More Faith and Spike and Buffy thoughts

[itsnotmymind]

I have thoughts an opinion I've seen a few times in my explorations in BtVS fandom. Specifically, the idea that Faith and Spike are held more accountable for their bad behavior towards Buffy than Buffy is in her bad behavior towards them. I have some thoughts on what it is about the way the show is structured that might encourage some fans to react that way.

The first obvious fact: Faith and Spike are both murderers, who have done a lot of evil to people within Buffy's social circle, but even more evil to people outside of Buffy and her social circle. Faith didn’t kill anyone we, the viewers, actually know. Neither did Spike. That's fairly typical for BtVS. Anya didn't kill anyone we know, either. Andrew is an exception, since Jonathon was a sympathetic character whom the viewers now, although he was Andrew's own friend and not a member of the Scoobies. Willow kills someone we know, but Warren is total sleaze who killed her girlfriend. Angel killed someone we know, Jenny Calendar, but the narrative encourages us to see souled and soulless Angel as two different people. I think the show makes more sense if you view Angel and Angelus as the same person (both more sense in terms of Angel's psychology and more sense in terms of the mythology of the show), but both BtVS and AtS are both inconsistent in that regard, and the narrative encourages a certain amount of distance between the two that doesn't exist with any of the other murderers on the show, including other vampires like Spike or Darla. By AtS, Angel even starts using different names depending on whether he has his soul or not.

And just in case I haven't disclaimed enough (and unending fannish feuds seem to make such disclaimers necessary), I want to emphasize that I am not saying that I think, on a Watsonian level, that Spike is better at taking responsibility as a souled being for his actions while soulless--that seems to depend largely on what storyline you are looking at, and sometimes Angel is better at it than Spike--but that there is a narrative distance between Angel and Angelus that does not exist between Spike and, uh, Spike.

Or between Darla and Darla. I don't think it's a coincidence that in Angel S3, when there’s a storyline about Angel and Darla murdering an innocent women and her children, and we see, in flashbacks, the full of horror of it, Darla does not survive the storyline. Darla, who does not have the same divide between her souled and soulless self that Angel does, commits suicide after expressing remorse for what she did to that family. Darla dies, and for once, stays dead.

Faith and Spike do not kill characters we know. They do not kill characters that are beloved by the Scoobies or Angel’s gang (even Andrew didn’t kill anyone beloved by the Scoobies). It would be harder for the audience to sympathize with them, and harder for the Scoobies and Angel’s gang to forgive them, if they did. But when it comes time for these characters be the center of a redemption story, a human face is needed to represent the victims. One way of dealing with is problem is to have a character like Holtz or Wood introduced who lost loved ones to them. That’s one of handling it. Another way of handling it is to could use major characters who have been hurt by the characters in need of redemption in non-fatal way to represent the victims. You know, like Buffy Summers.

In “Sanctuary”, and in early S7 (from “Beneath You” through “Never Leave Me”), Buffy (along with Wesley, for Faith) represents the victims of Faith and Spike respectively. In the church scene in “Beneath You”, Spike conflates earning forgiveness from Buffy with earning forgiveness from all the other people he wronged (“And she shall look on him with forgiveness and everybody will forgive and love… and he will be loved.”). This sets the tone for the next several episodes. In “Help”, “Seeing Red” is treated as soulless Spike's worst moment (Spike even says, "I hurt the girl", as if Buffy were the only girl he hurt). In “Never Leave Me”, Spike's other victims are discussed and he explicitly says the Buffy got off easy compared to his other victims, but she is still used to represent all his victims.

But the things Faith and Spike did to Buffy are not as bad as the things they did to people outside Buffy's show. The things they did to Buffy, are horrid, but when the show treats them as the worst things they ever did, or as representative of all their crimes, it makes them both look much better than they actually are.

On the other hand, Buffy has to represent the innocent victim. Which means that she is portrayed as forgiving and taking back Spike and Faith, while her own crimes towards them are downplayed, just as their crimes towards people outside her circle (or, in some cases, inside her circle--i.e. Faith's assault of Xander which more or less got dropped by the narrative) are downplayed.

So that's my interpretation. I think the narrative choice of sometimes using Buffy to representing all the people wronged by Faith and Spike makes Buffy look better than she actually is--and makes Faith and Spike look better than they actually are.

Comments

[selenak.livejournal.com]

both BtVS and AtS are both inconsistent in that regard, and the narrative encourages a certain amount of distance between the two that doesn't exist with any of the other murderers on the show, including other vampires like Spike or Darla. By AtS, Angel even starts using different names depending on whether he has his soul or not.

