Werewolves and Vampires
Jun. 6th, 2006 01:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lady_windermereAfter reading "Five Seasons Of Angel", I had some thoughts about the treatment of werewolves and vampires on Buffy and Angel. I posted my thoughts here, does anyone agree, or am I totally thinking too much?
Vampires and Werewolves are treated totally differently in Buffy and Angel. Both are classic horror beings, and have a long history in folklore. Both savagely kill people. So why do both Buffy and Angel stake vampires without a clam, but help Werewolves.
They are both changed by the transfusion of blood. The vampire siring another by letting them drink of their blood, and the werewolf being bitten but surviving an attack. There the similarity ends.
The werewolf remains human for most of their life, changing into the blood thirsty creature for only three nights of the cycle of the full moon. They can be caged while in this beastly from to protect others. While civilised man is able to mentally contain his beastly urges, the werewolf has a physical cage when his/her beastiality is unleashed.
This worked for both Oz and Nina. The ones trying to hurt them portrayed as the baddies.
With vampires, the human has departed, killed by the sire vampire. They are pure demon at all times. When they achieve some from of humanity (getting a soul) they work for the white hats, and are not staked.
It is also seen that when they can no longer defend themselves, Spike’s chip, they are not staked. Treated much like a defanged, declawed killer tiger. Maybe never trusted, but accepted and not destroyed.
Both werewolves and vampires are a danger to humans, and could kill. Therefore this humane treatment for werewolves, and cursed vampires, who if they break the curse, could become unsouled killer demons again may seem strange. The argument with it chip is that they never knew how it worked and what would happen if it malfunctioned.
On a totally black and white level, they were both killers, and they could have been putting others lives at risk, as well as their own. The werewolf would have no recollection of their acts in wolf form, but could still kill. Maybe much like someone who kills when the balance of their mind is affected? In society such people would be locked up, so it could be that Buffy and Angel are reflecting the outside world, and mature enough to deal with the greys of this world. With this reasoning the show is to be applauded for taking on such a difficult moral issue, and righting it, as best they can.
The whole issue with vampires, and souled/chipped ones. The to stake or not to stake dilemma. Un-souled un-chipped vampires are irredeemable killers, and everyone breaths a sigh of relief when they are staked. Our morals about wither allowing Angel or Spike to survive, when there was always a danger they could become the notorious killing machines that they had been is questionable. They were famed for being the worsted of the worsted. Angel has a get out clause which allows Angelus to re-emerge. Should they just have staked him for the good of mankind?
Part of Buffy, and to a greater extent Angel was seeking redemption. These two were ideal to explore that aspect of humanity. Should we be damned for our past if we are making a conscious effort to atone? Should we deprive a being of their chance to do good?
The answer in Buffy and Angel seems to be no. No matter what the risk, if someone wants to change their part, and karma, we will support them.
I guess it also helps that both Angel and Spike are hot, in Angel’s case has his own spin-off, and in Spike’s they can write great lines for him. I guess we are all pleased that they were not staked, but in real life how many people who had behaved in the cold calculated killers that they were would we forgive?
Interested to hear others points of view.
Vampires and Werewolves are treated totally differently in Buffy and Angel. Both are classic horror beings, and have a long history in folklore. Both savagely kill people. So why do both Buffy and Angel stake vampires without a clam, but help Werewolves.
They are both changed by the transfusion of blood. The vampire siring another by letting them drink of their blood, and the werewolf being bitten but surviving an attack. There the similarity ends.
The werewolf remains human for most of their life, changing into the blood thirsty creature for only three nights of the cycle of the full moon. They can be caged while in this beastly from to protect others. While civilised man is able to mentally contain his beastly urges, the werewolf has a physical cage when his/her beastiality is unleashed.
This worked for both Oz and Nina. The ones trying to hurt them portrayed as the baddies.
With vampires, the human has departed, killed by the sire vampire. They are pure demon at all times. When they achieve some from of humanity (getting a soul) they work for the white hats, and are not staked.
It is also seen that when they can no longer defend themselves, Spike’s chip, they are not staked. Treated much like a defanged, declawed killer tiger. Maybe never trusted, but accepted and not destroyed.
Both werewolves and vampires are a danger to humans, and could kill. Therefore this humane treatment for werewolves, and cursed vampires, who if they break the curse, could become unsouled killer demons again may seem strange. The argument with it chip is that they never knew how it worked and what would happen if it malfunctioned.
On a totally black and white level, they were both killers, and they could have been putting others lives at risk, as well as their own. The werewolf would have no recollection of their acts in wolf form, but could still kill. Maybe much like someone who kills when the balance of their mind is affected? In society such people would be locked up, so it could be that Buffy and Angel are reflecting the outside world, and mature enough to deal with the greys of this world. With this reasoning the show is to be applauded for taking on such a difficult moral issue, and righting it, as best they can.
The whole issue with vampires, and souled/chipped ones. The to stake or not to stake dilemma. Un-souled un-chipped vampires are irredeemable killers, and everyone breaths a sigh of relief when they are staked. Our morals about wither allowing Angel or Spike to survive, when there was always a danger they could become the notorious killing machines that they had been is questionable. They were famed for being the worsted of the worsted. Angel has a get out clause which allows Angelus to re-emerge. Should they just have staked him for the good of mankind?
