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

[brinkster130]

Episode: Lies My Parents Told Me

Mini - Summary: While preparing for battle against the first Robin Wood decides to seek revenge against Spike for killing his mother.

Discussion Questions:

Do you think Buffy meant it when she said she would sacrifice Dawn to save the world? If so, what changed since "The Grave"?

Was the anger Giles's felt about Buffy removing Spike's chip justified?

Were Buffy's feelings for Spike prohibiting her from making rational decisions about how to handle Spike's trigger?

Was it irresponsible of Buffy to believe that Spike could handle the trigger because he had a soul?

What did you think about Giles teaming up with Robin to try and kill Spike? Were either of them justified or were they simply acting out of their personal hate for Spike?

 

[BuffyElevated]

Do you think Buffy meant it when she said she would sacrifice Dawn to save the world? If so, what changed since "The Gift"?
I think Buffy was so blinded by emotion in "The Gift", she wasn't quite in the right place to make the best decision with Dawn. At that point, Dawn was the only family she had left. And Buffy's life had been so full of heartache, I think she saw the move to sacrifice herself in Dawn's place a way out as well as a way to save the world.
I think the events after "Grave" forced Buffy to grow and mature so much that she realized sometimes you have to endure a lot of pain if it means everyone else is better off. In "The Gift", Buffy's thinking was more selfish instead of selfless, the way it was in Season 7.

Was the anger Giles's felt about Buffy removing Spike's chip justified?
Absolutely. Even though Buffy had long moved past her training with Giles, Giles still felt that Buffy was his Slayer. He was angry at her for not consulting with him first. Not only that, but there was absolutely no way to be sure that removing Spike's chip would be a good move. True, he had a soul, but who was to say for sure that soul was a good one? People do evil things with souls every single day. I think Giles was right to be wary of removing it, and upset that she did.

Were Buffy's feelings for Spike prohibiting her from making rational decisions about how to handle Spike's trigger?
I don't think they completely probibited her from making rational decisions concerning Spike, but they definitely colored her perception of right and wrong where he was concerned.

Was it irresponsible of Buffy to believe that Spike could handle the trigger because he had a soul?

I think so. As I said before, just because someone has a soul does not mean they're not evil or at least shady. She should have exercised a lot more caution than she did.

What did you think about Giles teaming up with Robin to try and kill Spike? Were either of them justified or were they simply acting out of their personal hate for Spike?
Giles was driven more out of everyone else's safety. He saw chipless Spike as a real threat, because he was around to see what Spike was capable of before he got that chip. Robin's concern, however, was vengeance. I feel that Buffy had every right to be angry at Robin, but she should have been more understanding of Giles and why he did what he did.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Do you think Buffy meant it when she said she would sacrifice Dawn to save the world? If so, what changed since "The Grave"?

I think she meant that she would be more open to considering it as a possibility, but that in reality she probably wasn't certain what she would do if she were faced with the choice, again.

Was the anger Giles's felt about Buffy removing Spike's chip justified?

I don't understand why Giles would have any more apprehensions about a souled, chipless Spike than he would about oh, for example, a souled ex demon who was just recently killing again. Or, hmmm let's see, a souled, powerful witch who had just taken two human lives. And there's always Faith, the killer. If he was ok having those three around, why would he be worried about Spike? Also, do we really need to count the number of times Spike saved his life (while Buffy was both dead and alive), while he was still soulless?

Were Buffy's feelings for Spike prohibiting her from making rational decisions about how to handle Spike's trigger?

Buffy's feelings for Spike stemmed from the changes she saw him make. She developed feelings for him when she saw him fight to become a good man. So yes, they colored her decisions, and for good reason. Quite frankly, she was the only one of the lot of them who could see who Spike had truly become. And, you know, that sort of payed off nicely when he ended up sacrificing his life to save the world.

Was it irresponsible of Buffy to believe that Spike could handle the trigger because he had a soul?