I think the first time either show does that is in the BTVS episode Enemies, actually (the Mayor and Faith address him as Angelus once they think he's soulless, right? Whereas previously during s2 Spike and Dru used "Angel" for the soulless version as well), but otherwise, agreed. Mind you: the inconsistency of either show is consistent in one regard: Angel (and the narrative) treat him as the same person with and without a soul in one specific context always, and that's in interactions with Darla, Spike and Dru. Angel never behaves as if someone else had spent those 150 years with Darla, or those twenty with Spike and Dru. The reverse isn't always true (Darla tries to differentiate between the souled and soulless versions but doesn't always manage, which is what the later part of the Darla flashbacks are all about, Dru is loyal to the soulless version and vengeful towards the souled one but generally gives the impression she sees them as aspects of the same man, and Spike after his bout of nostalgia for the soulless version from "School Hard" and their initial reunion in "Innocence" is cured for good talks of the souled and soulless version in the same manner throughout. (See also: "Dru sired me but you made me a monster" in Destiny.)

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

I wanted to make Spike's victims people for an audience inclined not to care (and hence also inclined to complain that the Scoobies and/or Buffy didn't accept them fast enough) because with the exception of Nikki Wood (who died in an exciting fight scene), we never saw them on screen.

We see a few other victims of Spike killed on screen, but I think Nikki is the only one who is given a name and a story (although I think I've heard that the Chinese slayer is given a name in some sort of tie-in media, but that's not on the show itself, and is also an exciting fight scene).

However: does it really happen so often? And also: what if the show(s) contradict themselves or rather, remedy their narrative? For example, I'd say Damage on AtS textually and explicitly makes Dana a stand-in for Spike's victims.

I agree with that.

As for Faith: I'd argue that while Buffy has the no-sayer position in Sanctuary, the stand-in for Faith's victims position in the narrative is actually taken by Wesley, whom the audience has seen tortured by Faith on screen.

While I only mentioned Wesley in passing, I do think he plays a more important role as representing Faith's victims in Faith's redemption arc overall (both in the context of "Sanctuary" and in Faith's arc in AtS S4, where Buffy isn't even around). But Buffy's arguments as the no-sayer are not based on what Faith did to Wesley (does she even know?). They based on all the other things Faith did, and particularly focused on what Faith did to her.

But while both Dana and Wesley are better ways of representing Faith and Spike's victims than using Buffy, that still doesn't cross the line into letting Faith and Spike kill sympthetic characters whom the viewers know or whom the protagonists have personal affection for. And so I find myself wondering, could they have done something like that and still be given redemption storylines? Maybe the answer to that is "yes", since Andrew kills Jonathan and still gets a redemption story (kind of an odd one, and Andrew is kind of an odd character, but still).

I think the first time either show does that is in the BTVS episode Enemies, actually (the Mayor and Faith address him as Angelus once they think he's soulless, right? Whereas previously during s2 Spike and Dru used "Angel" for the soulless version as well)

You're right, I checked the transcript, and they are doing it in Enemies. I just didn't notice while watching because it is more subtle (and the Scoobies aren't doing it at this point, just Faith and the Mayor and Angel himself).

Angel never behaves as if someone else had spent those 150 years with Darla, or those twenty with Spike and Dru.

Good point. And the most extreme example of Angel-and-Angelus-are-too-different-people is in AtS S4 when none of the other Fanged Four are around. (That S4 storyline is just plain weird--you have an entire show built on a guilt-ridden protagonist seeking redemption and suddenly he's saying that he doesn't need to feel guilty for the things he did without a soul? Very strange.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

But while both Dana and Wesley are better ways of representing Faith and Spike's victims than using Buffy, that still doesn't cross the line into letting Faith and Spike kill sympthetic characters whom the viewers know or whom the protagonists have personal affection for. And so I find myself wondering, could they have done something like that and still be given redemption storylines? Maybe the answer to that is "yes", since Andrew kills Jonathan and still gets a redemption story (kind of an odd one, and Andrew is kind of an odd character, but still).

