Though... it's weird. I'd like to think that William always had the seeds that drove Spike to be the kind of vampire he was-- but I can see how that's not entirely true. I need to let go of that idea a bit, I think. I want to tie William & Spike together too much and it's clouding my judgement. I hate the idea of "the demon" being... outside of the person vamped. It's like... it's not -literatlly- a possession, y'know? It's not like a werewolf bite, where one's possessed by the new "Id spirit" of the Wolf. I mean, there's no "uber-vamp" possessing the person, is there?

That's what I was saying, with the "strong will", yes-- a strong ego. Though William didn't really act like someone with a strong ego, it is true you can be a loser with one-- I mean, I know from experience, eheheh.

But I do like the Freudian view for this, it just didn't entirely work before the "new Id" theory. It's important to me 'cause of all the people who want unsouled Spike to be redeemed, don't want the soul, etc. I think a soul is important but not necessary for most things... on the other hand, it's good to have it. I dunno. It's always good to be whole, I guess.

Maybe even if the "demon Id" isn't "new", exactly (that is to say, alien), it's still... mutated...? Like a sudden, spontaneous mutation. Yeah!! That's a good analogy. Like... like on X-Men!! Whoa :D :D

Thanks~:)
Oh, and Spike's a tosser, all right. Damn if I don't find that cute :>

Re:

[aphedas.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I think you're right about not equating ego with personality. Having dug out, from my Mum's old textbooks, some lectures by Freud, he seems to define it as, alternatively 'one's will'; 'the higher organisation of the mental apparatus (elevated through the influence of the outer world'; and 'the representative of the outer world'; although once he equates it with 'the patient'. So OK personality would be the whole shebang, but ego seems to be much as you were saying - the will. But also the way in which a person reacts to the world, and the sum of their memories. The particular lecture I'm reading goes on to talk about weakness in ego in childhood, and id overriding the ego to the point where the ego cannot cope and is suppressed. Which does fit with the majority of vampires, so I think the theory still kind of works, with Spike being very unusual in that his ego isn't suppressed.

It also means that Spike is still essentially William (as you wanted!) - he not only has his memories, but his way of reacting to the outside world. Other vampires may retain the memories, but not the person's perceptions of and way of relating to the outside world. Spike in Fool for Love is just so much still William.

Hmm, I think I like the mutation idea. Actually a lot. It does work because sexualities and that sort of thing don't change, just get mixed in with the lust for blood and made more powerful.

I've never been able to work out the whole vampire thing, whether it's possession or whatever. I'm trying to remember - Giles once said something about vampires being a weakened strain of demons, mixed with humans. So maybe it is a possession. Or do you think your mutation theory would work absolutely as well as mentally?

*g* Actually I meant I think Freud was a tosser, but honestly - works for Spike too, bless him, even if I am feeling the Spike love lately.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, in the Jossverse vampires -are- a possession, 'cause they "vamp out" when they bite-- whereas the general legend doesn't do that. So yes. They're possessed. That said, "the demon"... it doesn't really have a -personality-, y'know? That's what bugs me and doesn't really make sense to me at all. There's no "demon self"... whereas I think demons themselves? They have personalities. They have "demon souls". Of course... um... if vampires really -were- possessed, then a souled vampire -would-, of course, go insane-- in this case, they'd possess more than one soul, y'know? But that's not why Spike went insane.

I think the whole 'demon bit' is like... not an actual demon, just... demon DNA. Like a virus, yeah? Just because you've got DNA from Joe, doesn't mean you -become- partly Joe, consciousness-wise, if his DNA mixes with yours (like in those sci-fi horror movies). The demon blood gives vampires their powers, right? But it's like... demons are the source of Buffy's powers too, and she's "all girl", right? She can go into "Slayer mode", but there really isn't a -consciousness- there, only instinct. No new personality... sort of like if you didn't have a knee-jerk reflex before, and now you do. Having this knee-jerk reflex (that you got from "Joe's" DNA) doesn't make you even remotely "Joe", right?

I think the difference between that and being a werewolf is the type of thing possessing you. A wolf doesn't have personality or a soul or whatever, in the human sense. A demon... that's different. Even though they have no superego (souls, whatever), in their natural form & habitat, they're still -conscious-, aware beings. Some of them are dumber than others, true, but the fact remains that they're a different kind of sentience. They're aliens, but they're not -animals-, y'know? So yeah. Demon DNA is sort of like alien DNA-- doesn't mean you're part "Marvin the Alien", but it does mean you're no longer entirely human.

I think most fics just don't deal with these issues very well. That fic I kept referincing pissed me off 'cause while it's written well and I liked it, it seemed to be running circles around itself, philosophically. Like... it seemed to be both tying Spike & William together and also saying "the demon" is "something else", something -Other- entirely, like it's a different consciousness. That pisses me off. I dunno why I'm so emotional over it, but :> I want people to give Spike his due.