Neither Spike nor Buffy believed he could "handle" the trigger, once they found out what exactly it was forcing him to do. That's why they both agreed that the best thing for him to do was to stay chained up in Buffy's basement. Once they took this action, and because of the cooperation on Spike's part, he wasn't responsible for any more killings.

What did you think about Giles teaming up with Robin to try and kill Spike? Were either of them justified or were they simply acting out of their personal hate for Spike?

What did I think about Giles teaming up with Robin to kill Spike? Out of character, nonsense, and a silly plot device. Out of my respect for Giles, I try to forget about it, mostly. I can understand Robin's vendetta. To him, Spike will always be the monster that killed his mother, unfortunately, no matter how much good he does.
But for Giles to try to kill someone who has saved his life so many times (again even sans soul), and has proven to be a trustworthy ally in the fight against evil and in an apocalpytic battle is just so bizarre I hardly know what to make of it.

True, he had a soul, but who was to say for sure that soul was a good one? People do evil things with souls every single day. I think Giles was right to be wary of removing it, and upset that she did.

Yes, people do evil things with souls. But if that's the logic by which the characters should judge whether or not to be wary of one another, why not turn those exact same sentiments toward Faith, Anya, and Willow, who put the lives of all of the scoobies in danger multiple times and had souls while doing it? Why not kill them, in order to ensure that they won't decide to start killing/becoming demons again? Just because they have souls? Well, Spike's now a member of that club, so why should he be under attack in a way in which they never are?

Here's another point: for all intents and purposes, with a soul, Spike is now a human being who should be allowed to make choices. To take that privilege away from him by keeping him chipped, is unjust. Just as Willow, Anya, and Faith are expected to be able to make choices for themselves in spite of what they've done, Spike should be shown the same considerations. And I'd say as far as choices go, he's doing pretty well: he chose to get a soul, and he chose to stay either chained up or by Buffy's side when under the influence of the First, so as not to hurt anyone.

 

[zobothehobo]

Do you think Buffy meant it when she said she would sacrifice Dawn to save the world? If so, what changed since "The Grave"?
I think she meant it. What changed? She gained more experience, more perspective... and lost faith in the world.

Was the anger Giles's felt about Buffy removing Spike's chip justified?
Absolutely not. Giles was mad because Buffy didn't come get his approval first, as if she needed to.

Were Buffy's feelings for Spike prohibiting her from making rational decisions about how to handle Spike's trigger?
I think Buffy's feelings towards Spike as a fighter and her knowledge of him personally (like how well she knew him) may have prohibited her from making the best decisions about this. I think she should have made him stay chained up until he agreed to try and figure it out. But instead she knew he was going to keep fighting it and she also knew there was always the possibility she was going to NEED him upstairs.

Was it irresponsible of Buffy to believe that Spike could handle the trigger because he had a soul?
I don't think that's what she believed. I think to her, and Spike, the trigger was something to deal with later... something that wasn't relevant at that moment. Something they had time for... They were going to deal with it in due time.

What did you think about Giles teaming up with Robin to try and kill Spike? Were either of them justified or were they simply acting out of their personal hate for Spike?
When they teamed up to kill him... when I was watching the first time... I was SO full of anger and hate towards both of them, I could hardly contain myself. I was and am so proud of Spike and Buffy for the way that episode and fight ended. Both of them did wrong.

I think both of them thought they were justified. And Giles was more justified than Wood. But I don't think either was. I think Giles should have talked to Buffy about it... I mean while Wood is supposed to be killing Spike, Giles is lecturing Buffy on how she's the one who makes all the tough decisions... and yet he goes and does it himself. He doesn't trust her at all. He tells her in Revelations after he finds out she's been seeing Angel again that she has no respect for him or the job he preforms... and this is where Buffy could EASILY turn around and say the same thing to him. He has no respect for her authority as leader... or her judgement. He never even bothers to care. And Wood... well he straight up says it's about killing the monster who killed his mother...

