Oh, okay. I haven't been following the comics but...
Personally, I always thought that if Ats had gotten the season six it so very much deserved and earned (rat exec bastards), that we would have learned that the whole "cleansing bubbles" purpose of the Liz Taylor necklace was to strip one of their soul, and that Spike, all that time after his resurrection, was operating without a soul, though believing that he had one. Think of it--the whole thing of W&H was to make Angel evil, dark, lose his soul, whatever. So they give him an amulet for the good fight, and it does help in the good fight, but it also takes his soul. Then they make him attached to the building--can't leave the city...a brilliant plan, but goes to the wrong vamp, and with Spike, it's unnoticed, doesn't matter, and proves something about choice in a way that doesn't conflict with Angel and his personality disorder. Most fans rejected this idea when I posted it and thought it lessened Spike's story...but I thought it would have enhanced it.
Anyway.
I always thought the Master wasn't referring to a human soul, but the demon that makes a vampire a vampire. To refer to it as a (demon) soul makes it sound more holy, and they were a religious bunch in their own way, weren't they?
As for Giles--he and the Council and Buffy...what they say in the beginning they believe to be true, yes, but that doesn't mean that we the viewer has to accept it as truth, and I for one didn't. Particularly in the early years and then in s6 especially, the characters keep insisting that one can't love with a soul, and yet Darla says right in s1 about being betrayed by the one she loved--Angel. Spike clearly loves Buffy and has changed, and we see many a human capable of deeds much more evil or just as evil as any vampire or demon...but the main characters hold onto their unwavering belief of "soul good; no soul bad!" To me, it's not the mythology, for the most part, that was problematic--but with the audience choosing to be blind right along with the leads, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-20 06:35 am (UTC)Personally, I always thought that if Ats had gotten the season six it so very much deserved and earned (rat exec bastards), that we would have learned that the whole "cleansing bubbles" purpose of the Liz Taylor necklace was to strip one of their soul, and that Spike, all that time after his resurrection, was operating without a soul, though believing that he had one. Think of it--the whole thing of W&H was to make Angel evil, dark, lose his soul, whatever. So they give him an amulet for the good fight, and it does help in the good fight, but it also takes his soul. Then they make him attached to the building--can't leave the city...a brilliant plan, but goes to the wrong vamp, and with Spike, it's unnoticed, doesn't matter, and proves something about choice in a way that doesn't conflict with Angel and his personality disorder. Most fans rejected this idea when I posted it and thought it lessened Spike's story...but I thought it would have enhanced it.
Anyway.
I always thought the Master wasn't referring to a human soul, but the demon that makes a vampire a vampire. To refer to it as a (demon) soul makes it sound more holy, and they were a religious bunch in their own way, weren't they?
As for Giles--he and the Council and Buffy...what they say in the beginning they believe to be true, yes, but that doesn't mean that we the viewer has to accept it as truth, and I for one didn't. Particularly in the early years and then in s6 especially, the characters keep insisting that one can't love with a soul, and yet Darla says right in s1 about being betrayed by the one she loved--Angel. Spike clearly loves Buffy and has changed, and we see many a human capable of deeds much more evil or just as evil as any vampire or demon...but the main characters hold onto their unwavering belief of "soul good; no soul bad!" To me, it's not the mythology, for the most part, that was problematic--but with the audience choosing to be blind right along with the leads, in spite of evidence to the contrary.