Episode Discussion Nov. 18-24th Discussion led by Brinkster

[kittenpoker]

just wanted to say I really like this discussion and am finding it very interesting.

 

[Enemies]

Do you think Buffy meant it when she said she would sacrifice Dawn to save the world? If so, what changed since "The Grave"?
Honestly, I don't think anyone could sacrifice someone they love when it really boiled down to it. I think Buffy's leap in 'The Gift' solved two problems for Buffy at the time, it saved the world and gave her the get out clause she needed at the time. I don't believe she would have sacrificed Dawn.

Was the anger Giles's felt about Buffy removing Spike's chip justified?
100%. Spike is still a killer, chip or no chip. He still has the potential to turn when he wants soul or not. Killers still have souls as well as all the other people that do wrong in the world, a soul is not protection against doing wrong it just means you suffer the consequence of guilt and remorse afterwards, but not all people even feel that. I think Buffy's view of Spike at that current moment in time marred her judgement to the point where she couldn't see his past because she was so caught up in the 'good' he was doing now. Would he have been doing it if he hadn't got a chip? I highly doubt it.

Were Buffy's feelings for Spike prohibiting her from making rational decisions about how to handle Spike's trigger?
Yes. I think she threw a lot away to prove her loyalty for Spike when in reality I don't think he deserved all the high praise he got.

Was it irresponsible of Buffy to believe that Spike could handle the trigger because he had a soul?
Yes he'd already killed a few people which she simply overlooked.

What did you think about Giles teaming up with to try and kill Spike? Were either of them justified or were they simply acting out of their personal hate for Spike?
I think they were acting out of hate for Spike but perhaps under the influence of what they felt was justified. Spike had killed Robin's mom and turned Giles' slayer against him. I think they were both angry and hurting and acted on impulse.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

100%. Spike is still a killer, chip or no chip. He still has the potential to turn when he wants soul or not.

Why do you think that the man who got a soul intentionally--specifically in order to not be a monster-- would throw that all away and start killing again?

Killers still have souls as well as all the other people that do wrong in the world, a soul is not protection against doing wrong it just means you suffer the consequence of guilt and remorse afterwards

That's absolutely true. But William was not a killer. Without a conscience, and with a demon living inside of him, he was. Having his soul once again meant that he would be able to make the same decisions, morally, as he had done before he became a vampire.
Also, I'll pose the same question to you as I did earlier in the thread: do you think Angel should be chipped? His soul is all that stands in the way of him becoming a brutal killer once again. Why not chip him in order to ensure that that can't happen?!

Would he have been doing it if he hadn't got a chip? I highly doubt it.

This is true in season 4. You're really not going to give him any credit for developing into someone who would, oh say, voluntarily endure torture to get his soul back, since then?

Yes he'd already killed a few people which she simply overlooked.

Wait, she overlooked the whole "First made Spike a sleeper agent" story line? It seemed to me like she was quite aware of this. To say she didn't do enough is one thing but you have to give her credit for realizing there was a problem and taking action.

Spike...turned Giles' slayer against him.

When exactly did this happen? I seem to recall the only point at which Buffy was "against" Giles was after Giles tried to kill her companion and friend. And also, that's Spike's fault, how?

 

[Enemies]

Ok let me start out by reiterating that those are my opinions based on my interpretation of watching Buffy, not fact and this is a discussion not an attack on other people's opinions.

Why do you think that the man who got a soul intentionally--specifically in order to not be a monster-- would throw that all away and start killing again?

Whether it was intentional or not there's still a possibility that he could have killed again. He still has the vampire inside of him whether he has a soul or not. Therefore the potential is still there. It would only take seconds for his morals to be broken, a spell to be said etc and you're faced with a killer again, same with Angel.

do you think Angel should be chipped? His soul is all that stands in the way of him becoming a brutal killer once again. Why not chip him in order to ensure that that can't happen?!

That's very true, Angel is also potentially a killer and my feelings are the same for him but this is a discussion about Spike.

You're really not going to give him any credit for developing into someone who would, oh say, voluntarily endure torture to get his soul back?

Yes he did endure a vast amount of sacrifice in order to get his soul back, but if he hadn't been chipped in the first place do you think we would be faced with a Spike that wanted a soul then?

Wait, she overlooked the whole "First made Spike a sleeper agent" story line? It seemed to me like she was quite aware of this. To say she didn't do enough is one thing but you have to give her credit for realizing there was a problem and taking action.

No I think you've mistaken my opinion there. This is a perfect example of Spike becoming a killer again, even with a soul. I know he was under the first's influence but he still killed innocent people. And this could happen again and again. Yes she acted on it the best way she could but Spike is still a danger to innocent people.

