Angel, or "Oh yeah, that other vampire."

[Because, you know, we need to counter all the Spike posts with something.]

Angel is not my favourite Buffyverse vampire.

This shouldn't surprise anyone that knows me. Angel is very broody. He's very gloomy. He's a bit of a drama queen. Which would be fine, if he wasn't like that ALL THE FREAKING TIME. He's never funny. Never happy. His "love" with Buffy was something that I found far too Romeo and Juliet to buy. All he ever does is mope around, find Buffy, decide that they can't be together, find Buffy again, kiss a bit, then cry because they shouldn't have done that because they can't be together. It was extremely boring. It was extremely irritating. And it always seemed unnecessary, as well. Whenever a scene between Buffy and Angel came up, I always hoped it would be over quick so that we could get back to the plot, maybe a scene with Xander in it to counter the doom and gloom.

Or at least, that was Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayer-Angel. After he left that show (because, guess what, he and Buffy can't be together - what a shock, right?) he got his own spin-off, apty titled "Angel", which I expected to be just as boring and dark as the character.

But then.... it wasn't.

In the show's first episode, it was very funny. The first scene has him drunkenly telling someone next to him at the bar about a great girl he had (obviously Buffy), and that they reminded him of her. Because of the hair.

Then it cuts to the person in question, who is a large bald black man. Which made me laugh very hard.

Then along comes Doyle, a character with Whedon's signature brand of humour written all over him. And Cordelia, the Sunnydale biotch/airhead, moved to L.A to become an actress, who somehow teams up with Angel and Doyle. It's very funny.

And then there's Spike's monologue in the third episode of the series, which makes me giggle every single flippin' time I listen to it (just watch the first clip, that's the one I'm talking about. Or watch the others. I find it all pretty damn hilarious):

Anyways.

It was also dark and broody. The difference is, they took it in moderation with this show, which I think is the key. Angel has his broody moments - he destroys the gem of Amarra, which is the only way he can go out in sunlight, because he doesn't think he deserves it. Doyle even references this.

Doyle: You got a real addiction to the brooding part of life. Anyone ever tell you that?

Angel: Once or twice. 

But again, they keep his brooding in moderation. And at first I thought the only reason I could stand Angel's show was because of the supporting characters - first Doyle, who's to date one of the characters closest to my heart, and Cordelia, who never fails as the reality check. As Whedon puts it, they needed someone to tell them that they're stupid and it wasn't going to work, and that's Cordelia's job. Which she does quite well. Then Wesley, who starts out quite dorkish and funny and slowly evolves into this dark badass who's no stranger to the brooding part of life himself. Gunn, a street kid and a kind of freelance vampire hunter who ends up working with/for Angel. Fred, this adorkable little girl - with some badass skills that kept her alive in a hell dimension for five years. Lorne, a demon from said hell dimension, who left his dimension because they had no music. He's ridiculously flambuoyant, and despite the fact that all they do in his home dimension is battle and hunt, he's not exactly a fighter, but oh, if he hits that high note, you're out for the count (believe it or not, that weapon's pulled out of his arsenal more than once).

My point being, the supporting characters are kind of the best part of the show - they're interesting, layered, and they all have their moments of badass as well as moments of funny, so understandably, I thought that they were the reason I liked the show, and that it had nothing to do with Angel. But the fact is, they tweaked Angel's character when they decided to give him his own show. It's subtle, but it's there, and it makes the series a lot more bearable.

What always bugged me on Buffy was that Angel was supposedly alone for almost a hundred years already (I think thereabouts - he was with Darla for the century where he was evil and alone for a century, I think), but then as soon as he meets Buffy he just can't be without her. And since the show(s) were in all other aspects about strength, and standing strong even if that means standing strong by yourself, needless to say, I found the dependency a little irritating. Especially because there was a whole lot of crying and whining and all that stuff and little to no scenes in which it shows the two characters actually enjoying each other's company or giving a real reason to be in love in the first place. I always found it hard to believe. (This is the same problem I have with most "tragic" love stories, namely Romeo and Juliet, as well as Marius and Cosette from Les Mis, and countless others). But I digress.

So what I really liked was that, on Angel, it shows that he doesn't always need to be the handsome dark stranger, which is a lot of what he was on Buffy. See, my problem with his character on Buffy was that his character wasn't developed much beyond loving the title character and having a horrifically dark past.

Oh hold on.

I haven't explained Angel's whole thing, have I?

Angel's Whole Thing: Vampires don't have souls. Angel does. But he wasn't always that way. Before he was a vampire, he was kind of a good-for-nothing who would just get drunk and flirt and all that. Then Darla shows up and offers to show him the world, to which he immediately agrees, which prompts Darla (who is a vampire) to turn him vampy. To Darla's surprise, this good-for-nothing of a person turns out to be much more productive as a vampire. And of course by productive I mean he was the worst of the worst. He wouldn't just kill and drink people, he would kill their whole family first, mentally (or maybe physically) torture them a bit, THEN kill them. He actually gave himself the name "Angelus", because when his little sister saw him at their door, apparently returned from the grave, she thought he was an angel. Then he killed her. And the rest of the family. So he and Darla, who kinda became his vampire girlfriend, traveled the world, wreaking havoc - Angelus sired Drusilla (not before stalking her, killing everyone she loved, slaughtering every nun at the convent she was at and driving her totally, unspeakably insane) who then sired Spike, and they were a bit of a gang, and I think it's implied somewhere that they actually caused the Boxer Rebellion in China. Anyways, somewhere along the line Angelus kills a gypsy girl, so the gypsies curse him with a soul. So now he's haunted by all the people he'd ever killed as Angelus, which is a whole freaking lot, which drives him a little cuckoo for a century or so, until eventually he decides that he can't just wallow (though, again, he does a lot of that), he has to actively atone. Except, whoops - this was where phlebotinum kinda overtook logic for a while here, because the gypsy curse doesn't make any sense - if Angel has one moment of true happiness, his soul gets taken away from him, and he becomes Angelus again. So, y'know, not good. But that's a crash course in Angel's history.

Sidebar: Liam was the human name of Angel (who was originally Irish). William was the human name of Spike (who was obviously English, duh). Which, if you're nerdy like me, you would know that Liam is actually the Irish mutation of the name William. I figured out before that Spike and Angel were supposed to contrast each other and be each other's counterparts, but man, the writers were THINKING when they made this show, eh? I just thought that was a really clever thing to drop in there and it makes me very happy.

So anyways, what was I talking about? Oh right - why I actually enjoy the show Angel even though I hated the character on Buffy. The main reason being that they developed the character Angel beyond the tragic love story. Actually, they kinda make fun of themselves on Angel about the Buffy drama - there's a clip where Wesley and Cordelia start mocking it. It's pretty great. And accurate. Lemme see if I can find it... found it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzr7JSUIIQE

But what I find interesting about Angel is that they didn't tweak the character all that much. It's just that being away from Buffy made him that much more interesting. And when he got a love interest on his own show - namely Cordelia, whoops, spoiler, sorry not sorry - it wasn't anything like the Buffy drama. And I like to think this is because Cordelia had a sense of humour, and she was also a lot less traditionally nice (she will not let a thought cross her brain without saying it out loud). Whenever Angel started to get all broody and wallow-y, Cordelia would jump in, all like, "Don't give me that crap, what good are you going to do whining in a shadowy corner ya big baby?" whereas Buffy would sink into that stupor with him which would inevitably make me go UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH -

Anyways.