 

[Icarium]

I don't understand why Giles would have any more apprehensions about a souled, chipless Spike than he would about oh, for example, a souled ex demon who was just recently killing again. Or, hmmm let's see, a souled, powerful witch who had just taken two human lives. And there's always Faith, the killer. If he was ok having those three around, why would he be worried about Spike?

Because Spike's trigger overrides his free will. Even if he were the most redeemed person ever, this wouldn't have mattered. While triggered he was basically The First's puppet. Buffy trusting Spike while he was triggered meant she was trusting the First not to use the trigger, that's why Giles thought he had to do something.

And, you know, that sort of payed off nicely when he ended up sacrificing his life to save the world.

Of course, this happened only because the First was monumentally dumb and didn't use the trigger to make Spike slaughter everyone in their sleep.

Why not kill them, in order to ensure that they won't decide to start killing/becoming demons again?

Because none of them was The First's puppet. There are valid reasons for not trusting Anya, Willow, Faith, Andrew, etc. but Spike's situation is completely different.

I don't think that's what she believed. I think to her, and Spike, the trigger was something to deal with later... something that wasn't relevant at that moment. Something they had time for... They were going to deal with it in due time.

The trigger was active for like half the season, I have no idea how much time this was but at the very least it was several weeks. It's not like Buffy and Spike were desperately busy every second of those weeks, if anything precious little of any importance happened in those episodes.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Because none of them was The First's puppet. There are valid reasons for not trusting Anya, Willow, Faith, Andrew, etc. but Spike's situation is completely different.

Right. Anya wasn't the First's puppet when she killed men for 1,000 plus years. Willow wasn't when she killed Warren and Rack. Faith and Andrew were also masters of their own destiny. The point is: one can always argue that a former killer can easily revert to his own ways and start killing again. Once a killer, always a danger. Yes, Spike had no free will, whereas the others did, and you could argue that he was a more immediate threat. But a few key points:

1. The motivation for the killings committed by the others in the house came on just as suddenly and as effectively as the First's "trigger." Willow was compelled to destroy the world, in an instant. Anya was betrayed and began slaughtering again. Faith accidentally killed a man and it brought out the killer within. As easily as the First trained Spike to be a sleeper agent, something within the other scooby killers forced them to act as well. No one wanted to stop and think about the degree to which each character was or could be dangerous.
-1.a) Deciding to kill Spike because he might be influenced by the First again, (even though he was now tied up and under the watchful eye of Buffy), seems just as arbitrary as deciding to kill Faith, for example, because she could easily snap and start trying to kill the scoobies as she had in S3. Remember how suddenly it happened for her? Some feelings of isolation and abandonment, an accidental killing, and suddenly she's working for the mayor and planning the apocalypse. How is that so very different from the First flipping a switch in Spike's brain?

2. Spike was compliant with both restraint and the trigger isolating slug-in-cerebral-cortex mechanism. Yeah, sure, he got pissed off and left the room after it evoked some horrible memories. But he was still working with them. Still under Buffy's watch, which, as we know kept him out of trouble, once she was aware what was going on. How the heck did Giles then jump to the conclusion that the next step was to kill him?

It's not like anyone can even make the argument that a)watching and chaining Spike was ineffective against the trigger, b)Spike refused to give in to requests to find the source of the trigger, or that c), since the gang got hip to the situation and started taking action, he was able to kill anyone else. Sorry, the decision was balderdash and chicanery, even for someone who hates Spike, like Giles.

 

[Valjavertjinn]

Was the anger Giles's felt about Buffy removing Spike's chip justified?

I think that it was. Giles has had bad experiences with ensouled vampires. As in, and ensouled vampire he knew turned evil, killed his girlfriend, and tortured him. So he might be a little wary of vampires like that. He probably liked having the chip as a backup system.