I don't know. I can think of some shows (and a book series) which actually go there. There's a character in A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones who gets basically introduced by throwing a nice kid (and pov character) out of the window, gets a redemption storyline and ended up as a fan favourite. Breaking Bad, which I marathoned the last few months, had the main protagonist do that kind of thing repeatedly, but, um, as the title of the show indicates, his is not a redemption storyline. Supposedly The Sopranos did it (i.e. Tony Soprano kills people the audience has grown to love over several seasons), but I only watched the first two seasons in which that doesn't happen, so I wouldn't know. And again, Tony Soprano doesn't have a redemption storyline. Xena: Warrior Princess has an Angel-esque protagonist, only female, in that most of her evil deeds happened pre-show, the show itself is a spin-off, and that she's atoning is the very premise, but we do get to know some of her victims on screen and pretty well, plus there's the infamous rift arc where she does something very cruel to the show's other much beloved main character. And speaking of spin-offs: Jack Harkness is an interesting case in that when he kills a child the audience knows on screen it's as the culmination of a storyline where the opposite choice would doom part of the planetary population. (Plus, to put it cynically and in a way proving your point, in terms of "action by a Torchwood character the audience does not forgive and ever after defines that character by that action, no matter what else that character does" an online majority would go for Gwen cheating on Rhys in season one and confessing, hoping for absolution, while giving him retcon. Never mind that the whole point of that scene is that she's not forgiven, or that she draws consequences from that experience, an important one of which is to refuse to retcon Rhys in season 2 (and the whole way she handles her relationship with him from that point onwards), and certainly never mind the deeds by various other TW characters include torture, endangerment of planetary population by Cyber girlfriend, and in Owen's case the infamous pheromone spray of dubious consent from the pilot: this is the single unforgivable action by a Torchwood character, if online comments are anything to go by.

The question is: would Joss & Co. (never forget the other writers and their imput) have let Spike and Faith do it, on these two shows, and still be redeemed? I'm 2/3 inclined to say no, with the caveat that torture of a character the viewers know and like is already very dark (and for some viewers unforgivable), and they were willing to let Faith go there. (Angel too, but he's soulless when he does it to Giles, while Faith is not.)

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

torture of a character the viewers know and like is already very dark (and for some viewers unforgivable), and they were willing to let Faith go there.

In some ways, I think Faith was the character on BtVS and AtS whose darkness was dealt with honestly and whose evil actions had the best follow-up (with the caveats of a) she still doesn't kill anyone the Scoobies or Angel's gang or the viewers actually know, and b) the lack of any follow-up specific to her assault of Xander). Though that is a somewhat subjective statement and someone could probably make an argument for another character. It probably helps that Faith wasn't in the credits of either show, so they could send her off to prison for a few seasons.

I was actually really bothered by how quick online fandom was to forgive Jack for killing his grandson. Mostly because I felt like a lot of it was coming from a place of "I like Jack, therefore I will come up with a justification to forgive him". But I was very impressed that Torchwood went there, and of course I thought it was completely in character for Jack, under the circumstances.

this is the single unforgivable action by a Torchwood character, if online comments are anything to go by.

But! But! Gwen is self-righteous! She thinks she's better than everyone else! That's why it's unforgivable. ;)

I was re-watching "Greeks Bearing Gifts", and I actually forgot that at the end, Gwen tells Tosh that she (Gwen) has no right to judge Tosh, because of her own bad behavior (her affair with Owen).

So much for the fanon that Gwen thinks she's better than everyone else.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

And the most extreme example of Angel-and-Angelus-are-too-different-people is in AtS S4 when none of the other Fanged Four are around. (That S4 storyline is just plain weird--you have an entire show built on a guilt-ridden protagonist seeking redemption and suddenly he's saying that he doesn't need to feel guilty for the things he did without a soul? Very strange.)

Which is why I, the big season 4 fan, don't like Orpheus or the line in the subsequent episode where Angel says that. Mind you, the explanation is pretty obvious and I think Tim Minear admitted as much on the message boards back then: they didn't have the time for an "Angel processes and apologizes for everything Angelus did" episode because final part of s4, the Jasmine reveal needed to happen(remember, too, Charisma Carpenter was real life pregnant, and they were limited in the time they could still use her). Note that only two eps later when Angel is still under the Jasmine influence, we're back to the first person singular for what he sid when soulless again (in the scene where he talks about "everything I did" and she does her I forgive because I love you thing, which, given that Jasmine is the main antagonist, definitely doesn't count as a stand-in for Angel's victims).

Of course, on both a Watsonian and Doylist level the Angelus interlude in s4 is just a flashy red herring, as the Beast is, before Jasmine can move on stage, and the main emotional arc is between Angel and Connor anyway, which is not about Angel's deeds when soulless (let's not forget, Connor owes his existence to a time when Angel was souled, alright, and had his vengeful s2 interlude).