At the same time, what we've learned about Angel by now is that you cannot leave the guy alone for any length of time. He totally leans on everyone around him, even though he's supposedly the leader, which sounds wimpy, but I find it an interesting character trait, and it's not one he had on Buffy, because on Buffy he was never left alone for any length of time. But when he left Buffy, he was gettin' drunk and ranting to large bald black men about how they reminded him of his little blonde cheerleader girlfriend. When he isolated himself from his friends later in the series - he fired Cordelia and Wesley and Gunn because they rightfully believed him to be acting like a moron who lost the point of their mission in the first place - he went pretty dark, showing that there was a fine line between Angelus and Angel. He locked a group of lawyers in a room with a bunch of vampires who wanted to massacre them all. He not only let the massacre happen, he ensured it, because the lawyers in question were working for a firm owned by demons who insisted on constantly screwing with him. And then he slept with Darla in an attempt to lose his soul. Point being, you cannot leave the guy alone for any length of time without him turning into a reckless idiot.

Endearing trait? Well, no, not in the traditional sense. As a character, though, it makes him a lot more interesting, and therefore easier to watch. (You may have noticed by my endless character studies of Spike that the more interesting/conflicted/layered a character is, the more I like them. I don't just love Spike 'cause he's hilariously snarky, after all - though it does help).

They also allowed themselves to have a sense of humour with Angel on his own show, which also makes it much more fun to watch. There are times when Angel goes from being dead serious to childishly petty. Which is pretty hilarious. (Seriously, don't call him a eunuch. Sure, he can't have sex without the danger of losing his soul and going nightmarishly evil, but he's not a eunuch! The curse wasn't even that clear!) (Also, he started it. The whole having a soul. Before it the was the cool new thing.) [Pssst - italics means quotes]. Also, they comment on Angel's singing ability multiple times, since he often needs to know his "path", and Lorne can read it in his aura if he sings. Hilarity ensues. Apparently Angel has a soft spot for Barry Manilow.

Can I talk about David Boreanaz (the guy who plays Angel) for a moment? Because he is not by any means the most impressive actor in the Buffyverse, or even on his own show - that can go to Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alexis Denisof, James Marsters - but there is one thing he does extremely well. And that is that he can make the switch from Angel to Angelus, and you CAN NOT them. There is not a hint of the one in the other. And I find that very impressive. Think about it - somber, quiet, broody, and of course the word that apparently no one gets sick of using, a "champion" - to a sadistic, nasty, egotistical, evil, not to mention snarky, supervillain. That can't be an easy switch to pull off, but boy does he. He also makes Angelus very fun to watch.

You don't have to watch all, or any, of this video, but I think it accurately illustrates what I found so great about Angelus, and David Boreanaz's portrayal of the character.

Just sayin', David Boreanaz doesn't usually impress me to the point where I'm really admiring his acting (like the people I mentioned before - can I add Anthony Stewart Head to that list as well? And Amy Acker?), but when he switches to Angelus, you have to give him credit, because wow.

But, in all honesty, Angel doesn't make the show. It's Team Angel that makes the show. This consists of Angel (duh), Cordelia, Wesley, Gunn, Fred, and Lorne. Honestly, without the supporting characters, this show would be nothing. As mentioned before, they're everything that stops Angel from turning into a reckless idiot. They're also the heart, the brain, and every other thing you can think of for the show.

Also, their existence supports the whole theme of the show that it started with in the beginning with Doyle. The theme being that Angel needs to stop just saving lives and start saving souls, and he did that for every character, I think. He successfully turned Cordelia from being a shallow airhead into someone who could believably be good enough to be called up to become a power-that-be. Wesley, well, Wesley kinda went to a bad place after he got his throat slit and Angel tried to smother him to death - can you blame him for going to that bad place? - but hello, there's that other theme: atonement. And Angel gave Wesley the oppurtunity to atone - granted, it took him a bit of time, but he got there, and nevermind that, before all that stuff happened, Angel gave Wesley a purpose, a way to make the world better after he got fired from the Watcher's Council. He enlighted Gunn about the shades of grey involved in the good versus evil fight, which Gunn had previously been ignoring, and in doing so, made Gunn a better person for it. (The phrase "shades of grey" is never going to be usable again, is it? Goddamnit.) He saved Fred from a hell dimension and rehabilitated her to this dimension when she was too scared to venture outside and too shy (and incomprehensible) to talk to anyone else. So there's that.

And, okay, Lorne was never specifically saved by Angel, but can I just express my love for Lorne for a moment? He brightens up the show like no one else can. It's also hilarious, because he's a green demon with horns who dresses like Don Cherry, and when people first watch a later episode of the show and they're all taking care of Lorne because people sort of went digging around in his brain (literally)... my Dad literally went "What the hell is this?" and it made me laugh really hard. Also, Lorne makes me laugh. He's a lot like Cordelia, in that he's all about the good and can be pretty stubborn, he's a voice of reason, and has his moments of snark, but he's more flamboyant and a hundred times more... gentle. Yeah, that's a good way to put it. Anyways, I just love him. I cheered when I finally saw him in the opening theme, because he so deserved it and it meant he was here to stay (of course then I remembered that this was a Joss Whedon show and that it probably actually meant that he was going to die really quick - I've been wrong so far, though!).

But anyways. Team Angel is fun, and Angel makes a good leader for them, in spite of my previous judgments about him. I guess Angel's just better as a lead character than a supporting character.

Now hold on - why is that, I wonder?

I think it's because Angel needs support. Seriously, like I said, he's nothing when he's alone. He needs people around him to keep him grounded. Which means that he kind of fails as a supporting character, as the purpose of a supporting character is to help round out the lead, which as far as I'm concerned, he didn't really do that for Buffy. A broody, (yet impulsive) character like Angel rounds out no one, because he needs rounding out.

Analysis is fun.

And finally, it has nothing to do with the character itself, but listen to the theme song. Because it's actually very pretty music. I may just be getting more sensitive to music, but in a totally non-fangirly way, like, as I was skeptically watching the first episode, the theme song was a piece of music that touched me.

The actual full, three-minute song is even prettier, but the excerpt they use as the theme song is a good taste of it. It's called Sanctuary by Darling Violetta, if you wanna look it up.

Look, there are not many spin-offs of great TV shows that are remotely worth watching. But Angel is not only a good show, it is, in its own darker way, equally as good as Buffy. Where Buffy is full of themes that are told through metaphors and symbolism, Angel is much darker, and not just because Angel can only go out at night. Angel gets more into the nitty gritty of good and evil, the shades of grey involved (nope, still not usable), and there was even a very thought-provoking arc in the fourth season about the cost of world peace versus free will. Which was, for a geek like me, a real treat. And both shows have incredible character development. I just love them both equally for different reasons. If you watch Buffy, watch Angel as well. Preferably, as soon as you start the fourth season of Buffy, start the first season of Angel. The more in sync it is, the more fun, because cross-overs happen more than once.

So in conclusion, Angel is a quality show, and not a terrible character either. Yeah, I'm just as surprised as you are.

Spike's Character Study: Part 4

I know. I know. Get off my back. Oh yeah, and by the way, major spoileriest kind of spoilers. Also, fair warning: this is really freakin' long.

It's just that THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT IN SEASON SEVEN I CAN'T EVEN

Spike has made some major leaps since we left off. Where did we leave off? Season 6? Once More With Feeling? I think so. Which means last we saw Spike (on this blog) he was kissing Buffy at the end of the spectacular musical episode.

Well it's not quite that anymore.