 

[Icarium]

-1.a) Deciding to kill Spike because he might be influenced by the First again, (even though he was now tied up and under the watchful eye of Buffy), seems just as arbitrary as deciding to kill Faith

Apples and oranges. Faith is in control of herself. Whether she is evil or good or something in between depends on her and her only. Spike was a puppet of an entity that was 100% evil and had already forced him to slaughter a bunch of people. It was just a matter of time before the trigger was going to be used again. Giles wasn't to know that The First was incredibly stupid, after all.

2. Spike was compliant with both restraint and the trigger isolating slug-in-cerebral-cortex mechanism. Yeah, sure, he got pissed off and left the room after it evoked some horrible memories. But he was still working with them.

I wouldn't call pretending that he was cured "working with them".

It's not like anyone can even make the argument that a)watching and chaining Spike was ineffective against the trigger

I can because we see him up and about without Buffy around to stop him from killing the Potentials or Xander or Anya or whoever. It's not like he was chained 24/7. And that's why the whole plot is deeply stupid and insulting even for Spike despite my low opinion of him. There is no way that Spike, the rebel without a clue, would allow to be anybody's puppet just like that. He wouldn't have waited weeks for someone else to try a solution, he wouldn't have walked around unchained unless it was absolutely necessary, etc.

c), since the gang got hip to the situation and started taking action, he was able to kill anyone else.

Of course he was able to. It's just that The First was stupid enough not to make him do anything at all. It's not like it was thwarted by the measures taken to keep Spike unable to hurt anyone since those measures were a complete joke.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Apples and oranges. Faith is in control of herself.

Yes, in hindsight. How were any of them to assess exactly how much each of the killers in the house had reformed and how likely any of them were to be set off again? Maybe Faith had come to Sunnydale as an agent of the First and she was playing both sides just like she was with the mayor.

Whether she is evil or good or something in between depends on her and her only.

And we've all seen how dangerous she can be when she decides to turn it on.

I wouldn't call pretending that he was cured "working with them".

He didn't pretend that it worked, or that he was cured. He got angry and walked away. Just because the next move on Giles's part was to try to kill him and not to ask him if he'd comply to any further measures doesn't mean he had given up.

I can because we see him up and about without Buffy around to stop him from killing the Potentials or Xander or Anya or whoever. It's not like he was chained 24/7.

Actually, Spike chains himself to the wall in the basement whenever Buffy isn't around. So not only is he complying with the rest of them, but he's taking the initiative himself:
SPIKE
I'm just trying to stay out of their way.

BUFFY
(glances at his chains) I noticed.

SPIKE
(looks at his chains) This is better. Believe me, it's safer.

BUFFY
OK. But you've been fine. In close contact with the girls.

SPIKE
(looks at Buffy) With you by my side, yeah. You won't let me hurt one of them. And that's the way it's gonna be until we're sure the First is done making me its bitch. Either we're together, or I'm on the leash.

BUFFY
We just need to make sure the trigger's deactivated then.

Of course he was able to. It's just that The First was stupid enough not to make him do anything at all. It's not like it was thwarted by the measures taken to keep Spike unable to hurt anyone since those measures were a complete joke.

You say he was able to, the show says otherwise.
So we can discuss whether it's a good plan or not all we want, but it's established in the show that both are taking the threat seriously and neither is "resisting" or putting the rest of the gang in danger. Just because it's a bit of a half hatched plan doesn't mean the solution is to kill Spike. And like I said, it works. You think it shouldn't have, and I get that. But just because the writers decided to make the First stupid doesn't mean that Giles should assume that it's any more effective than it is. Clearly, everything is stable at this point. Good writing or not.

Again, because the measures to control Spike were working, for Giles to jump to the conclusion that they should kill him is just as arbitrary and insulting to his intelligence as if he had decided to kill Willow in her sleep in case she relapsed and became vengeful again. Or Faith, or Anya, or Andrew.

