Well, the victims always mattered to Angelus. He didn't kill in cold blood so much as deliberately and with a flourish. Angelus sought to inflict maximum suffering. Barring the part in the middle where he's either withdrawn from people or crazy eating rats in alleys, Angel(us) has always been about the victim. The difference is Modern Angel seeks to alleviate suffering instead of cause it.

I don't think the victims mattered to Angelus as much as Angelus mattered to Angelus. I agree with everything else you said. But obsession isn't about the object of obsession, it's about the obsessor.

Right. Angelus viewed himself as an artist of pain and cruelty, but I gather that each victim was merely a blank canvas for him, rather than something to be valued in their own right.

I gather that each victim was merely a blank canvas for him, rather than something to be valued in their own right.

IIRC, Drusilla wasn't a blank canvas -- between her innocence, her piety, and her psychic gifts she was less a blank canvas to Angelus than a particularly glowing chunk of marble or flawless alabaster, raw material so exquisite as to demand many months of exacting and highly detailed craftsmanship and artistry. And it's entirely possible that she wasn't the only one; Angelus was more than creative enough to make art out of any hunk of meat he happened to find in an alleyway, but Drusilla was doubtless not the first time he'd ever noticed a victim who could really challenge him to his finest efforts.

And now, ugh. After crawling just far enough into Angelus's brain to write that paragraph, I have to go take a shower.

That said, he objectified her. Angel's obsession was never about Drusilla. It was about what Angel could do to her. Here was this pious, spiritually gifted, devout girl. He wanted to make her the opposite of that, not because of her, but because of what it meant about him.

He wanted to make her the opposite of that, not because of her, but because of what it meant about him.

But the opposite of her is intrinsically tied up in who she is.

But the opposite of her is intrinsically tied up in who she is.

Right, as opposed to Buffy, where her being the slayer was incidental to Angelus' obsession. She was his obsession precisely because of the effect that she'd had on Angel.

So, anyone think the original, psych-geek Riley would have been fascinated by what Angelus did to Drusilla, at least on a "anyone else want to put them in separate rooms" level.

But the opposite of her is intrinsically tied up in who she is.

I just see it really differently. Obsession is never about the object, except in what feelings/reactions/responses/ideas the object can generate in the obsessor. I can't see how anyone could say she mattered, because what she wanted/loved/thought was good didn't matter to him, except in how he could pervert it. It was all about Angelus using the facts of her personhood and life to get off.

I don't think Angel was obsessed with Buffy, when he had a soul, to the extent Angelus could get obsessed without a soul. If so, the obsession faded over time, and there was enough love there (when he had a soul), that her fate at least mattered to him (if not her opinion on how their relationship would affect her fate).

Obsession is never about the object, except in what feelings/reactions/responses/ideas the object can generate in the obsessor.

I don't know if I'd put it that way. The nature of the obsession is the power you imbue to the source of your fascination. But there is a transference so the object of attention is supercharged with your particular fucked-upedness. So I wouldn't say it's "never about the object." The object becomes it's own little power center medallion loaded magical interest.

One of the great elements of A:ts (to me) is that he fought evil because the victims mattered to him.

Wow. I'm kind of startled by that. (Sorry, I don't mean "I can't believe you're crazy enough to say such a thing!" -- it's more like "Whaddya mean you see two faces? It's clearly a vase!") I think Angel got off on being a hero. Not that he didn't care about the victims at all, but... he cares about the victims in as much as it gives him a reason to beat up the villains, because that's what he's really in it for.

The difference is Modern Angel seeks to alleviate suffering instead of cause it.

I can't agree there, either. Angel tried to avenge suffering, and maybe prevent it, but I think that'd be his own justification to cover the fact that, souled or not, he's just an enormous sadist. He still likes to cause suffering; he just made the same discovery Spike did in "Doomed" -- that killing monsters is almost as much fun as torturing innocents. And for Angel, in both cases I think there's also an ego thrill that wasn't there so much for Spike.