Short summary of what's happened since: he and Buffy had a bit of a fling, in which Buffy hated herself so much that she'd sleep with Spike to feel something, which resulted in more self-loathing, and eventually Buffy had to stop it or else who knows what would have happened. But Spike isn't exactly one to passively accept something like that (he once threatened to kill Xander if Willow didn't magic Drusilla into getting back together with him... I kinda miss that version of Spike. It was so much more light-hearted). Anyways, he very nearly hurts Buffy in a way that would have been irreversible, unforgivable - anyways, he seriously crossed a line. Which woke him up to what a monster he was, so he traveled all the way to Africa to "get back to the way he was before". Which makes the audience go "Uh oh, he's getting the chip out of his head! Not the chip! It's the only thing stopping him from killing everyone!" Except nothing, no chip, was extracted. In fact, something was given to him. No undoing it. Guess what was given to him. Just give it a shot.

It was a soul.

He'd sought out a soul so he could be better for Buffy.

What he DIDN'T account for was something that would have been pretty obvious to anyone familiar with Angel's story, and that's that acquiring a soul after murdering countless hundreds of people since the Victorian era can be pure torture.

Basically, in the Buffyverse, a soul constitutes everything that would have made someone feel remorse or guilt about bad things they've done, or the little voice that would have stopped you from doing the thing in the first place. So suddenly getting one after centuries of carelessly doing awful, awful things can and does drive Spike (and before him, Angel) insane.

Sorry, not relevant to the character himself, but this actor. James Marsters is the man. He's just so convincing as an actor, plays Spike and all his moods brilliantly. He's just awesome. There could be no better Spike. Such a great actor. Also, did I mention that he isn't even actually British? I mean, he didn't achieve the accent without help (from Anthony Stewart Head, who is actually British), but still. Pretty goddamn convincing.

And the way he plays Spike for his moods. So good. So so sooooo good. You should see the look Spike has on his face when he's about to attack Buffy and suddenly remembers all the people he's killed. It's heartwrenching. Which is what makes it so brilliant. Amazing actor. Shame he's not in more stuff.

Anyways. This post is mostly going to be about Spike's soul, and the effects that has on him and his character. So...

Spike has a soul now. Which does a fantastic job of driving him insane. He spends the first, what, five episodes of the next season huddled in the school basement talking to people who aren't there. And then Buffy saves him (a constant message of Buffy is that high schools are just bad news - it is the residence of the Hellmouth. Basically, Joss Whedon is literally saying that high school is hell) from the basement and puts him in Xander's apartment, which doesn't make Xander happy but seems to put Spike in a better state of mind.

This is apparently what Spike's alter ego looks like - y'know, when he's not being Captain Peroxide.  This look didn't last very long ( less than half an episode). I guess it's hard to take care of your hair when you're being driven insane by the ghosts of the people you murdered through a couple centuries. Also when you can't see yourself in the mirror. 

And then the First comes a callin'.

I don't really recall what the First is. It did appear once like five seasons ago or something like that, and I think it's evil. No, like the original, first evil. The ESSENCE of evil. It's the Big Bad of this season, anyways, and it has apparently recruited Spike to, guess what, do some evil for it. It can control him and stuff. I'm mostly mentioning this because a lot of the time, the First appears to Spike as himself, and once again, James Marsters just pulls it off so well.

Look at the evil. And then at the pain. My feelings are feeling many feelings. 

Actually, know what? Let's talk about Spike and the First. Things happen.

Basically the First manages to ...basically hypnotize Spike into killing a lot of people, which he shouldn't be able to do because of his soul and the chip which, by the way, is still functional (except, for some reason, the chip doesn't register Buffy as a person, which was a huge plot point of the last season, but anyways). It's able to do this because, at the moment, Spike is pretty vulnerable to mental manipulation. Y'know, since he's been going insane in the school basement and stuff.

The whole thing with the First is it often appears to people in the form of loved ones (usually dead, but not always) in order to manipulate people into doing its bidding. So it first appears to Spike as Buffy, for obvious reasons. But then, when Spike starts to realize what's going on and tries to warn Buffy, the First appears to Spike as himself. I find this odd, since later it appears to him as either Buffy or Drusilla, since they were the two people he loved, but never again as himself. Also, interestingly enough, the First is most often taking the form of a female, but that's another rant altogether. (I think it has to do with the fact that the ratio of females to males on this show is pretty heavily leaning to one side).

I was thinking about this, and my first thought was that it appears to Spike as himself because that's how self-centered Spike is, where that's the only person he would ever let himself listen to. And maybe in past seasons that would have been true - season 4, and a bit of 5, for instance, but even in season 2 he had Drusilla.

But that's not even the point. It's not a matter of who else he has. The fact is that, at the moment, Spike hates himself. Yet another effect of recieving the soul. How could he not, after reliving over and over all the people he murdered in cold blood? (Haha, cold blood.... because he's dead...) So my question is why does the First appear to him as himself? What does it achieve by that form, when it could easily have picked Drusilla, who was someone Spike loved, and also someone who never failed to bring out a more twisted side of him?

And I've been thinking about it for a while now, and I think it's actually symbolic of Spike's struggle against the monster inside him. Because you see, this version of the First is the only form that Spike actively resists. When it was Buffy goading him to kill people, he did it. And later, when it appears to him as either Drusilla or Buffy, while he never submits to it, he doesn't really fight back that much either. But when it appears to him as himself, he actually manages to snap out of his hypnotic-like trance-thingy long enough to allow Buffy to escape (which provokes the First to convince Spike Buffy will now stake him.... she doesn't, of course, but still, it's heartbreaking, really). I was looking back at the episode - some things are just good enough to look back at it right away - and the way he tells the First "You're not here," with so much desperation in his voice, but quietly so Buffy can't hear him... he's trying to fight it, y'know?

And I do honestly think it's symbolism. What else could it be, really? Spike struggling with his new soul and being good, tempted into evil by someone who appears to him as himself, but is actually a monster. Even though the First is the Big Bad of the season, the writers obviously took the chance to make a point with it. The show is chock-full of things like this, and I love it. The thing is, Spike may have a soul now, but he's still a vampire. He still has that monster inside him. True, it's been subdued because of the chip, but that doesn't mean it isn't there, or that he doesn't have to fight it (this was addressed with much more detail in the Angel series...).

So yeah. Those are my thoughts on that.

Obviously there's more to Spike's character than the people the First manipulates him with, though. Especially considering that, oh yeah, HE GOT A SOUL FOR BUFFY UM WHAT YEAH

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT SHALL WE

Right. So he comes back to Sunnydale with a soul. Driven out of his mind with guilt. And all to be a better man for Buffy. He literally gave up everything that made it enjoyable to be a vampire (although, to be totally fair, this was virtually already accomplished by the chip) in order to maybe be forgiven by Buffy, maybe loved by her. I suppose someone could make the argument that from his perspective, getting a soul would have made it impossible for Buffy not to take him back, but Spike was not that deluded, especially not in affairs of love. I've talked about this before, Spike is incredibly intuitive when it comes to love. He knew that after what he did there was only the microscopic chance that he would ever be allowed in her sight ever again. What he realized was that Buffy was good. And he, a soulless monster, no matter how hard he tried, was not. So he made an attempt to remedy that. Which cost him his happiness, for a while his sanity, and briefly, his free will. But it did give Buffy a chance to believe in him (which, typically heartbreaking as most Spike scenarios are, was the only thing keeping him going as the First tortured him), which frankly, was more than he could have asked for, and he knows it.