 

[zobothehobo]

The trigger was active for like half the season, I have no idea how much time this was but at the very least it was several weeks. It's not like Buffy and Spike were desperately busy every second of those weeks, if anything precious little of any importance happened in those episodes.

Yes I know, but it was inactive for most of the season... and a good portion of time at that point. The First said it wasn't ready for Spike and Buffy and Spike both knew there were things that The First was ready for that they had to deal with at that moment... was it the smartest thing? No. Is it understandable? Yes. And regardless of whether you think it's "right" or not, it's how they viewed it. And neither of them thought "Spike can handle the trigger. It's ok. We don't need to think about it ever again! la la la."

 

[Icarium]

Yes, in hindsight. How were any of them to assess exactly how much each of the killers in the house had reformed and how likely any of them were to be set off again? Maybe Faith had come to Sunnydale as an agent of the First and she was playing both sides just like she was with the mayor.

There is a difference between the possibility that Faith (or anybody else) was an agent of the First and the certainty that Spike was its puppet.

He didn't pretend that it worked, or that he was cured.

SPIKE
I am calm. (to Giles) This stone of yours is—is out, right? Did its job, so I'm de-triggered, right?

You say he was able to, the show says otherwise.

Which is exactly the problem - it says one thing but shows the opposite.

So we can discuss whether it's a good plan or not all we want, but it's established in the show that both are taking the threat seriously

No, it's not. Look at say Anya and Spike going to wherever they were going in Get It Done. Nothing was going to prevent Spike from killing her if the First had bothered to use the trigger. There are plenty of such examples in those episodes, so the idea that Spike was either chained or Buffy was watching him closely to ensure he didn't kill anyone doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

But just because the writers decided to make the First stupid doesn't mean that Giles should assume that it's any more effective than it is.

So Giles should just assume that the First decided to trigger Spike and not use the trigger? You can't just say "good writing or not", because if we start with that we will excuse any and all mistakes the characters made with "well, the plot said so" and might as well close this forum. 🙂 All the evidence pointed to the First being sure to sure the trigger very soon. Yes, sure killing Spike was an extreme solution but pretending that there was not much of a problem was suicidally stupid.

Again, because the measures to control Spike were working

You are jumping to the conclusion that just because Spike did no damage this means he couldn't have. Unfortunately this conclusion doesn't hold up under scrutiny as evidenced by the instances of Spike walking around unchained and with no Buffy around. Also generally, "Didn't"=/="Couldn't have". Why not claim also that since The Mayor didn't put Buffy in jail in S3 that means he couldn't possibly have done so? Or that because Glory didn't kill any of Buffy's friends, she couldn't have done so?

 

[Gum Gnome33]

There is a difference between the possibility that Faith (or anybody else) was an agent of the First and the certainty that Spike was its puppet.

But there was no certainty that Spike would be made to kill again, once they all realized what was going on. There wasn't any certainty about anything or anyone in that house.

SPIKE
I am calm. (to Giles) This stone of yours is—is out, right? Did its job, so I'm de-triggered, right?

Right, and before all this it is established that he has been chaining himself up to ensure that he won't hurt anyone. The above quote shows his frustration with the procedure, and a temporary lapse in judgment, (when he requests to be let out). It doesn't represent his overall approach to the problem, at all. And again, doesn't justify the leap to the next step which involved having him killed.

Nothing was going to prevent Spike from killing her if the First had bothered to use the trigger. There are plenty of such examples in those episodes, so the idea that Spike was either chained or Buffy was watching him closely to ensure he didn't kill anyone doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

By "Get it Done," they had more information than they'd had in "The Killer in Me," where it's established that Spike is keeping himself chained to the wall or to Buffy in order to ensure that the first wouldn't pull the trigger. They had Andrew's encounter with the first, telling them that it wasn't "time" for Spike yet. The whole camp was banking on the idea that "the first (was) done pulling Spike's strings for now." Everyone accepted that as good enough, including Anya, when she chose to go out with him. Again, maybe that was naive of them. But it wasn't Spike and Buffy's choice alone to let him roam free. Good thing too, since Spike saved Anya's life. And if people were still worried, maybe the right thing to do would be to insist that Spike go back in the chains, (which he clearly had at some point between this episode and "LMPTM," not kill him.

