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.

---

Joining this discussion very late, I recall voting for the "Angel: Kind of His Own Bitch" thread title, because I thought it was true. Which is to say, practically anything Angel ever did (or that happened to him) occurred because it reflected on Angel, and a lot of the time the ordinary people involved got chewed up and spit out pointlessly.

(Drusilla as Angel-victim was established in canon via narrative a long time before she was fleshed out in a flashback. We saw the effect -- Angel's actions -- long before the cause -- Drusilla herself, her consciousness -- mattered to us. Drusilla literally does not matter, except in plot terms and how she reflects ideas about Angel: even in her post-rape scene, the camera leaves her face, and wanders away to focus on him.)

I don't know as how I can blame Angel for that -- he wasn't a writer -- but certainly his character and his show differed vastly from Buffy, moreso as the later seasons tended to become socially isolated. repeated use of the word "champion" was also a factor.

---

I'm afraid I'm completely ignorant in the definitions of things. What makes somebody a hero?

...so apparently I'm the only one who saw that and immediately thought "somebody who gets other people killed"? *runs away*

---

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!")

a) This might be the most fun disagreement line I've ever come across online.

b) Without the prior bits for context, I am afraid my "mattered" looks like it means more than I intended, and I should have worded it better. Angel (most of the time) got into his fights because people came to him for help. The Angel Investigations agency was the means by which he found out about various and sundry evils. He was helping the helpless. That's how he's a champion. Buffy went looking for big, brewing evil, that's how she's the hero.

---

Inasmuch as I make a distinction between the two terms, I think "champion" fits Angel because he was specifically chosen for his little crusade against evil by TPTB and was sort of their earthly button man, acting on their frequent directives to further their goals. Buffy was likewise chosen for her destiny by... well, something... but seemed to be largely self-motivated in her fight against evil. I think she would have ended up helping any people she ran across with supernatural woes even without the influence of the Watchers, whereas without Doyle and Cordelia prodding him Angel might have just as easily wasted a few decades brooding and sulking.

---