Also, while we're (back) on the subject of Spike being love's bitch, this monologue happens:

Spike: I've been alive a bit longer than you, and dead a lot longer than that. I've seen things you couldn't imagine, and done things I'd prefer you didn't. I don't exactly have a reputation for being a thinker; I follow my blood, which does not always rush in the direction of my head. So I've made a lot of mistakes. A lot of wrong bloody calls. A hundred plus years, only one thing I've ever been sure of. You. Look at me. I'm not asking you for anything. When I tell you that I love you, it's not because I want you, or 'cause I can't have you -- it has nothing to do with me. I love what you are, what you do, how you try... I've seen your strength, and your kindness, I've seen the best and the worst of you and I understand with perfect clarity exactly what you are. You are a hell of a woman. You're the one, Buffy.

I swear, Spike just makes me melt sometimes. Or, y'know, all the time. And, I mean, I'm just generally skeptical about TV "love" (to quote the movie Shakespeare in Love, I generally believe "Playwrights teach us nothing about love. They make it pretty, they make it comical or they make it lust, but they cannot make it true"), but when Spike says things like that you kind of have to say it's real. Even though they're fictional. IT'S REAL TO ME. 

OH OH and we discovered a little more about William (pre-vamp Spike) this season. We already knew he was a complete dork who wrote bad poetry and pined over a girl who never gave him a second glance. Now we find out that he was also a complete mama's boy. It's kind of adorable, actually. His mother was really sick with some kind of disease so William would take care of her and recite his poetry to her and he'd sit with her while she knit and she'd sing to him. It's kind of really cute. Then Drusilla turns him, and y'know what he does? He turns his mother into a vampire. Not for evil or anything, but because he doesn't want her to die, and being a vampire, you live forever. That kinda came back to bite him when she went full demon and started getting all Mommie Dearest on him.... and then to protect himself he staked her. So wow. That's baggage. (Thinking back, the whole mama's boy thing probably explains Spike's oddly affectionate relationship with Buffy's mom... the continuity on this show is just A +, man.)

Another thing I find interesting is that Spike spent, like, a few weeks in the school basement mourning the people he killed, where in contrast, Angel spent like, a hundred years doing the same thing. And I was thinking about this, and at first (forgive me oh God Whedon) I thought that this was just bad continuity, and y'know, it's hard to keep a story moving when the fan's favourite character (not to mention the most interesting and well-written one) is stuck in a basement whining. But like I just said, the continuity of the Buffyverse is A+, and I don't think the writers would make such an obvious mistake - not the same writers who foretold the day that Buffy died a season and a half in advance, not the same writers who foretold the group splitting up before anyone even knew who the villain was, and DEFINITELY not the same writers who played out a character's entire arc where she is rescued from an abusive mother addicted to power and soon becomes just like her, in only eight episodes across seven seasons. Not those writers.

So, I started thinking about why Spike's recovery took so much shorter than Angel's, and I think that there are a few differences between the cases, but I evaluate the most important one to be that Spike chose his soul. Angelus was cursed. He didn't ask for it. Spike wanted it. He nearly died trying to get it. He knew what he was signing up for. And maybe it was a little more than what he expected, but he did kind of know what was coming. So I think that because he knew what it meant to have a soul and sought it out anyways, he recovered faster. He had his soul for a purpose, so he had to eventually try to go through with that purpose.

But the other thing is that Spike and Angel are different people. I mean, duh. But the thing is, Spike doesn't dwell on the past very much. I mean, it's not like he never does, but it's not in his nature. So, yeah, he'll regret the things he did, and that whole "atonement" thing is something that I think will play pretty heavily as he continues on Angel (he shows up on Angel after season 7 of Buffy.... I foresee at least one blog post about that relationship in the not-too-distant-future). But for him, acknowledging regret for it doesn't necessarily mean he spends all his time hating himself for it. He even tells Principal Wood (an ally of the Scoobies) that he's not particularly sorry for killing his mother because he was a soulless vampire at the time, and Wood's Slayer mother knew how to play the game (though to be perfectly fair, he was kind of in a bad mood when he told Wood that due to Wood having just beaten him to a bloody pulp before the big staking). See, even after he gets his soul, he refers to the Slayer/vampire thing as a game, or a dance - and, y'know, it kinda is.

But this kinda makes me wonder if Spike just understands better than Angel the difference between having a soul and not having a soul. Because Angelus and Angel are clearly totally different characters,  but Angel still blames himself for the atrocities that Angelus committed. Spike doesn't let himself off the hook or anything - far from it - but I feel like he kinda gets the difference? His whole purpose for getting the soul was to become a better man, and Spike's a live-in-the-moment kinda guy, so I think knowing that he can be and strives to be a better man now is sorta comfort as well as a kind of mission. If that makes sense.

The other thing is that Spike didn't get all sad and boring like Angel was when he got his soul, which was kind of my other worry. Like, there's the do-nothing-feel-sorry-for-yourself phase, which as I've mentioned, was much shorter for Spike, but then there's also the fact that Angel will not let himself enjoy anything even now, as a functioning, socially productive person. And then there's Spike, who apparently hasn't lost a whole lot of his snark or attitude when he got the soul. Which is great, entertainment wise, and also very interesting, because why didn't he? And the only explanation I can come up with is that Spike already had some humanity to begin with. Not enough to, y'know, stop killing people or anything, but even way back in season 2 it was established that he had a hint of humanity when they raised the Judge and it was all "You stink of humanity" and Spike basically went "Yeah, so?" HAVE I MENTIONED THAT THE CONTINUITY ON THIS SHOW IS ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT.

But I think the fact that he still had that humanity in him means that not all of his attitude was exclusive to the vampire, and so it was more easily retained when he got ensouled. Actually, that may also explain the quick recovery from the do-nothing-feel-sorry-for-yourself-phase..... So yeah. That's that.

Let's see, am I missing any major character things? I don't think so. In which case, let's get to the big finish:

Spike dies at the end of the series. 

I am still in mourning, and I watched the last episode about two weeks ago.

Angel shows up and gives Buffy this amulet thingy, saying that it had to be worn by someone more than human, and someone who was a champion, evidently expecting himself to be said champion. Long story short, Buffy kinda goes, "Great, thanks. See ya later," and gives the amulet to Spike instead. More than human - vampire, check. Champion - Buffy believes it. And it's really touching and all that stuff and I may or may not have teared up a little as Spike looks at Buffy giving him the amulet and says, "Been called a lot of things in my time..."

Have I mentioned my adoration for James Marsters? Because there were so many emotions in that one sentence that anything else about it after that would have been redundant.

Thing is, none of them are really all that sure what the amulet actually does. So they go into the final battle with Spike wearing it, but he doesn't really know what to expect. Then the battle happens, and Spike's fighting, but the amulet doesn't appear to be doing anything. Until suddenly: PAIN. Because apparently we can't go a single friggin' episode without Spike getting beat up, or going insane, or having massive, spontaneous pain - or, sometimes, all three. Anyways, pain. And then he starts glowing. Everyone starts sensing that this is almost the end of it, so they all rush outta there, except Buffy, who stays with him as the walls are literally crumbling around them. So first this happens:

which is a wonderful, touching image in and of itself, and then this happens:

Spike: Gotta move, lamb. I think it's fair to say school's out for the bloody summer. 

Buffy: Spike!

Spike: I mean it! I gotta do this.

Buffy: I love you.

Spike: No you don't. But thanks for saying it. Now go! I wanna see how it ends.