When exactly did this happen? I seem to recall the only point at which Buffy was "against" Giles was after Giles tried to kill her companion and friend. And also, that's Spike's fault, how?

Buffy's trust in Spike was already driving a wedge between Buffy and Giles in my opinion. Giles was always realistic about Spike being a vampire and his abilities. And he was already angry with Buffy's decision to remove Spike's chip.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Ok let me start out by reiterating that those are my opinions based on my interpretation of watching Buffy, not fact and this is a discussion not an attack on other people's opinions.

Of course it's a discussion--I really hope you don't think you were being personally attacked. But in order to have a discussion, I feel the best thing to do is to highlight what you say and respond to each point with my counter argument--I don't know how else to do it! Sometimes things come out in a harsh tone via computer communication when they aren't intended to.

Whether it was intentional or not there's still a possibility that he could have killed again. He still has the vampire inside of him whether he has a soul or not. Therefore the potential is still there. It would only take seconds for his morals to be broken and you're faced with a killer again, same with Angel. Or a spell etc.

I agree with you. But the thing is, with any souled person, though each of us has the potential to become a killer, it's unfair to assume that any one of us will and to treat each other as if that is the case. The "vampire" inside Spike is sort of like a metaphor for the negative side of all of us, or at least that's how I see it. Some of us really do have the potential to snap. Given brain chemistry, difficult circumstances, etc, the potential is there in many of us. But our moral compasses and conscience within, are the thing that can prevent that from happening, (even if they are not always successful in doing so). Spike, with William's soul, is a person with the potential to snap, who now also has a moral compass.

Actually, a bunch of posts ago, I argued that treating Spike under the assumption that he was going to be persuaded to kill them without a chip, (this is all a separate argument from the first's trigger, btw, because we know it overrode the chip anyway), made no more sense than treating Anya, Willow, or Faith as if they would suddenly "snap" back into old ways. In fact, it made less sense. When those three decided to kill, they all had souls. Spike, now ensouled, could choose to act differently than he had before. And I believe that the other "former killers" in the house were just as likely to snap, (especially the witch and the ex demon), as Spike.

That's very true, Angel is also potentially a killer and my feelings are the same for him but this is a discussion about Spike.

I brought it up for the sake of consistency; it makes no sense to advocate for one and not the other. Although I personally think neither vampire needs to be chipped, I appreciate that you think they both should. But I would say that until they deem it necessary for the safety of mankind that Angel be chipped, it's ridiculous for them to keep a now souled Spike in a muzzle. There's no comparison, after all, to the progress that Spike made while soulless, and the creature that Angelus was.

Yes he did endure a vast amount of sacrifice in order to get his soul back, but if he hadn't been chipped in the first place do you think we would be faced with a Spike that wanted a soul then?

I think the chip was the first step in Spike's journey. It enabled him to start forming connections to humans and ultimately to develop feelings for Buffy, (well, that and the underlying humanity that had transferred over when he became a vampire). I think ultimately it was the AR scene that was the catalyst in his decision to get a soul. But yes, without the chip, he probably would never have developed the desire to become good. He'd have had no catalyst or motivation at all. But just having the chip wasn't all it took; it was his strength of character that led him to decide to get a soul, (as opposed to seeking out someone who could remove the chip at that point). So by the time he returned, he'd earned the right to be treated as a man.

Yes she acted on it the best way she could but Spike is still a danger to innocent people.

And I agree. I just think that her actions, and his actions, were sufficient enough to handle the danger. Though I do admit that they could have done a lot more, I think it's unfair to say that they simply thought Spike could "handle" it. And most importantly, that the solution was certainly not to kill Spike.

Buffy's trust in Spike was already driving a wedge between Buffy and Giles in my opinion.

That's true, but I think it was Giles's fault that he let that drive them apart, instead of discussing it with her more thoroughly. He refused to see Spike for what he'd become, even after he'd gone to get his soul, which always seemed very bizarre and OOC to me.

 

[brinkster130]

Great discussion so far! 🙂

Here are some more questions to think about:

How did you feel when Buffy said she wouldn't stop Spike from killing Robin, it he and Giles ever tried something like that again? Do you think she meant it?

Should Buffy have been more sympathetic towards Robin?

How did you feel about Buffy telling Giles there was nothing left for her to learn from him?

 

[Enemies]

Thanks for your reply. Sometimes things do come off rather attacking through computer the same as any media not based on speaking to that person to decipher their tone. This is how I felt from your response. However, your way of discussing is perfectly fine and your passion for the subject is obvious, as is your knowledge base. All I'll say is just to remember that not everyone is in that same position where their knowledge is as great or as clear, for some people it may have been months even, years since they last saw this particular ep so their knowledge may be hazy. Therefore they may find your particular passion comes across as an attack. on themselves and their opinions.

