A Tale Of Two Souls

[white avenger]

We have two vampires in the Buffyverse who are cursed and blessed, respectively, with something that no other vampire has. No, not a lifetime's supply of hair gel and the feeling that, "If a little is good, a whole lot more has to be better." I'm talking about souls, those mysterious, wonderful burdens that beasts and demons from humans. And we're not just discussing the fact that they both have souls, I want to address hoe they react to, and how they live with, or, more accurately, how they UN-live with, their respective souls.

I've heard it said time and again by certain people that their problem with Spike having a soul is that he doesn't seem to suffer the same kind of guilt and remorse that Angel does, that he, after only a short few weeks of near insanity, he snaps out of it and carries on as if it wasn't that big a deal. That he should spend more time sitting in dark corners, brooding, and telling anyone who cares to listen just how evil he was and how hard he has to work to somehow atone for his past crimes against mankind.

So, here is the question that I've been leading up to:

In your opinion, does Spike actually take having a soul too lightly, and, if so, what would he have to change to be more deserving of his soul and the title, "Champion?"

And "Stake himself," "Take a long walk outdoors on a sunny day," and answers of that sort don't count.

 

[OFAWB]

I love your threads, white avenger! 🙂

Spike takes his ensoulment so seriously that he is willing to die at the end of the series. Now, reasonable people disagree as to the ethics of the reasons behind his seeking a soul. But the fact is that he did fight to get it back, and anyone who went through all that would have to take it seriously.

I see the "Spike" persona as having been inside William all along. Even though he was a gentle, effete person before he became a vampire, he had the potential to be mean and tough and cool. So I think he underwent a personality change of his own accord, separate from his becoming a vampire. That's why, once he had recovered from the intense effects of his re-ensoulment, he didn't turn back into William Pratt, personality-wise.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

Spike wanted the soul, Angel had one forced upon him, so Spike was more deserving of the soul than Angel ever was. If folk wanted to call Spike a champion, I don't think he was to bothered, apart from it getting Angel all p'd off.
And lets face it, Spike had a good reason to dislike Angel as much as he did, Angel was a Barry Manilow fan.

To all (both?) the Angel fans out there, given that Angel liked the hair gel, and that Angel had sticky up hair, should Angel be called Spike? And if so what should Spike be known as? And no answers that would make Giles smile.

 

[Kairos]

He could start by not believing that he deserves his soul.

Actually, he could probably end that way, too.

 

[Lyri]

Spike has admitted that he doesn't feel guilty for anything he did without a soul, especially Nikki Woods, but I think that says more about the differences between the ways Spike and Angel received their souls than Spike and Angel as people.

Angel was cursed, part of the reason he was cursed was for it to be a punishment, so that he would remember the horrible, sadistic acts he did as a vampire and feel guilty for them. The second he stopped dwelling on that guilt, his curse vanished and...yeah, the whole thing isn't the most thought out plan, but that was how it worked.

Spike's wasn't. Spike - for whatever reason - voluntarily sought out a way to have his soul returned to him. It was different to how Angel's soul was returned, it wasn't a punishment. Spike not feeling guilty is just how he is, as a person. Maybe, if Angel's soul was returned in the same manner as Spike's he wouldn't feel guilty, either. We just don't know.

The whole point of Angel's soul was so that he could be swamped with guilt for what he did.

 

[white avenger]

Either the vampire with the soul is guilty for what his soulless self did, or he isn't. It can't be one way for Angel and another for Spike. I think that Spike can recognize that fact, accept it, and get on with his unlife. Angel can't see that for exactly the same reason that the Scoobies couldn't see that Ben was Glory, and that, not the soul itself, is Angel's real curse. Both vampires, upon receiving their souls, were overwhelmed by the same sense of overwhelming guilt, but Spike was able move past that guilt. The Gypsies saw to it that Angel, no matter how much good he accomplishes, no matter how much he helps the helpless, no matter how many puppies he rescues from speeding automobiles, would never be able to separate himself from the monster that he had been.

 

[Kana]

I think both vampires feel guilty for their past but merely show it in different ways.

Angel literally creates a different personality to deal with his past (although I don't think it's on purpose.)

I do think Spike felt guilty and that was evident in early Season 7. The FE merely exploited those feelings and made him feel worse (not unlike Angel).

This said, I think Spike consciously acted more introspectively, because he assumed it was what Buffy wanted from him. When Buffy told him she wants to the Spike who tried to kill her, it's understandable that he's hurt, but that's what he does.

I think he's attitude in LMPTM, was merely Spike attempting to rationalize the past. "My mother loved me" "Killing Slayers was just a game". However he gave Wood a 'pass' on account of what he did to his mother, so he must at least admitted to himself that while it was a 'game' for him, it wasn't for Nikki or Robin.

I don't see any issue with Spike not brooding for all eternity. I think it's simply enough if he's fighting the good fight.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Either the vampire with the soul is guilty for what his soulless self did, or he isn't. It can't be one way for Angel and another for Spike.

I was going to stay away, but nope thats just not true.

Spike is said to be different vampire, you yourself had said that you don't think Angelus with a chip would turn out like Spike did with a chip - I and many others in that thread agreed. But surely by your logic, what applies to Spike they should apply to Angelus.