All the evidence pointed to the First being sure to sure the trigger very soon.

Actually, after "First Date," all the evidence pointed toward the First being done with Spike for a while.

Yes, sure killing Spike was an extreme solution but pretending that there was not much of a problem was suicidally stupid.

I have no problem with any of the characters acknowledging that there was a risk! I would never expect any of them to not be very concerned about the trigger. If anything Buffy is a bit too cavalier about it, but like I said, I don't think she's reckless about it. In any case, if this was simply a conversation about whether Giles had the right to be very concerned and even to offer some other solutions to the problem which did not involve killing Spike, I would adjust my position.

You are jumping to the conclusion that just because Spike did no damage this means he couldn't have.

But you are jumping to the conclusion that even though Spike didn't do damage, he likely would have. And since all the evidence we have is of the first not actually being able to control him once he and Buffy discovered the trigger, I don't see how it makes sense to assume that, either. Once he was living in the Summers' house, whenever the First was able to get him to change again, Buffy was able to stop anything from happening. And the rest of the time during which the trigger was active, according to the First itself, it had no interest in controlling Spike until "later."


When Giles decided to try to kill Spike, he was treating him like a vampire, and not like a person with a soul who had earned the right to not automatically be staked, especially when his actions were out of his control. Compare that, for example, to Buffy's decision to try to kill Anya, in "Selfless." Anya had, by choice, become a demon again, and was killing by her own will. Even she wasn't surprised that Buffy would want to take her out. Voluntarily becoming "evil" again and acting on it had lost her the right to expect to be handled in any other way. Conversely, Spike's decision to get his soul back in order to control himself earned him the right to be treated like other humans. Bottom line. So maybe it was silly to think that all he needed was some chains and supervision. (Although since that seemed to be all that he needed according to what actually transpired on the show, how can we claim that indeed it was silly?) Again, concerns, comments, and further measures to discover what the trigger was were all just fine. But the decision that Giles ultimately made was completely unwarranted.

 

[Icarium]

The whole camp was banking on the idea that "the first (was) done pulling Spike's strings for now." Everyone accepted that as good enough, including Anya, when she chose to go out with him. Again, maybe that was naive of them.

Maybe?!? And yes, it's not only Buffy and Spike who were being complete morons in this situation. Everyone was, including Giles. He just got half a clue later, that's all. I have never said his actions were exemplary, he was just slightly less dumb than the rest of the gang. Not that this was much of an achievement, mind you.

Actually, after "First Date," all the evidence pointed toward the First being done with Spike for a while.

What evidence would that be? The First saying so? And they are willnig to bet their lives on that because...? The thing is The First effectively had an "I win button" and chose not to press it. It's never explained why that was, nor is it explained why it bothered triggering Spike in the first place or why it told his minions not to kill Buffy. The whole plot is made of stupid. A bit of a tangent, but personally I think it was a terrible idea to have a big bad which was so strong that the only way for the good guys to scrape through would be for the villain to help them all the way and the Big Bad from another show to provide a deus ex machina. It's frankly one of the stupidest plots I have ever seen and I have read a lot of low brow literature and watched eight seasons of Charmed.

Once he was living in the Summers' house, whenever the First was able to get him to change again, Buffy was able to stop anything from happening.

Buffy wasn't with Spike or even in the house 24/7. Even if she had been, waiting for your "ally" to stab you in the back hardly lends itself to productive atmosphere and they had a few other problems to solve, like, I don't know, save the world. She didn't stop him from anything other than killing Andrew (talk about a missed opportunity). It's a common fan fallacy to claim that just because things worked out well in the end the characters were right to do what they did.

