I think more to the point perhaps: I thought it was strange that ostensibly both Angel and Spike wanted to be "better people" after seeing/falling in love with Buffy. Yes, it is true that Spike didn't follow Angel's trajectory EXACTLY, but having them be in competition with each other physically, for Buffy, having them both ensouled, I didn't like it.

I liked Spike as a straight up villain. I get that ultimately the major characters got some redemption arc (even Darla!), but for me it was just too much. I liked the uniqueness of a vampire with a soul. Did we really need two - and then for them to be on the same show?!

Spike didn't follow Angel's trajectory EXACTLY

I'm not saying it has to be exact. I'm saying that it's missing a major defining characteristic. Cheerful aggro Angel is ... not Angel. Even if Angel things happen to him. It's not a character arc in my book, because the characters are so radically different.

That's another thing, by the time Spike got a soul he didn't feel like a radically different character to me. By that time it just felt like ...almost like they ran out of ideas to keep Spike around so they just rebooted Angel getting a soul. A little different, but not radically different and not original.

I'd never read Mark WAtches/Read before this. I'm not sure if he's ever dealt with characters that were not sane. I get that he doesn't like the word crazy nor does he want to use it. From what people have said here, saying someone is insane is okay, or at least acknowledging they are mentally ill is okay.

However, there's a big difference between not using a word you think is a slur and ignoring a huge aspect of a character.

The difference between a slur and something diagnostically accurate is huge to me to, askye. And I am glad you said something because it's been bothering me too.

I think Mark is trying to purge some words from his own lexicon, and it's his blog, his rules.

I personally wish I could purge "gypped" from my own word list, but it's fairly well ingrained and (around here) divorced from it's origins that I have to remind myself.

OTOH? There are a number of things I have managed to purge from childhood, so at least the outlook is good.

Back to Mark. Someone recently told him he should go back to his old reviews and replace every "list post" with a "real" review. That's chutzpah!

Purging words is all nice and good, but I haven't heard anyone complaining about, say, gypped by also rooting out synonyms. I don't raise an eyebrow at someone who doesn't want you to use derogatory terms for things--but you can't (okay, you can, but I don't think it's healthy) ban concepts. Especially when they're right in front of you.

I think Mark is trying to purge some words from his own lexicon, and it's his blog, his rules.

His blog, his rules absolutely. I just personally don't think it's entirely healthy to ban the word and not just its use as a slur. The "gay is not a synonym for shitty" clarification, as it were.

Gay is not a bad word and I don't think it should be treated as one. But that only works when you can get people to go along with you.

When dealing with the whole internet on your blog, maybe erring on the side of nonuse is easier than the alternative for him. I think it takes away a valid description of Dru, but his rules.

Was anyone else kind of grossed out by the demon thinking so poorly of Giles respecting Jenny’s consent?

Wait, Mark said that? I have to echo ita here, and say -- does he GET what a demon is?

I'm not sure. He's got some holes in his SF/Fantasy education.

I think that Joss alone does a decent setup of "Evil. Monsters do it, people do it. It's bad." You don't need to be well read to get that.

He's appalled at what the bad people do? Welcome to ... oh, welcome.