Back to the discussion:
I completely agree with everything you say tbh. There is so many layers to every character that viewers interpret completely differently and add this to their own views of the world. Hence why we can have heated discussions, potentially, about any character in the whedonverse. I also agree that there isn't just the one potential killer in the scoobies. I think personally that the gang as a whole seem to own 'get out of jail free cards' when it comes to having killed someone and it all being swept under the rug. It seems to me that the scoobies pick their loyalties with certain people such as Spike but are eager to kill others such as Anya and Faith.

 

[zobothehobo]

How did you feel when Buffy said she wouldn't stop Spike from killing Robin, it he and Giles ever tried something like that again? Do you think she meant it?
She had a point. I think she justified saying she'd like Spike kill him when she said "I don't have time for vendettas." She had a war to fight. Other than Buffy herself, Spike was the best fighter they had. And that matters.

Should Buffy have been more sympathetic towards Robin?
No. As I said in my answer to the previous question, she had a war to fight. And Wood should have understood fighting this war was more important than revenge on a monster that doesn't even exist anymore.

How did you feel about Buffy telling Giles there was nothing left for her to learn from him?
Well, when I first watched, I cheered. Giles annoyed me SO MUCH in season 7. Now I think maybe that was a little harsh... but she was angry, and he had betrayed her. I said before about the conversation Giles had with Buffy in Revelations when he told her "You have no respect for me or the job I perform" and how Buffy could have said it right back to him here... and I think her telling him "I think you've taught me all I need to know" was her way of saying "If you don't have the decency to come talk to me about something like this.. you need to understand I am in charge. No more of this wish-washy you're my mentor. No. I am in charge." and basically "You have no respect for me or the job I perform."

So in short, it was harsh... but it needed to be said. If Buffy was going to be the general, she was going to be the general. Not the sometimes general, sometimes general's mentee.

 

[brinkster130]

I'll pose the same question to you as I did earlier in the thread: do you think Angel should be chipped? His soul is all that stands in the way of him becoming a brutal killer once again. Why not chip him in order to ensure that that can't happen?!

I know this question takes us slightly off-topic, but I like the question and it's something I haven't thought much about before now....so I am going to answer it. 😀

I think since everyone is aware of what would have to happen for Angel to lose his soul, and Angel has made it clear he doesn't want to lose it again, they aren't as concerned about it. Whereas with Spike, there is something that is triggering him into killing things and reverting to his old self; it is totally out of his hands. Buffy, Giles and the Scoobies don't know as much about Spike's soul and because of everything that has happened in the past some of them are reluctant to take that risk again.

So I guess my answer is no, I don't think Angel needed to be chipped because I believed that he was always actively taking steps to make sure he wouldn't lose his soul again. His guilt over what happened last time he lost it was sort of acting as a "chip".

Another concern about Spike's soul could be their lack of understanding about it. With Angel, we knew the gypsies cursed him with his own soul, but we don't know the same for sure with Spike. Is it his soul? Are there any conditions under which he could lose it?
The fact that any vampire can now go out and get a soul is a game changer for Buffy and the Scoobies, they are now living in a world where vampires have the potential good. I know this wasn't really addressed well in the show, but it was something I always wondered about. Why didn't they question his soul and where it came from more?

 

[Gum Gnome33]

How did you feel when Buffy said she wouldn't stop Spike from killing Robin, it he and Giles ever tried something like that again? Do you think she meant it?

Honestly, I was a bit shocked at the way she handled it. (Further proof for me that she was truly in love with Spike at this point and acting as one would expect from someone whose loved one had been attacked!) Now don't get me wrong, I was horrified when Robin tried to kill Spike. And I'm the first one to go on and on about how Spike now has a soul and should be treated as such. BUT Spike had killed Robin's mother, and nothing could change that. As much as I appreciate Spike, I will always understand where one is coming from any time they seek vengeance for a deceased loved one. Robin was the one and only person in that show whose anti-Spike stance I could understand, post season 5.
As far as the bigger picture was concerned, however, as Buffy points out, there was no room for his vendetta. They needed Spike.

Should Buffy have been more sympathetic towards Robin?

It's a bit hard to say. Buffy loved Spike, (at least we can all agree--as a friend!) Had Robin succeeded in killing Spike, he'd have done to Buffy what Spike did to Robin, essentially. She deserved to be completely enraged at Robin's actions. But as someone who'd lost her mother, maybe she could have been a bit more sympathetic? Nah, scratch that, if someone did that to the man I loved it wouldn't matter to me at all where he was "coming from." I'd have wanted to kill him, bottom line.

