So the message is pretty clear - there is no Angelus-style bad side to this guy. There used to be - and it's implied pretty strongly in ("Destiny") that this was largely due to Angelus's influence - but not anymore. His worst character flaws are all laddish immaturities - boastfulness, restlessness, childish sniping, and a Bill Clinton-esque obsession with sex.
IMHO, his evils were very much due to his own character, his "worst" character flaws more significant than "laddish immaturity, and not so clearly attributable to Angelus' influence. Else, he wouldn't have remained the enthusiastic killer he was for so long after Angelus' absence. Perhaps, I'm misreading your comment, and perhaps I'm attributing an unfair degree of romaniticism to you - but I do consider this to be an unduly limited view of Spike's character.
My point was that his instictual, unconscious adpataion was the interesting one, the real arc for the character, not the "act"he puts on.
By this point, Spike's been adopting "acts" for a century and a quarter, to the point where I'm not so sure it's possible to seperate the "real Spike" from the "act". I don't even think it's conscious process for him - it's fundamentally entangled with who he is.
no subject
So the message is pretty clear - there is no Angelus-style bad side to this guy. There used to be - and it's implied pretty strongly in ("Destiny") that this was largely due to Angelus's influence - but not anymore. His worst character flaws are all laddish immaturities - boastfulness, restlessness, childish sniping, and a Bill Clinton-esque obsession with sex.
IMHO, his evils were very much due to his own character, his "worst" character flaws more significant than "laddish immaturity, and not so clearly attributable to Angelus' influence. Else, he wouldn't have remained the enthusiastic killer he was for so long after Angelus' absence. Perhaps, I'm misreading your comment, and perhaps I'm attributing an unfair degree of romaniticism to you - but I do consider this to be an unduly limited view of Spike's character.
My point was that his instictual, unconscious adpataion was the interesting one, the real arc for the character, not the "act"he puts on.
By this point, Spike's been adopting "acts" for a century and a quarter, to the point where I'm not so sure it's possible to seperate the "real Spike" from the "act". I don't even think it's conscious process for him - it's fundamentally entangled with who he is.