And then he disintegrates, whilst smirking and laughing, as the amulet closes the Hellmouth in on itself.

And I was really sad and teary and mourny and all that, but at the same time... Spike was that champion, y'know? The champion that Buffy believed him to be. He was a hero. So he earned that heroic ending. And as far as character arcs, and concluding them, go, Spike was the best one. By far. He earned everything that came his way. Who knew that a character like him could be so bloody valiant?

Oh wait, he's always been a pretty valiant character. I mean, I could bring up the time that he climbed up the tower to rescue Dawn because Buffy told him to protect her - of course, he ended up getting thrown off it, whoops, but still. Or I could bring up that time that, oh yeah, he got a soul for Buffy, have I mentioned that? 'Cause it's kind of a big deal.

Of course he's mostly only valiant like this because he's in love with Buffy, right? Hmm, well.....

Fact is, Spike is valiant when he wants to be. Like, he always has it in him. It comes out a lot more in later seasons because of his thing for Buffy. But even after Buffy died, he stayed alongside the Scoobies and fought vamps in Sunnydale with no ulterior motives whatsoever, so there's that. One could argue both sides of that one, I think.

Which, again, layers, contradiction, rich and believable characters, is any of this ringing a bell?

ORIGINAL POINT BEING that Spike was a valiant character who sacrificed himself in fighting the good fight, and for that, he deserved the heroic ending he got, heartbreaking as it was.

So, since this appears to be the end for now, I feel it is my duty to spam this post with pictures and quotes.

Pre-vamp Spike, nee William Pratt (which is pretty funny if you're in with Brit-speak). Ain't he just adorkable?

According to Whedon, he is "giving the peace sign to someone behind him". It's kinda great how they managed to get so much stuff past the radar because he's British. This is kind of an iconic moment, especially since it comes from such an iconic episode. 

He's teasing Angel here, because he was invited in and Angel wasn't. Oh Spike, you trouble-maker. It's especially funny because he never once actually considers hurting Joyce, even though there was that one time Joyce hit him in the head with an ax.

Spike being incredulous. "Is everyone here very stoned?" Cracks me up every single time.

This one's a rerun, but look at it. He has a very nice smile. 

This one's a rerun as well, but seriously, 70s Spike. It just never gets old. Also, apparently Billy Idol stole his look from him. 

 Think I'll leave this here as well because iconic-ness and hilarity (though this might be a rerun as well?):

Okay I'm done. Promise. Kinda. I'll just go back to mourning. 

Favourite Thing of the Week #8

Recovery, by Frank Turner.

It's usually not just one tiny thing like this, but it's actually beautiful.

It's a nice, upbeat kinda song with a major key and all that stuff, but when you start listening to the words... I legitimately teared up near the end. That probably has a lot to do with watching my friend recover from a very dark period of her life, so it's kind of important to me. This song may not quite be Hallelujah as written by Leonard Cohen, but I do find this song has its own kind of beauty - that is to stay, I honestly think it is beautiful, period. And I hope I'm not the only who sees that.

I HAVE FOUND THE SOLUTION

I've had this problem since forever, which is that I will be working super hard on a writing project, one of my novels, and then BAM another idea suddenly hits me and I'll have to plot that thing out before I lose it, but then the inspiration starts to possess me and all I want to do is start writing the story and learn more about these characters but I know that if I start writing this new story I'll either lose the novel I've been working so hard on for months or have the new one fade out. And I don't want that to happen, because I love all my stories equally, it just so happens that sometimes one needs food more than the others. But I can't start a new project when I'm in the middle of a different one, or else one starts to take priority, and then the other one goes cold and I won't be able to pick it up again.

But I think I've found the solution. And not only have I found the solution to this little problem, it also serves as a solution to a different writing problem. This has been happening to me for a while, where I have this great idea for a story, but the plot and the characters and the world just won't flesh itself out. I have some basic ideas for the characters, but nothing concrete. I cannot tell you how irritating this is, where the world just refuses to be created.

There is one solution to both of these problems, and that is trial stories.

I recently started writing a couple trial stories for this great story idea. While ultimately, I want it to be a novel, it turns out that writing the world in a short story format (or at least in a disconnected chapter format) for a while actually helps to make the world and characters and plot a lot more concrete. I've already changed things from my original plan, and it's starting to make a whole lot more sense. Also, the characters were unfortunately in a bit of Harry, Ron and Hermione format before (one valiant main character, the goofy friend and the girl constantly playing devil's advocate), but luckily with my trial stories I've managed to develop them beyond that, as well as a few other characters. So that's one use for the trial stories which have served me wonderfully.

The other use for the trial stories is that it feeds the hunger. Because, really, when you're just longing to start writing a story but can't for the sake of project management, that's really what it is. It's a hunger to explore another world. And writing the trial stories not only feeds the hunger, it feeds the hunger in a short way so that you don't get too distracted from the main project, but also get a bit of a break from it (often the inspiration will come when your imagination has kind of exhausted a particular world for the time being. It's never permanent, but you wouldn't hang out with the same person every day for three weeks straight).

And I really do enjoy the trial stories that have come out of this little experiment, and I'm actually rather proud of them. I was actually quite tempted to post one of them up here. But I realized that the stories don't make sense to other people. You see, since my mind is making up the rules of the universe as I go, nothing's really explained. I could post it up here, but you wouldn't know what was going on. The thing about us writers is that our minds fill in the blanks, especially when we're not writing for any particular audience. Which means in general, there are a lot of blanks in my trial stories where there aren't blanks for me.

The other thing about these trial stories is that they're quite exciting to write. I'm one of those writers that has to plot out their story extensively before they start. It doesn't always follow the plan, but the plan has to be there in case I ever get the dreaded disease, writer's block. This is generally a good thing.

The negative side to this is that I'm very rarely surprised with where my stories end up going. Because I planned them. There have been a few moments that surprised me, which is always wonderful (in my greek mythology story, when Ares punched Hermes in the face? I was having emotions about that little twist for about a week), but it doesn't happen very often. Which actually means that I've gotten worse at just rolling with the energy. There was a scene in one of my stories in which a wife agreed to stay with her husband in order to help him survive an assassin - it's a long story - but it was important to my plot that she DIDN'T end up staying. So she ended up leaving in a really forced and cowardly way, which wasn't ideal, but the plot I'd planned wasn't following the energy of the story itself.

To be fair, I'm usually pretty good about this - there've been a few major plot points that were not at all written in my plan, but that were impossible to not have happen with the way things were going. But to write a short story with next to no plan about where it's going - it's exciting. Especially when it actually ends up going places. That's the best part, when you're looking it over and you go, "Hey, I think that was actually some plot development" or "Hey, that was actually some character development" it's like "I DID IT GUYS I WROTE AN INTERESTING STORY WITH NO PLOT PLANNED OUT BE PROUD OF ME".

I wouldn't recommend a strategy like that for a work you intend people to read - please, plot your stories - but as far as experimental trial stories go, it's a good strategy. It allows you to try things that you may end up liking with a lot more freedom, and also the elbow room to just kind of have fun and explore a little.

But the thing about writing is everyone has different techniques that work for them. I currently really really like the trial story strategy, but that might not work for everyone. But it certainly works for me I'm very happy about this this is a happy thing.

I don't think anyone but writers can fully understand the amount of frustration that has just been lifted from me. This is like discovering you can still live at Hogwarts while taking occasional day trips to Narnia. It's fantastic.

...