And yeah, for a long time I couldn't bear thinking about Freud's ideas 'cause he really pissed me off, too, mostly with his attitudes towards women.
Though Spike has never pissed me off (not like Draco could, and certainly not like Freud has)... and anyway, that's never stopped me from loving a character or a person for that matter. People who don't like Spike kind of confuse me, really. >:D

Re:

[aphedas.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I think the vampire DNA fits. Because you're right about other demons seeming to have souls - D'Hoffryn talks about the soul of a vengeance demon - although in that case it would have to be the original human one. Less problematically Lorne seems to have one.

At least I love the theory, but I'm not sure about the science of it. Strictly speaking - changing the DNA of an adult human, regardless of what Star Trek says, shouldn't have an immediate effect on them, because DNA, iirc, is simply instructions to the body as to what patterns to form, what to build - building blocks of matter and all. So any fully-grown part of the body should not change, certainly not immediately. But I guess it could be kind of more an incredibly complex virus, a virus that contains DNA and re-writes not only the person's DNA, but treats it as, well the effect some diseases have on you - the way they can re-write cells, but on a much more complex level. Anyway if it re-structures the brain, it could explain the way vampires are more demon than Buffy is, I guess. I'm reaching here, I know...

I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't read the story; I'm just not a great het reader. But I do find Spike fascinating, and I think I do like him. Otoh I can understand why some people don't. but that's the writing, imo, being inconsistent. Also season 7, I think was weak on all the characterisation (Except Andrew, cos I love Andrew), which definitely I can see accounting for a lot of the hatred for souled-Spike. Season 6, while I don't see it fully making sense with earlier Spike, I find him fascinating. Also the whole Buffy/Spike dynamic it's just so wrong and season 6 Buffy is so flawed and hurting and everything working together with the self-loathing from both of them it's just so something I seem unable to express, damn it.

As for Freud, yes it's his attitude towards women, very much so, but also the whole - 'oh this fits for this mental patient therefore I'm going to reason that it fits universally' thing. Huh.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heheheh I made a science booboo. Well, I think it's clear why I'm an English major, isn't it :D

It's only a metaphor, man. In the end, it's all magic anyway, right? So yeah, no need to go all Star Trek and so on, eheheheh. Just a little of that ole special voodoo :>

It's okay, I can't bear to read Spike slashed, usually. But then, I'm more of a romantic than a slasher... even though I like the idea of being a slasher, and I slash-a-lot. Maybe I like the -idea- of Buffy & Spike than any of their particular incarnations on the show. Also, I found the angry sex really hot, what can I say. And the fucked-upness. I really go for that, apparently. Yeah, there must be a reason I like W/A besides the geekery. The fucked-up longing-for-the-evil-guy-and-you-should-really-know-better-but-guh is like... a big part of it.

My favorite thing about S7 was definitely Andrew, though it was also the Spuffy because I'm just -that- easy. I mean, that scene in "Chosen" where she cups his cheek?? Anything is worth that, to me. Anything.

Clearly, my priorities are way skewed, but I accept this. I am one with the zen of my shallowness. :>

I think S6!Spike makes sense with S5!Spike. He was always kind of begging for an in, and he never seemed to be all picky as to what sort of attention he got-- didn't really have the idea of "bad attention" down, with Drusilla for instance. So it makes total sense to me that Buffy could mold him just as Drusilla could. But! I also still think that their relationship back then wasn't definitive for them and was more... bad times, y'know. Though I like the angry sex and the angst, of course. Angst is good. Fluffy!B/S only works for me if it's like... in spite of themselves and at the very last minute. Like, relief. And then it's like... ahhhhhh. A very hot bath at the end of some Slaying. Ahahah now I'm off on my own little happy tangent ^^;

And well, the universality thing...I think that was the expected thing back then, maybe? Everyone and their brother thought they'd figured out the world. That was a left-over of the Enlightnment in a way, I think. It's only well into the 20th century, what with the post-modernists & quantum physics & such, that no one could get away with it anymore~:)

[nothingbutfic.livejournal.com]

I completely disagree with you in so many ways. Heck, I may even need to update the anti-Spike rant now.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

You're so cryptic, man :>
But I do think it's funny how much disagreement comes from liking or disliking the subject. I mean, shouldn't that be irrelevant? Shouldn't I be able to say all that while disliking Spike? *sigh*

That said, I actually do like people disagreeing with me. 'Sfun. Though, um... now I'm really curious as to the specifics. It's okay to tell me, you know~:)

Re:

[nothingbutfic.livejournal.com]

I think I've said most of what I would say in response to this here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/nothingbutfic/85191.html#cutid1), although I might go into some specifics more.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

See, see, no. We don't disagree. We're just thinking about completely different aspects of these issues. You think about society-- Buffy and Spike and everyone else and what it means to live & fight together-- while I think about individuals, alone. Buffy. Spike. Willow. Andrew. All alone, by themselves, whether or not that reflects the theme of the show-- I'm not really responding to the themes of BtVS, only using aspects of one single character to work out themes in -my- head. I'm not really saying what BtVS is about, as you are, I'm not analyzing the show at large. I'm only taking Spike-as-Spike and thinking about his relationship to what William was & what that means for his demonness or lack thereof or whatever.

