Vampires in the Jossverse
Oct. 17th, 2005 06:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thalia_seawoodWhile doing the shopping and the cooking, I've had some time think about vampires in the Jossverse, in particular about the question how much they are responsible for their actions.
We learn that you lose your soul when you become a vampire.
In the second episode, Jesse, an acquaintance of Xander and Willow is turned into a vampire. Buffy warns Xander that this is not the person he knew before and slays Jesse later on without any regrets.
In the episode Lie to Me, Buffy says: You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house, and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it's not you.
So if all this is true, how much does the personality of a vampire differ from the personality he had as a human being?
I'll take Angel as an example:
We learn that in the past when he still went by the name "Angelus" he performed some monstrous acts. Kendra calls him a monster, Giles does too, if I remember correctly and Angel himself tells Buffy what he did to Drusilla.
So it seems that while vampires are evil in general, there are some that are even worse than others.
But what does this mean?
What was Angel like before he turned into a vampire? Was he like the Angel we've seen so far on Buffy?
If yes, then he was originally a good person. So if he committed extremely evil acts as a vampire, is Angel really responsible for them or is it the demon that has taken over his body?
If Angel before he turned into a vampire was cruel as well, then it's a different matter. This would mean that Angelus, the vampire, just carried on doing what Angelus, the human did beforehand. He simply has more power and can get away with more. In this case, my question is: How comes that Angel after he got back his soul became so considerate and is overall on the side of good, when there was no goodness in him beforehand?
I'm also intrigued by the fact that even vampires who have no soul, are able to feel emotions like love or can act in a selfless way. The best example for this are Spike and Drusilla who obviously care for one another and go to great lengths to protect one another.
But where do these emotions come from?
Is the ability to feel love a part of the vampires' former humanity? Or are vampire-demons able to feel love as well?
I know this is dreadfully philosophical... but I can't help myself. The philosophical part is a fixed part of my personality. :-)
We learn that you lose your soul when you become a vampire.
In the second episode, Jesse, an acquaintance of Xander and Willow is turned into a vampire. Buffy warns Xander that this is not the person he knew before and slays Jesse later on without any regrets.
In the episode Lie to Me, Buffy says: You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house, and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it's not you.
So if all this is true, how much does the personality of a vampire differ from the personality he had as a human being?
I'll take Angel as an example:
We learn that in the past when he still went by the name "Angelus" he performed some monstrous acts. Kendra calls him a monster, Giles does too, if I remember correctly and Angel himself tells Buffy what he did to Drusilla.
So it seems that while vampires are evil in general, there are some that are even worse than others.
But what does this mean?
What was Angel like before he turned into a vampire? Was he like the Angel we've seen so far on Buffy?
If yes, then he was originally a good person. So if he committed extremely evil acts as a vampire, is Angel really responsible for them or is it the demon that has taken over his body?
If Angel before he turned into a vampire was cruel as well, then it's a different matter. This would mean that Angelus, the vampire, just carried on doing what Angelus, the human did beforehand. He simply has more power and can get away with more. In this case, my question is: How comes that Angel after he got back his soul became so considerate and is overall on the side of good, when there was no goodness in him beforehand?
I'm also intrigued by the fact that even vampires who have no soul, are able to feel emotions like love or can act in a selfless way. The best example for this are Spike and Drusilla who obviously care for one another and go to great lengths to protect one another.
But where do these emotions come from?
Is the ability to feel love a part of the vampires' former humanity? Or are vampire-demons able to feel love as well?
I know this is dreadfully philosophical... but I can't help myself. The philosophical part is a fixed part of my personality. :-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-17 05:41 pm (UTC)is Angel really responsible for them or is it the demon that has taken over his body?
This issue especially seems to take root this season (and is one that overshadows him the rest of his run on BtVS and on Angel), though again I can't get into the reasons why. I'm personally of the opinion that it's the demon responsible - unlike Anakin/Vader, Angel was not a good guy who was driven to do monstrous things; the distinction between the good Angel and the evil Angelus as separate entities is (IMO) very clear cut. He lost his soul, and the direct result was the horrific acts. Again, this will definitely become a big theme this season, so you should get your answers soon enough. ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-17 06:22 pm (UTC)Hm, how to do this without spoiling Thalia... well.
Let's just say that imo later seasons challenge the clearcut assumption. And the entire spinoff, which by necessity of its main character goes much deeper into the backstory and the responsibility questions, but even leaving that aside, I'd say that the season 3 of BTVS episodes Amends and Doppelgangerland offer material that shows we're not exactly in two entities, one body territory here, but more with Angelus being the exaggaration of every bit of Angel's worst traits.
Also, consider: if Angelus is a different entity, why does Angel, with soul, relate to Spike, Drusilla and Darla the way he does? Because they shouldn't matter to him if he never knew them, if only some other entitity did.
And okay, using an AtS argument now because it's not spoilery to the unknowing: when we see Angel's demon in its pure form in Pylea, it is emphatically NOT Angelus. It's big dumb barely sentient bloodthirsty beast, not interested in torture, just the kill. Meaning that the sadism and everything else that makes up Angelus came from the human part.
Lastly: the "demon sets up shop in your house" story comes from the Watchers. Who aren't exactly an unbiased source of information, especially since they need to get young girls to kill without hesitation. And, to put it mildly, are shown to be wrong about other things on this show.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 12:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 12:16 pm (UTC)Thanks. This comparison makes a lot of sense. It works well with the gut feeling I'm having on this issue.