Part of Buffy, and to a greater extent Angel was seeking redemption. These two were ideal to explore that aspect of humanity. Should we be damned for our past if we are making a conscious effort to atone? Should we deprive a being of their chance to do good?
The answer in Buffy and Angel seems to be no. No matter what the risk, if someone wants to change their part, and karma, we will support them.
I guess it also helps that both Angel and Spike are hot, in Angel’s case has his own spin-off, and in Spike’s they can write great lines for him. I guess we are all pleased that they were not staked, but in real life how many people who had behaved in the cold calculated killers that they were would we forgive?
Interested to hear others points of view.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 02:01 pm (UTC)as for Buffy, I have to say what I always say at this point: IMHO, BtVS has no valid point when talking about morality
*hides from the rocks flying at her*
I'm sorry, but I can't seriously think about the morality of a series where all-ensouled human are responsible for deaths of other (Xander, Willow and I think Faith, too) and all they get is "bad Willow/Xander", but no real consequences. And now that I think about it, why is Faith different and ends in jail?
Spike trying to stop Buffy from turning herself in, where she didn't even know what really happened, is beaten half to un-death, but nobody did the head count for Xander's little demon summoning (Sweet). Willow too did her lynch justice and "suffered" - oh, woe-is-me! - a vacation in England.
Well, tough luck, not convinced here about the high horse. Thorough the whole series I saw double standards. If I had a teenage child, I wouldn't let them watch the series without *a lot* of discussion afterwards, so that they would understand things showed are often not the right thing to do, even if they are the deeds of humans.
err, I didn't really answer your question, did I?
LOL
sorry, I wanted to explain why I *can't* answer - no offence
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 02:41 pm (UTC)With Buffy, she always seemed to judge herself higher than anyone else, therefore when she believes she has killed someone, goes to "Turn herself in", despite the fact she didn't really know what happened. Spike is the only one who tries to stop her, and pays for it. That throughout the whole of the season arc she used, misused and mistreated Spike, she seems to get away with. As if it didn't matter as he was an unsouled vampire, while he was the one who struck by her, even when he asks her to stay away from him, he is the first to offer his help.
It was a murky road they all traveled in season 6 (my least favourite season), with very unsavoury behavour.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 03:08 pm (UTC)yeah, but it wasn't only that season
for example, the whole season 4 Initiative - part was a bit dubious, too - or did i miss any consequences for Riley & Co?
and I'll shut up now before I start ranting, especially about Buffy ,-)
Morality in Buffy
Date: 2006-06-09 08:33 pm (UTC)We really dont know what Willow was subjected to in England. It wasnt a vacation, but more of a treatment. Sort of like if someone goes into rehab. Perhaps one of the writers will write a novel about it and then we can judge for ourselves. Plus it wasnt really business as usual that forced her into the state that caused her to go all evil and veiny.
Faith went to jail b/c she killed someone and didnt even care or at least pretended not to. Her morality line throughout the beginning was grayed at best, and although Buffy did often have a 'better than everyone else' air about her she did struggle w/her own personal demons as it were.
I truly recommend that you check out Angel. ;-)
Re: Morality in Buffy
Date: 2006-06-09 08:53 pm (UTC)As for following points, I have to disagree:
"It wasnt a vacation, but more of a treatment. Sort of like if someone goes into rehab."
huh? and that's it for murder? Tell that all the people in jail, I bet they will like to get the treatment, too. And the word "vacation" was used more sarcastic than as a real description.
"Plus it wasnt really business as usual that forced her into the state that caused her to go all evil and veiny."
Not sure what you mean with "business as usual" - that she experienced extreme grief and a sense of injustice over the death of the loved one? So like thousands other people every day? It was her dicision to get the black magic and she wasn't crazy or drugged - in every court she would have been judged. What I absolutely cannot condone is the fact, that there was no court, no jury, no sentence. How can you say it's alright? Do you think vengeance is a valid reason to commit murder?
It doesn't matter if someone will write anything more about Willow - what the series actually showed is, that she got away with it and next season was all hunky dory again.
And what about Xander then?
PS. I will watch Angel soon, because I heard it was much better than Buffy
Re: More on morality
Date: 2006-06-11 03:18 am (UTC)then it is just a TV show. But I understand where you're coming from.
OH the Xander thing. Sorry I dont recall that. I may have missed it or seen it and just dont remember. I have memory recall problems.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy Angel when you get to watch it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-06 02:30 pm (UTC)vampires vs werewolves, it may have something to do with the fact that werewolves still act human most of the time, and still possess in theory a soul and therefore a conscience (I'm thinking of Oz's horror that that skank!wolf wanted to run free and kill even though she was aware of what she was). if they encountered a werewolf that was killing without conscience, I'm not sure the scoobies would hesitate to pull an old yeller.
as for the moral dilemma re: incapacitated vamps, very interesting...wish I had time to comment further on that, but I don't :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-07 09:39 pm (UTC)Thanks for commenting.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 09:39 pm (UTC)Maybe have a discussion some other time.