I completely agree with you about Buffy, actually, and her own growth and development and the way she's been closing herself off and how yes, it's sad that the one person she lets in anymore is someone who adores her unquestioningly, yes.

While I do think Spike isn't unquestioning-- he -has- stood up to her and challenged her views just by -existing-... it's true that underlying everything is the sense that he's completely safe. And when he -does- become 100%-guarranteed Completely Safe, that's when she can admit she loves him. At that moment of no-risk. And maybe that gives him the right to say no, she doesn't. Maybe. Even though I'm still pissed off, 'cause he should've known she'd -meant- it and that's what counts if we're not going to get hypocritical.

But anyway.
As far as whether the show itself is hypocritical....

Yeah, it probably is. I brush it off because characters are more interesting/important to me than grand themes-- I take what I want where I want it, I guess, with these things. Either I'm dense and don't notice or I just throw it off because I can't use it. I think that... I think that yes, they're both immature and narcissistic and hypocritical, and their love is immature and not based on real things, real understanding. But! Just so you see where I'm coming from....

What's important to me is the ability to -feel-, not whether it's a justified or "worthy" feeling. Righteousness-- doing the right thing-- for whatever reason-- doesn't -matter- to me. I think that's at the crux of it. Adulthood and reasonableness don't appeal to me. So I take what you see as fatal flaws-- and I just accept them, because I suppose I identify with them.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

That "reserve" that you mentioned in A:tS-- that's what puts me off it, really. That's why I'd never really watched it. Because to me, the knowledge of the impossibility of "true redemption" isn't important if you can't enjoy life, if you can't be -happy-. And yeah, okay, Buffy turns into a complete self-righteous bitch, really-- but then, she can no longer reconcile who she is and what she has to do. She can't quit. But she can't listen to -them- anymore, because if she starts, I think, she wouldn't be able to go on, wouldn't be able to live with herself. She's the -Slayer-. She -kills- things. I think (I'm guessing, partly), that if she really admitted what it is that she does, she couldn't do it at -all-, so she can't question it. She can't handle it, I don't think. I don't know if anyone could.

I mean, how could The Slayer afford to live in a truly grey world, anyway? How could she still slay? I mean, the idea that death was her gift-- truly thinking about that-- that went a long way towards sapping her own desire to live, didn't it? Also... Spike being an immature tosser-- well. I mean. He's a vampire. The others are worse, no? At least he retained William's early ego, if anything. The others are like babies rather than teenagers. Eat! Now! Scream! Bash! Heheheh.

I do think that love makes all the difference. I think that's the difference between us, but I don't think that means -I- disagree with -you- even if you disagree with me. I think no matter what the source of the love, no matter how fucked up you are, no matter the choices you make otherwise or because of it-- I think love makes it worth it, completely outside its source or its fate. No matter -who- or -why- you love-- what matters, to me, is -if- you love. And, eventually, -how- you love. And I think... while Buffy's "how" & "why" & "who" & "if" were all in jeopardy-- even if she stopped being able to express it or admit to herself she felt it, for Spike and for her friends and for anyone... still, I think. She did. And for me, that's what matters, as far as her future.

[bekkle.livejournal.com]

do you do the kind, comfortable, reasonable thing or do you do the mad, passionate, unlikely-to-succeed thing?


I do whichever one would make everyone happy-- not just someone else, but me, too. If there isn't anything that would make everyone happy, I'll do it for myself. Sometimes I'll do it for others, but I'd have to say it's about 70% myself. After all, you are you, and you are going to be the one experiencing happiness and sadness as a result of your actions.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, that does work in theory, except for a few things...

One, people don't always know what they want or what'll ultimately make them happy. Often enough, they're confused and in denial and afraid of being happy and such. So they go with what they -think- they want or what they -should- want or what is least dangerous.

Two, when people are in love, this balance of 70%-for-yourself shifts, because suddenly you want the happiness of another person more than your own, and there's nothing you can do about it. I mean, some people don't love at all, but even the most selfish people can love pretty intensely and even selflessly under the right circumstances. And after that, again you have the question of what would -truly- make the other person happy, 'cause even if you love them, it doesn't mean you -know- any more than -they- do.

Third... you can be temporarily happy or permanently happy. Your happiness can be marred by guilt or destroyed by others' unhappiness as a result of your own. You can't predict happiness, in other words, once it begins.

...Though I mean, if one could, one would sure make a lot of money :>