Yes, writers are crazy and have crazy problems, what did you expect?

Favourite Thing of the Week: #7

Bastille.

The wonderful, beautiful, amazing band, Bastille.

Even though they pronounce it Basteel, when it's actually more like Bastee because French Immersion. I forgive them because A) they're English, and 2) their songs are beautiful and wonderful.

I bought their entire album Bad Blood, and good golly I was not disappointed. I mean, it's only their debut album, and already it's currently the only thing I listen to. They're just awesome. I'm in love. Also the lead singer's voice is very attractive. But also the music is made of beauty.

Current favourite songs by them include:

Pompeii (yep, a direct reference to the historical event with the volcano)

Icarus (yep, a direct reference to the greek myth about Daedalus and Icarus and the wings)

Daniel in the Den (yep, a direct reference to the biblical story about Daniel and the lion's den)

Laura Palmer (yep, a direct reference to the iconic mystery show Twin Peaks, as in, "Who killed Laura Palmer?")

Flaws (not a reference to anything but it's just wonderful)

With all these references everywhere, small wonder I adore this band so much. THEY JUST GET IT.

Knowledgeable =/= Pretentious

I am a little snobbish about things that I enjoy. I know that. I admit that. When I watch a movie I am thinking about cinematography and editing and writing. When I read a book I am thinking about descriptions and character development. I'm like that. I thought we knew that.

That doesn't mean I'm trying to belittle your knowledge or opinions when I express my observations. That is never my intention. I'm trying to start a conversation, maybe share a fact or two that I find interesting. I'm not trying to appear smarter, I'm expressing what to me is an interesting observation. Is there something wrong with that?

Yes, I am knowledgeable about things that I like. Duh.

Yes, I tend to have strong opinions about things that I like. Duh.

Yes, I enjoy sharing my knowledge and opinions with people. Duh.

I don't think that makes me self-righteous or better than thou or high and mighty. I'm not close-minded. I will hear an argument against my own personal opinion. But that's why I like sharing my opinions, so that someone can talk to me about them, so that I can hear what other people think about it.

Recently people in my life have been throwing the word "pretentious" around. And that offends me. Because noticing that long-running shot at the beginning of the movie Gravity doesn't make me pretentious. Talking about the layers of themes and symbols in the book To Kill a Mockingbird (which is actually a fantastic book and I think everyone should read it because it's so so good) doesn't make me pretentious. I mean, if I say anything besides "I like the part with the explosions", am I pretentious?

I don't understand why expressing my small observations about actual quality of things that I enjoy makes me pretentious. I would think that that just says that I appreciate it all the more. Is it just me that appreciates a movie more once I find the symbols and devices used? Is it really so pretentious of me to talk about things like tracking shots and underlying themes? I don't think so. I would have thought that made me thoughtful. I would have thought that made me observant.

I'm tired of people getting offended or weirded out because of the things I know or the things I like. Nothing I do is intended to belittle the opinions of other people, I just enjoy discussing opinions. That's how I learn from people.

I'm just tired of being embarassed of my own brain, because actually, I'm extremely proud of it. Somehow or other it's looked down on if you really seem to know what you're talking about and I'm getting pretty sick of it. I'm sick of pretending that I only look at stories on a surface level, when anyone who knows me knows that I could probably write a detailed essay about any given movie or book I've seen. I could also poke a million holes in any story just for kicks, if I feel like (and I often do - if I'm in the mood, I'm a terrible person to watch a movie with), but when I actually give a story THOUGHT about the techniques for telling it, I get a lot of blank looks and rolled eyes coming my way. I'm used to it, for the most part, but it gets really really REALLY tiresome that knowing things seems to make me uncool, or even unlikeable.

Why are people like this? I just don't understand it.

Video Killed the Literary Star

I heard about the making of an Artemis Fowl movie (ten years late), which made me happy.

Then I heard who was writing the movie, a certain Micheal Goldenberg, whose movies have never been rated above the scale of "mediocre". Which made me a little less happy.

And then, of course, the death sentence: they're putting both the first and second books into one movie. That piece of information had me rocking back and forth in a corner for an hour, trying to be optimistic about it and failing miserably. I'm thoroughly convinced that they're going to just utterly destroy Artemis Fowl, the same way they did Inkheart, the same way they did Percy Jackson, except worse.

So of course, because I'm me, I wrote a letter to Michael Goldenberg.

Now, I can't find a business address to send it to, and Disney Studios is apparently too secretive to allow letters from fans who take an interest (you'd think they'd like ideas from fans now rather than an ocean of complaints afterwards but whatever) so I can't find anywhere on earth to send it to. Which is extremely frustrating, since I took so long to write a letter that was productive instead of anxious and stupid, and respectful instead of drowning in doubt for the writer's abilities. That took time, I can tell you that right now.

But it was all for naught, so I thought I might as well put it on here.

Mr. Goldenberg,

I have recently learned of the work that is being done on the film adaptation of the Artemis Fowl books, and as a fan of the series, I must say that I am excited for the project. That being said, there are a few things I worry about concerning the adaptation, which I’m sure you will understand.

            Firstly, the plan to combine the first two installments of the series into a single movie. Let me say, I understand the reasoning behind this tactic. The end of the second book certainly gives our amoral anti-hero Artemis a much more clear-cut redemption, for a start, which is nice. It also provides much more closure for the issue of Artemis’s father’s disappearance. However, though I understand the logic behind the idea, I don’t entirely believe that it could be executed well. For instance, the transition between fighting the fairies and allying with them midway through the film would be strange at best, not to mention that in order to fit both stories into a single movie, one would probably have to cut a lot out of the plot of both stories, which wouldn’t be ideal as most of it becomes important later. I strongly believe the first book alone can carry its own movie.

However, if you believe viewers would be unsatisfied with the ending of the first book – admittedly, Artemis doesn’t prove to be a very dynamic character in the first installment alone – allow me to suggest a solution. You could end the film with the beginning of the next book, with Artemis receiving the ransom note from the Russian mafia. This would provide a cliffhanger, something for audiences to look forward to in coming movies. Admittedly, this doesn’t solve the issue of Artemis’s moral ambiguity, but it would show a more sympathetic side of him and hint at the growth to come. And while it doesn’t exactly provide closure for the issue of Artemis’s father, it would definitely address it, which I believe would have nearly the same effect. It also has the added advantage of providing enough time to fully tell the story of the first novel without it seeming rushed, which is always a good thing. If you are unsatisfied with the place this leaves Holly Short, I would suggest focusing on her intense anger towards Artemis at the end. This would at least suggest that said story does continue, and hint at confrontation later, something else for audiences to look forward to.

            I would also like to advise you in a few things which should be considered in creating the film. Firstly, please do not forget to include Juliet Butler in the first story; while it is true she could be cut out of the story with relative ease, it does introduce her early, which would prevent her from seeming like a deus ex machina should you ever adapt The Eternity Code, the third installment. She also helps show that Butler is, in fact, a man of honour, which is important to his character. Secondly, don’t forget about the humour. True, it’s stylish to be dark and edgy these days, which could be easily done with this dangerous breed of fairy, but a large part of the reason I fell in love with this series was the smart humour underlying everything. It is important. Please do not forget that. Thirdly, be very careful with how you handle the character of Artemis Fowl. He is a protagonist, but then, so are the fairies. He is not evil, but he wishes to be thought of as such, in the first story at least. Most importantly, please stay away from using the story of Artemis’s parents as a tearjerker story. It is sad, and should be shown as such, but Artemis does not seek sympathy. That is how the author succeeded in making his story sad without seeming like a rather cheap excuse to do immoral things.