How did you feel about Buffy telling Giles there was nothing left for her to learn from him?

Oh so heartbreaking, but after what he'd done? He really had taught her plenty, that night alone. I desperately wanted more of a reconciliation than that brief moment we got in "Chosen." And I desperately wanted Giles to do more--to say more--to somehow try to win her back and at least try to understand where she was coming from, with Spike.

So I guess my answer is no, I don't think Angel needed to be chipped because I believed that he was always actively taking steps to make sure he wouldn't lose his soul again. His guilt over what happened last time he lost it was sort of acting as a "chip".

I agree with this--but of course I also think Spike shouldn't be chipped.

Another concern about Spike's soul could be their lack of understanding about it. With Angel, we knew the gypsies cursed him with his own soul, but we don't know the same for sure with Spike. Is it his soul? Are there any conditions under which he could lose it? The fact that any vampire can now go out and get a soul is a game changer for Buffy and the Scoobies, they are now living in a world where vampires have the potential good. I know this wasn't really addressed well in the show, but it was something I always wondered about. Why didn't they question his soul and where it came from more?

I think these are all really excellent points. Honestly if Giles had asked any of these questions, I'd have had a lot more respect for his point of view, (and I think Buffy would have, too!) I hate that the fact that we now know that vampires can retrieve their souls by choice is never addressed, (and again--Giles should have been the first to have done so!) It's so horrible to me that the argument in season 7 is basically dumbed down to: Spike should have a chip because the whole time he was "good," he had a chip. He gets no credit for having the soul, and if they're going to question whether or not he'll be able to be good with the soul, at least base that on whether the soul itself is truly Williams, just as you pointed out.
Now I think, in hindsight, we know that Spike's soul is in fact "the real thing," and certainly by the end of season 7 they should have been able to trust it enough to have no problems at all with a chipless Spike. But probably that isn't something that's often debated.

 

[Willow My Love]

It's not absurd. Yes he still drinks blood but his dietary habits, (when not killing to obtain food), have nothing to do with his ability to choose to do good, especially since he has earned that right. I don't care what you call him; vampire, shmampire, or human, (and do remember that I said "for all intents and purposes")--he deserves to be treated as any other creature with a soul. He deserves that much consideration at the very least.

Treated as such, sure. Called Human? No. He will never be a human.

Do you think Angel should be chipped, too? And if not, why? Canonically speaking, he was "worse" as a vampire than Spike was. And if we're not keeping Angel in a muzzle for the deeds of Angelus, why are we doing it for Spike?

I would not be adverse to Angel having a chip. He's a vicious killer as well. And anyway, Angel spent YEARS hating himself for what he did, but he didn't go and lose his soul. And he spent 100 years in a Hell dimension, and came back. He's been through more torture than Spike did while he was ensouled. Angel has paid the price for his soul many a time. Spike was crazy for three weeks in a basement.

Again, compare that to Angel. All he needs is a moment of happiness and he becomes Angelus. I'd say it's incredibly risky to have him around, especially since it's far easier for him to lose his soul than for Spike to. I make the comparison for the sake of consistency: why one and not the other?

See my previous point.

But that's the frustrating thing about Giles, isn't it? Throughout the series, when Spike is still soulless, Giles trusts Spike with both his life, Dawn's life, and the lives of the other scoobies, many times, (and most notably when Buffy is dead). For him to suddenly take such grand issues with Spike now that he has a soul makes no sense. I understand that the First is manipulating him. But surely there are other ways to handle this other than killing someone he had trusted, (albeit disliked), for so many years and with far less reason for his faith.

"Now that he has a soul," could it be that he has issues with Spike because he tried to rape Buffy, and is the First's bitch? I think that plays way more of a part with Giles than the mere fact that Spike has a soul.

 

[dexeded]

[MENTION=10498]Willow My Love[/MENTION] disagrees: What began him on the path to even have the AR as a possibility? The chip. There's my logic there. Chip -> Buffy -> AR -> Soul. The chip began it all.

It's just the way you phrased it was kind of odd--'The chip was the only reason he got his soul'. It wasn't the reason. You can't say 'Spike got his soul because of the chip'. It's always 'Spike got his soul for Buffy' or 'Spike got his soul because of the AR'. The chip was, as I said, the catalyst. But that's just semantics. I understand what you're saying.

It's beside the point, though. The chip created a set of circumstances that led to him getting his soul. Why should that undermine the goodness that Spike tries to find, as a soulless demon? It began it all, but in the end, it was Spike that decided to get the soul instead of getting rid of the chip, which he could have just as easily done in the cave.