The "It can't be one way for Angel and another for Spike" is total crap, it doesn't apply to anything else, so why should it apply to this?

 

[Kana]

It depends on what one means though. There is a difference between being psychologically different and metaphysically different.

If White Avenger is simply saying that either both vampires are responsible for their soulless crimes or they are both not held responsible, it doesn't necessarily follow that it should be concluded that Angelus will react in the same way in any given situations. All vampires are different. Some of those differences are subtle and other less so, but I certainly understand WA's need for fairness.

Even if we accept that there is not enough information pertaining to vampire metaphysics (including defining the soul) then I'd reserve my judgement for both vampires in the interest of fairness but if we're going to say for example Spike is different, then we'd need to specify how he's different whether this difference is significant enough for us to hold him more responsible for his actions than Angel.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

It depends on what one means though. There is a difference between being psychologically different and metaphysically different.

If White Avenger is simply saying that either both vampires are responsible for their soulless crimes or they are both not held responsible, it doesn't necessarily follow that it should be concluded that Angelus will react in the same way in any given situations. All vampires are different. Some of those differences are subtle and other less so, but I certainly understand WA's need for fairness.

But if one is saying that applying a soul should effect them the exact same way, they would need to be exactly the same for that to be true.
So if applying a soul to Spike, means that because Angel is a completely different person, Spike is too. Applying a chip to Angelus should have the same effect as it did to Spike - and I dont think thats true.

Even if we accept that there is not enough information pertaining to vampire metaphysics (including defining the soul) then I'd reserve my judgement for both vampires in the interest of fairness but if we're going to say for example Spike is different, then we'd need to specify how he's different whether this difference is significant enough for us to hold him more responsible for his actions than Angel.

but we do know. The writers have commented on it, numberous writers have said Spike is a different Vampire, some say he's the only one capable of getting a soul or actually loving (more so then the others that showed love, like Drusilla - like how Spike got a soul for Buffy)
David Fury has said that Spike as a vampire retained some part of his humanity - and that for me says it all.
If Vampire spike has more humanity he is less evil then most, this puts him closer to his souled self, so that applies in reverse, in getting a soul, he is closer to his unsouled self also.

 

[white avenger]

The "It can't be one way for Angel and another for Spike" is total crap, it doesn't apply to anything else, so why should it apply to this?

Assuming that the possession of a soul is the division between man and monster, that Angelus and Angel are basically two different characters, has been pretty much established as canon. Logically, the same thing should apply to Spike, regardless of the difference in psychological makeup of the two individuals might be. Yes, I did say that I didn't believe that Angelus could function the same way that Spike did, and in that sense, the two vampires are different. That's not the point here.

If having a soul means that a vampire is not the same being as he was without it, then common logic would hold that Angel is not Angelus, and Spike is not "Spike-us." That's not my rule, that's Joss' rule, and just because Spike is able to more or less adapt and function in a human society without a soul doesn't change that in the least. Receiving a soul is, to a vampire, the equivalent of the Christian concept of the "Age Of Accountability." He is only held responsible for his actions after that point. The soul comes with an automatic clean slate for all past activities. He can remember the things that he did in his bad old days and can regret that they happened, but at some point, there has to come the moment of realization that it wasn't actually him that did all those terrible things, and he doesn't have to carry that burden around with him anymore.

As I said before, I believe (no, it isn't canon, but it makes sense to me) that part of the Gypsies' curse is that Angel can't put that grief and shame behind him. Spike had no such curse attached to the spell that restored his soul, so he was able to see the difference that and carry on from that point. That doesn't make Spike less caring than Angel, it simply allows him to accept the fact that he is no longer that monster.

 

[The Bronze]

I don't really follow your logic here I'm afraid @Black Eye Guy. The soul isn't very well defined in the Buffyverse but what we do know is that in the verse it is real and it does make a difference. If it didn't make a difference the Gypsy's wouldn't have bothered cursing Angel and those trials Spike went through would be completely pointless. We see on screen that the soul affects your decision making process and your emotional reactions. Therefore for me if you think and feel differently and this affects your actions you are a different person.

I'm not sure which writers have commented on Spike being a completely unique vampire but it's not what is shown on screen. If that's what they were trying to put across then I think they failed and for me it's not canon. At no stage have I seen or heard anyone mention Spike getting "a part of his soul back". He had no soul and acted one way and then received a soul and acted another, just like Angel.

Spike may well have retained some of his humanity (again like the soul this is not well defined) but so did Drusilla. That's what the judge said and he should no because he can burn it out. So just in that room Angel is more unique than the other 2 vampires. Also Spike is not the only vampire capable of a form of love. We see the suicidal vampire on Angel. He's heartbroken because his vampire girlfriend was killed. I have no doubt he would have gone through the trials to get a soul for her if he thought she wanted him to or it would help.

Spike is unique only because he's the only vampire we see with a chip in his head. I imagine if you chipped every vampire in the show then some would react in a very similar way to Spike and others completely differently because all the vampires are different. Give any of them a soul though and they become a different person who is not accountable for their soulless actions.