            I hope you understand that I am not insisting the film be exactly as the book was; I am aware that they are two different media and will therefore need to be treated differently. I am insisting, however, that you make a real attempt to do the books justice, rather than glossing over two complex stories. An audience the books have not reached will see the movie, and as someone who has loved the Artemis Fowl series for many years, I do not want that audience to come away disappointed. Therefore, please consider my suggestions for the film adaptation, as I truly believe that they would help retain the story’s original integrity, and in doing so, retain what made it great to begin with. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Megan Hands

Pretty good, right? I thought so. I also thought it better I not mention that I'm only sixteen. As a fan, I'm already not taken very seriously IN SPITE of the fact that I've been studying what makes a story good for years now and have managed to pin down all the primary reasons that Artemis Fowl worked. There's a friggin' science to this stuff, believe it or not, and trying to make one good story out of two great stories is kind of like trying to make a cake out of two pies: it may sound like a good idea at the time, but it just doesn't work like that. 

Since this is my blog, I'm going to give you a much longer list of reasons why this movie is probably going to fail. 

First of all, and this bugs me to no end: They're undoubtedly going to white-wash everybody. I know this because they already did it with the graphic novels, and the film industry is notorious for this. In spite of the fact that they repeatedly describe Holly as having "coffee-coloured skin", and repeatedly describe the Butlers as being strikingly Eurasian, we all know that in the movie they're all going to be white. Which will irritate me, and probably a lot of other people as well. 

Secondly, I know I've addressed this, but what the actual frig are they thinking? Putting both books into one movie? What the hell? Not only are both stories plenty big enough to have their own movie, that would involve having Artemis KIDNAPPING A FAIRY and the fairies TRYING TO KILL HIM in one half of the movie, and then Artemis and the fairies (including the one he kidnapped), WORKING TOGETHER for the second half. No matter how good the editing, the acting, that'll be awkward at best and distractingly unbelievable at worst. I just can't picture it. 

Thirdly, the character of Artemis Fowl is so easy to screw up. I know because the smart ones usually are. Everyone generalizes the smart characters so that they're just smart, when in fact there's a lot more to the process than that. It happened to Abed when Harmon left Community, and there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Artemis Fowl will suffer. If they put some sappy music to the scenes with his mother in an attempt to make us go "Aww, he's good at heart", I'm legit going to be angry. It's a sad situation, yes, but he doesn't try to make anyone sympathize with him, which is what makes it believable instead of cheap and if the movie doesn't reflect that I'm going to be mad. He's not all bad - he's really guilty about the mind games he bamboozles his captive with - but he is far from nice, and if they try to portray him as some kind of good kid got in over his head type thing, I'll be mad. Because he's not in over his head. Some heroes hear the call to adventure and fear it. Artemis friggin' staked out  the call to adventure for a couple months and kidnapped it, then blew up a boat on the way home as a warning. 

Oh, another thing they'll for sure screw up: Commander Root. In fact, most of the LEP. Artemis Fowl has a pretty big "Good Isn't Nice" thing going on, which is actually pretty awesome. While most of the LEP has this thing going on most of the time, I think of Commander Root specifically because Commander Root is probably the least nice (and most abusive) one of the good guys. Sure, he spends at least half the series shouting at people to not be idiots or to shut up or to press the button or he'll climb up there and push it with your face, but he's still one of the goodest good guys. He's in it to help people. He'd risk his life for Haven city, or even another officer. He once walked with live grenades over a hole that basically went to the center of the earth to open a route to Los Angeles to help save Haven. Also, in the same incident, came out of it with broken ribs, coughing blood and everything. Point is, he's one of the goodest good guys in the series (especially considering Artemis Fowl and Mulch Diggums count as good guys as well). And just because he's a strong believer in tough love, possibly to a fault, doesn't mean that the audience should be turned against him. I'll admit that when I first read Book 1 I did not understand whether I was supposed to be for Root or against him. But no matter the initial first impression, he nearly got blown up for Holly Short, and if the movie manages to portray Root as your stock character horrible boss, I will not be happy. 

Okay, on the subject of the pure size of the stories they're trying to fit into a single movie, here's the main plot points that would take up the bare skeleton of the movie:

Book 1:

- Exposition: we meet Artemis, Butler, Juliet, his mother, find a fairy and deal with them, and translate the fairy Book. 

- We meet Holly Short and Commander Root and Foaly as Holly goes on an aboveground mission tracking a rogue troll. A mission which goes spectacularly sour. I'm talking buildings are destroyed, the whole thing.

- Holly goes to fill up on magic, Artemis kidnaps her. 

- Root follows Holly's tracker, which leads to a boat, which Artemis then blows up and Root has a very very close call. This is how they find Artemis, so can't be taken out. 

- The LEP find Artemis and go to Fowl Manor. They try to attack the manor, and Butler makes short work of them. I can't remember if the time-stop is already in effect at this point, but somewhere along the lines the fairies put a time-stop on Fowl Manor. 

- Root tries to negotiate with Artemis, which results in Root being very angry and Artemis being very smug. He asks for whatever his amount of gold is, which he figures is a small price to pay for not compromising fairy culture. 

- Somewhere along the line Holly escapes from her cell. She still can't leave the house due to magic rules about human dwellings, but she can wreak some havoc. 

- Root sends in Mulch Diggums, who retrieves the Book and then fakes his own death. 

- Root loses control of the situation as Cudgeon is instated as Acting Commander. He sends in a troll to provoke a call for help, which the fairies could then interpret as an invitation, which they need to enter the dwelling. 

- The troll destroys half the manor, and essentially kills Butler, except that Holly healed him at the last minute, and then Butler sends the troll sprawling. No call for help. 

- Cudgeon is fired. Root sends in the gold for Holly to come back, then planning to throw in a bio-bomb which would kill everyone there but leave the manor intact, which would leave the fairies free to stroll in there and recollect their gold. 

- Holly is sent out. 

- Artemis feeds everyone left in the manor (including himself) a sedative. 

- The bio-bomb gets detonated. 

- The fairies still can't enter because Artemis and Co. are still alive. The sedative let them escape the time-field, and therefore the bio-bomb, which means that the fairies lost. 

- Holly has healed Artemis's mother of her crippling depression for half the ransom, so that has to show up. 

And that's only Book 1! The bare essentials, I swear! Can't cut out Cudgeon because he's the reason for the B'wa Kell Rebellion in Book 2; can't cut out Mulch because he shows up in every single story and is the only reason a lot of things are even possible. Can't cut out Holly's escape because Butler wouldn't be healed otherwise; I'm telling you, bare skeleton. If you don't think that could take up a whole movie by itself, you're crazy. 

The second story involves:

- Artemis gets a ransom note from the Russian Mafia for his father. 

- Holly discovers goblins illegally importing human technology to power illegal fairy weaponry, something far too smart for a goblin to come up with (the author WILL NOT let you forget that the goblin species are idiots by nature). She suspects Artemis. Nothing at all to do with a personal vendetta or anything.

- Holly takes Butler and Artemis in for questioning. 

- Root interrogates them. Foaly interrogates them. Nothing. They know nothing. 

- Artemis and Root strike an uneasy deal; they'll help find the human responsible for the illegal stuff if they help him rescue his father from the mafia. 

- Butler finds the human and is nearly killed, but survives. The team heads off to the Arctic. 