So you liked DS9 as well?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 02:15 am (UTC)And yes, I very much liked DS9. Largely for sentimental reasons I'm a bit more partial to TNG, but DS9 was still a damn fine show (especially with the character development), though I admit I didn't really get into it until the Dominion War storyline kicked into gear.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 08:30 am (UTC)DS9 is my favorite Star Trek show: So many fascinating characters. I also like that it's not easy to move them into good camp/bad camp. Everybody has their good sides and their shadows.
For me it was the other way around: I love the early seasons of DS9 and lost interest after season 5. I just hated what they did with Dukat and Jadzia, though "In the Pale Moonlight" was one of the finest TV episodes ever, IMO. Since I'm less emotional about it now, I might give the last two seasons a shot now.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-20 02:57 pm (UTC)Agreed. Like Sisko and what happened 'In the Pale Moonlight' (which I'll get to in a sec), Kira and what she did in her time as a Bajoran freedom fighter... DS9 had lots of lovely gritty gray areas, which in some ways I did prefer to TNG.
Yeah, especially by the latter part of the last season Dukat had gotten pretty campy. For some reason I don't remember being upset over Jadzia's character (it's been forever since I've seen DS9), though I do remember being disappointed in her death and wondering if it would have had more impact if she'd actually died a few episodes back in the one where Worf chose to abandon their mission to save her.
And I love "In the Pale Moonlight." I've always been kind of 'meh' on Avery Brooks' acting, but this was an episode that really made me interested in Sisko as a character. The depths he was willing to resort to to maintain peace - a path he'd choose again if he had to - a moral grayness we didn't even really see Picard go into until First Contact. And it swiftly kills the silly notion that Star Trek/Starfleet heroes always cleanly take the moral high ground to resolve a situation.
Damn, I wish I could afford those stupidly overpriced Trek DVDs, to go back and refresh my memory, especially of the older seasons (it's been even longer since I've seen those. I love TNG and DS9, but I simply can't afford to drop $1400 like that. :P
no subject
Date: 2005-10-21 08:21 am (UTC)With DS9 I got the impression: They finally created some wonderful female characters - and now that they have them, they don't know how to write them.
One example of this was when Kira all of a sudden (I think in season 5) started to wear high-heeled boots. I found it so odd, because she's military and mostly very practical. It didn't seem to fit. It felt more as if they wanted to make her more sexy so she appealed to a young, male Star Trek audience.
But all in all there were wonderful shows, e.g. "Duett" in the first season or "The Wire". Even the funny shows like "Our Man Bashir" or "Trials and Tribulations" were wonderfully done.
I guess I have to give it another shot when I've completed watching "Buffy" and "Angel."
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 12:14 pm (UTC)Ah, okay, that makes things a lot easier. Because I wasn't all that happy with this explanation. Because this would have meant that demons are able to experience human emotions and that just doesn't ring right; at least not from what I've seen in the Buffy-verse so far.
when we see Angel's demon in its pure form in Pylea, it is emphatically NOT Angelus. It's big dumb barely sentient bloodthirsty beast, not interested in torture, just the kill. Meaning that the sadism and everything else that makes up Angelus came from the human part.
That's a very interesting bit of information. So it seems the drive to kill and hunt and be evil comes from the demon, but everything else is supplied by the human personality the demon has merged with. This means, of course, that a Buffy-verse vampire is in some way responsible for his actions. He would not be able to avoid the killing urge, but he also doesn't necessarily have to be an absolutely ruthless monster.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 05:25 pm (UTC)Exactly. In the course of the entire show plus its spinoff, we get to see a rich variety of vampires. They all want to kill. But they've by no means all sadistic monsters.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-17 06:29 pm (UTC)Also, [the series] Angel deals with it a lot too.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 12:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 04:43 am (UTC)To me, the *evil* comes from the demon, but the form of the evil comes from the human host. So no, the host cannot be held responsible for the actions of the demons, in the unlikely even they get their soul back. On the other hand, opinions of canon characters varying widely, both between characters and over time, so it probably best to make up your own mind on this one :)
I get the impression that the demon, until it takes over the host, is fairly unformed emotionally/intellectually. Since it then takes over a host with a fully formed personality, and has actions to all of the memories, this influences the personality of the demon. So, the final personality may be influenced by all the personality traits, and in particular unresolved issues of the human. Again, no specific examples cause of the no spoiling thing, but I think this point is particularly demonstrated in later seasons.
Ahem.. my take on this is just as the memories of the human can influence the demon, the memories of the demon can influence the human personality.
So, in summary - I think they are two different entities, but ones which have a large influence on each other.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 12:23 pm (UTC)Yes, makes sense.
So it could also be seen as a merging of two different entities that influence one another. The demon part provides the drive for killing and evil, the demon part provides the rest.
(and can I say that the idea of the four of them together gives me goosebumps? We see it so rarely, but when it happens... oh yeah)
Heh. So far I've seen Drusilla, Angel and Spike together - and they are already a hot combination. Absolutely sizzling!
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 01:36 pm (UTC)And if you think they are hot now, wait until Darla (the new, re-vamped version is quite different to her first appearance in season 1) joins them. I suggest a fire extinguisher, or at least a bucket of water.
But only in flashbacks, alas.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 08:00 pm (UTC)So is she resurrected or do we only see her in flashbacks?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 08:31 am (UTC):-)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 05:19 am (UTC)-reposted to fix spelling errors
no subject
Date: 2005-10-19 01:16 pm (UTC)