 

[Kana]

But if one is saying that applying a soul should effect them the exact same way, they would need to be exactly the same for that to be true.

I never said it should affect them in the same way, this is my point. Do Angelus and Spike have exactly the same psychological disposition? Evidently not.

So if applying a soul to Spike, means that because Angel is a completely different person, Spike is too.

This is what I mean about having no metaphysical differences between them. Say for example the soul equates to the spirit in Angel's case then the same would apply to Spike. If the soul is something else other than that then again it would apply in both cases.

Applying a chip to Angelus should have the same effect as it did to Spike - and I dont think thats true.

Again, why would it? That would only appy if Spike and Angelus had exactly the same personality, but clearly they don't. In the same way, humans don't necessarily respond to stimuli in the same way, I conclude that vampires are no different. Yes, like with humans there a commonalities in behaviour, but of course not all behaviour amongst humans is the same. The thing is evident in vampires, which I why I wouldn't necessarily conclude that Angelus would react in the same way to the chip as Spike. Why? Because he hasn't got the same psychological disposition.

but we do know. The writers have commented on it, numberous writers have said Spike is a different Vampire,

How different is he though? Because he's able to love? Well, no because we have James and Elizabeth. Because he's able to socialize humans? No, because we have Harmony. Because he has humanity in him? No because he have Dalton. To me Spike is special in the same way, Martin Luther King Jr may be special or Elvis may be special amongst humans. Just because he was able to do something no other vampire has done, doesn't mean there is something mystically different about him. I consider it the same as saying a human is extraordinarily compassionate or callous. There doesn't need to be a 'snowflake' for Spike's behaviour deviating from most other vampires, especially considering his circumstances were different.

some say he's the only one capable of getting a soul or actually loving (more so then the others that showed love, like Drusilla - like how Spike got a soul for Buffy)

See above about circumstances.

David Fury has said that Spike as a vampire retained some part of his humanity - and that for me says it all.

I've always loathed that line, because to me it makes little sense or at the very least it's a incomplete of superficial statement. Arguably all vampires retain part of their humanity, which is why vampire can feel insecure (Harmony), love (James), have an appreciation for art (Angelus) and the list goes on. Spike's unique set of traits simply led him to path that it led him.

If Vampire spike has more humanity he is less evil then most, this puts him closer to his souled self, so that applies in reverse, in getting a soul, he is closer to his unsouled self also.

Despite Spike's ability to love and his getting a soul, he was still an unusually violent vampire, who's apparently done worse than torturing girls and driving them insane (if we are to believe him in Damage).

 

[slayer6]

We have two vampires in the Buffyverse who are cursed and blessed, respectively, with something that no other vampire has. No, not a lifetime's supply of hair gel and the feeling that, "If a little is good, a whole lot more has to be better." I'm talking about souls, those mysterious, wonderful burdens that beasts and demons from humans. And we're not just discussing the fact that they both have souls, I want to address hoe they react to, and how they live with, or, more accurately, how they UN-live with, their respective souls.

I've heard it said time and again by certain people that their problem with Spike having a soul is that he doesn't seem to suffer the same kind of guilt and remorse that Angel does, that he, after only a short few weeks of near insanity, he snaps out of it and carries on as if it wasn't that big a deal. That he should spend more time sitting in dark corners, brooding, and telling anyone who cares to listen just how evil he was and how hard he has to work to somehow atone for his past crimes against mankind.

So, here is the question that I've been leading up to:

In your opinion, does Spike actually take having a soul too lightly, and, if so, what would he have to change to be more deserving of his soul and the title, "Champion?"

And "Stake himself," "Take a long walk outdoors on a sunny day," and answers of that sort don't count.

No I don' think he takes it too lightly. I think everyone is different and handles things differently. The point of having a soul is to be a better person from then on. I don't think suffering for years is a prerequisite. It must be taken into account that Spike chose to get a soul and Angelus had one forced on him.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

But if one is saying that applying a soul should effect them the exact same way, they would need to be exactly the same for that to be true.
So if applying a soul to Spike, means that because Angel is a completely different person, Spike is too. Applying a chip to Angelus should have the same effect as it did to Spike - and I dont think thats true.


but we do know. The writers have commented on it, numberous writers have said Spike is a different Vampire, some say he's the only one capable of getting a soul or actually loving (more so then the others that showed love, like Drusilla - like how Spike got a soul for Buffy)
David Fury has said that Spike as a vampire retained some part of his humanity - and that for me says it all.
If Vampire spike has more humanity he is less evil then most, this puts him closer to his souled self, so that applies in reverse, in getting a soul, he is closer to his unsouled self also.

Not true at all. them as a person react differently to the feelings of the past. But for all vampires the demon and the soul are separate. When the soul isn't present the demon is in control. However when a soul is introduced the memories are still there even though the demon is not in control. Now there is the memory of horrible things done and they react differently to those memories. They don't have to be identical in every way for white avengers idea of the meaning of a soul to be the same for them all. How they react emotionally could be completely different. It is not if all vampires are the same that is in question just that not having a soul and having one means the vampire is responsible for what was done without a soul.