Webster's on-line defines antihero as the following a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities
I would disagree with Mr. Lynch in this part of his description of Spike. Perhaps in the beginning he was, but then he was a vampire after all, a soulless creature. As the series continued I would describe Spike as being first a reluctant hero (chipped Spike) and then later as a dark hero. Spike always hated admitting that he was heroic in anyway because for him Angel was held up as the epitome of what a hero was and the last thing he wanted was to be compared to Angel whom he viewed as both a 'ponce' and a 'nancy-boy'.
As far as the arch-nemesis goes Webster's on-line defines nemisis as a: one that inflicts retribution or vengeance b: a formidable and usually victorious rival or opponent
I most definitely see Spike as the (b) definition when it comes to his relationship with Angel. Even when they were both soulless Spike and Angelus were rivals, often for Drusilla's affections, then later for Buffy's. After everything they had been through there was still that one-upmanship quality to their relationship. As if both of them had to prove who was the better man, vampire, hero, etc. It was in a way much like sibling rivalry.
I honestly believe that Spike has always had the mindset that just because you're a hero you didn't have to quit having fun. Thus my opinion that Spike was more a dark hero.
His life, pre-vampire, was in Victorian England and he was oppressed as a human by the belief system he was raised in. Being changed liberated him from societal rules and he took it to heart indulging himself in drink, women (even though he did care for Dru deeply), and basically became a hedonistic rogue. Rogues as we all know was quite popular in the romantic literature of the time and if nothing else William was book geek and a romantic at heart. That doesn't mean that he couldn't be faithful to one person. He just enjoyed his freedom and lived his life (or rather unlife) to it's full extent, unlike some of Joss' very human characters
Now I shall be getting off my soap-box and go back to my writing. ;-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-06-20 02:18 pm (UTC)I would disagree with Mr. Lynch in this part of his description of Spike. Perhaps in the beginning he was, but then he was a vampire after all, a soulless creature. As the series continued I would describe Spike as being first a reluctant hero (chipped Spike) and then later as a dark hero. Spike always hated admitting that he was heroic in anyway because for him Angel was held up as the epitome of what a hero was and the last thing he wanted was to be compared to Angel whom he viewed as both a 'ponce' and a 'nancy-boy'.
As far as the arch-nemesis goes Webster's on-line defines nemisis as a: one that inflicts retribution or vengeance b: a formidable and usually victorious rival or opponent
I most definitely see Spike as the (b) definition when it comes to his relationship with Angel. Even when they were both soulless Spike and Angelus were rivals, often for Drusilla's affections, then later for Buffy's. After everything they had been through there was still that one-upmanship quality to their relationship. As if both of them had to prove who was the better man, vampire, hero, etc. It was in a way much like sibling rivalry.
I honestly believe that Spike has always had the mindset that just because you're a hero you didn't have to quit having fun. Thus my opinion that Spike was more a dark hero.
His life, pre-vampire, was in Victorian England and he was oppressed as a human by the belief system he was raised in. Being changed liberated him from societal rules and he took it to heart indulging himself in drink, women (even though he did care for Dru deeply), and basically became a hedonistic rogue. Rogues as we all know was quite popular in the romantic literature of the time and if nothing else William was book geek and a romantic at heart. That doesn't mean that he couldn't be faithful to one person. He just enjoyed his freedom and lived his life (or rather unlife) to it's full extent, unlike some of Joss' very human characters
Now I shall be getting off my soap-box and go back to my writing. ;-)