- As they're in the Arctic, they get attacked by a couple of goblins sent by Cudgeon and Opal Koboi, his partner in crime. They are, of course, instructing all the goblins and, unbeknownst to our heroes, orchestrating an entire rebellion underground. 

- There's this whole thing where Root and Butler are trapped in a cave and Holly and Artemis have to get them out by jumping onto a train practically dripping with radioactivity. It's hard to explain, but it's this whole thing. 

- Holly's finger gets cut off, which Artemis then helps her to heal. 

- While all this is happening, Opal and Cudgeon have trapped Foaly, started the rebellion, blamed Foaly for it, and the LEP are losing the battle. 

- Root and Holly realize what's going on (Foaly manages to send them a text from Artemis's lo-tech human technology) and head back underground. But the only way in would be to break into Koboi Labs, which is virtually impossible. Except Holly knows a certain con who can do it. One who faked his death. 

- The whole incident with Root that I talked about earlier. I suppose that could be cut out easily enough. 

- They find and trap Mulch Diggums so he can help them with breaking into Koboi Labs. 

- After some seat-of-the-pants stuff, they break into Koboi Labs, leaving Artemis by the shuttle while the professionals do their job. 

- Except now Holly and Butler and Root are fighting off hundreds of stupid goblins and Mulch is calling for help, and Artemis goes up to help him. 

- Artemis infiltrates the main headquarters of Koboi Labs (by climbing through tubes full of plasma - it's this whole thing), which then allows Foaly to expose Cudgeon as the traitor he is. Cudgeon then puts a gun to Artemis's head, and then Foaly exposes Cudgeon to OPAL about what a traitor of an evil partner he is (he was planning to kill her), and then Opal proceeds to attack Cudgeon, which effectively kills him and knocks Opal out. So Haven is saved and stuff. 

- Root and Holly head back up to the Arctic with Butler and Artemis to save his father, which they do (by shooting him... but not really.... it's hard to explain). 

- Denouement: Artemis and the fairies have grudging respect for each other, Holly has her classic "spark of decency" line, Artemis participates in the first cool moment of his life (where he catches a coin which Holly tossed up in the air and shot straight in the center). Not essential, I suppose, but it's one of those things that are so loved by the fandom that if you don't include it you'll get in a buttload of trouble for it. 

AND THEY THINK THEY CAN PUT BOTH THESE STORIES INTO ONE MOVIE. 

They're going to have to either cut out half the things and change most of it (which, as I may have mentioned, would not be advisable since most of it becomes referred back to later in the series) or make it friggin' five hours long. Also not advisable.

I just want a good movie adaptation that also happens to be accessible. Is that so much to ask?

There's so much more that could go wrong with this movie, though.

I do not know how on earth they plan to introduce Mulch Diggums and his special dwarf talents. There's just no tasteful way to do it for film, so far as I can see. He tunnels by unhinging his jaw, eating the dirt and rapidly ejecting it out the other end. And, like, his hair can be used as lock-picks. And his saliva hardens on contact with air. And can also be used as a sedative. And also is luminous. And his skin can be used as suction cups. Dwarves have so many gifts bestowed on them by evolution that they could take over the world if they would just stop getting arrested.

But the thing about that, is that these "gifts" play a huge role in the series. There's no way to get into Fowl Manor without Mulch, nor Koboi Labs, nor an uncountable number of other escapes/breaking and entering. But the thing is that it's easy to explain how it works in a book. Less easy in a movie.

OH. OH. OH.

IF THEY STAGE THE MOVIE AS AN LEP POLICE FILE

THEN THEY COULD EXPLAIN EVERYTHING STRAIGHTFORWARD.

ALSO EVERY CHARACTER WOULD GET A SIMPLE EXPOSITION AND PROFILE.

WHICH MEANS THAT WE'D SPEND LESS TIME ATTEMPTING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX CHARACTERS BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WOULD BE RIGHT THERE

AND MORE TIME FOCUSING ON UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX PLOT WHILE THE CHARACTERS JUST UNFOLD.

Shoot. Shoot. Shoot.

Yet another good idea that I will be unable to send to anyone.

WHY WAS I NOT HIRED TO WRITE THIS FRIGGIN' MOVIE?

WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE WAITED ANOTHER TEN YEARS SO I WOULD GET A SHOT AT IT?

But this is actually such a good idea. Because every character has a whole bunch of background that has to be set up to fully understand everything. Like the fact that Butler is Artemis's bodyguard for life because of the tradition amongst the Butlers and the Fowls. And that he's the third most dangerous man in the world. (If I remember correctly, the second most dangerous man in the world is his uncle, and the  most dangerous man lives on a desert island and spends all his time meditating and beating up coconuts or something like that). Also the fact that Artemis Fowl is the head of a criminal empire, which makes his family filthy rich, but his father is missing presumed dead and his mother is suffering from depression. And he's a genius who believes in fairies. And Holly's the first female Recon officer on the force ever, which makes her subject to a lot of sexism. And Root is one of her only supporters. And Cudgeon and Root are lifelong friends. And Opal Koboi and Foaly are old college rivals. There's just so much background which is easy enough to deliver in a book but less easy to deliver in a movie. And this is all without including the beloved minor characters, like gung-ho Captain Trouble Kelp (infamous for choosing Trouble as his name when he graduated from the police academy - and also for the line "If you're looking for Trouble, you've come to the right place") and his brother Corporal Grub Kelp, who's a nervous, whiny little brat. ("But Mommy said!"). Hard to introduce since they're not terribly important, but they recur pretty frequently and become pretty useful to have already established.

But this LEP file idea. Then we could introduce everyone quickly and easily.

I'm brilliant.

If only I would just be HIRED TO WRITE THIS MOVIE

BECAUSE I GUARANTEE I UNDERSTAND IT A HUNDRED TIMES MORE THAN ANYONE ACTUALLY WORKING ON IT.

THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING.

This is the thing.

The thing is that most fans think they want a movie which is exactly like the book.

But that's not true. Because they're two different platforms which accomplish different things and have different strengths. That's why it's a movie ADAPTATION. And I realize that, and I'm not saying that the movie should be exactly like the book, because as a student of storytelling, I know that it shouldn't.

But I also know they're going to just botch this movie. They're going to just destroy it. Which makes me really really mad. Because it's such a good story, and they're going to tell it all wrong.

But I am qualified to know how to tell this story because I've read and re-read the series countless times since I first discovered it. My box set has served me well. I've thought about it at great length. Hell, I actually did start writing a screenplay for it last year, though I didn't get it anywhere near where I wanted it. But obviously, if I think about something for long enough then I eventually come up with the correct strategy.

But Michael Goldenberg isn't being paid to come up with "the correct strategy", is he? He's just being paid to pump out a script that the cast (preferably including Asa Butterfield - the kid is Artemis) can read. No disrespect meant towards Mr. Goldenberg, of course, but let's face it, he probably read the first two books only, if any at all, and doesn't at all know where the series is actually headed. Which is a problem, because the series goes on for another six books, and you need to frame the first story appropriately, knowing where characters like Root and Artemis and Butler and Holly are headed. Otherwise it just won't make sense.

I'm just really frustrated.

If you're just tuning in now, to summarize, I really hope the Artemis Fowl movie comes out nearly as good as the book was to read, but I'm not overly confident that it will. I've lived through a lot of crap movie adaptations of really brilliant books, and I fear that Artemis Fowl will just be another to add to the list. Which makes me very sad and very angry, but thanks to secretive Disney, I can't even pretend I'm doing something about it. Sigh.