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.