When Giles decided to try to kill Spike, he was treating him like a vampire, and not like a person with a soul who had earned the right to not automatically be staked, especially when his actions were out of his control.

Or like Ben. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. Now, I do think that Giles jumped the gun in this particular situation, mind you, and it was positively bizarre that in weeks he barely said anything on the subject, and then out of the blue he was all "Dude, we need to remove this thing now because the season finale is coming soon!". It was an embarrassingly badly written plot, so nobody behaved remotely rationally. It's just that it's far easier for me to see where Giles is coming from than to condone Buffy's actions. She of all people, should have been most wary of her allies turning against her as this had happened like a dozen times already. Bizarrely she behaved as if trusting Spike had anything to do with the situation. It didn't. Not only that, but If Spike could just resist the First's influence, then he was fully to blame for the dozen murders, so he needed to be killed anyway. She can't just claim The First forced Spike to murder those people, attack Andrew, throw something at Dawn, etc. and yet Spike can totally resist the trigger. Either he is in control or not, she can't have it both ways.

 

[Willow My Love]

Do you think Buffy meant it when she said she would sacrifice Dawn to save the world? If so, what changed since "The Grave"? I don't think she really meant that. Obviously, she didn't. She gave her life so that Dawn could keep hers.

Was the anger Giles's felt about Buffy removing Spike's chip justified? Yes. Spike was a ruthless mass-murderer before he got that chip who would stop at nothing to kill Buffy. Giles was absolutely correct in reacting how he did.

Were Buffy's feelings for Spike prohibiting her from making rational decisions about how to handle Spike's trigger? I think it's the other way around. Buffy feels very much alone as the Slayer. She counts on Spike's feelings for her as support. I feel like she relied on him always being there for her. Earlier, she had told him she wasn't ready for him not to be there. She needs that support that he gives her, whether she truly returns his feelings or not.

Was it irresponsible of Buffy to believe that Spike could handle the trigger because he had a soul? Personally, I think he obviously couldn't, seeing as he'd killed a bunch of people already. And yeah, it was irresponsible of her. She made a mistake there. But that just shows she's human. He was a close friend of hers, and she didn't want harm to come to him, which is only natural. Were it Xander or Willow that had this trigger, she'd have done the same.

What did you think about Giles teaming up with Robin to try and kill Spike? Were either of them justified or were they simply acting out of their personal hate for Spike? That severely disappointed me. Simply because Giles knew what Buffy wanted, so he purposely didn't tell her what he was doing. It makes me wonder if he would have told her had they killed Spike that they did so, or if he would have lied to her about it. I think Giles was acting out of concern, but he went about it the wrong way. I think Robin was on his own personal vendetta.

[MENTION=10363]zobothehobo[/MENTION] made a brilliant point about Giles attitude towards Buffy after she's found to be seeing Angel again, and how he doesn't respect her as a leader. She could have thrown that in his face and not trusted him again, or asked him to leave. But she didn't. She kept Giles by her side, and I think that made her the bigger person there. She's matured so much, and, even if it's flawed, I think he should have trusted her judgement. He should have at least had the personal respect for her as his friend to talk to her about it.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

What evidence would that be? The First saying so?

Yup.

And they are willnig to bet their lives on that because...? The thing is The First effectively had an "I win button" and chose not to press it. It's never explained why that was, nor is it explained why it bothered triggering Spike in the first place or why it told his minions not to kill Buffy. The whole plot is made of stupid.

Don't ask me. I too think it's bizarre that they weren't more concerned, as I stated before. But I also have no freaking clue why in the first place they thought they could even beat "the First evil" and its army or thousands of Uber Vamps when Buffy could barely take out even one. If turning 20 or 30 girls into a slayer army in order to take down thousands of opponents that nearly killed one slayer in a one to one match was considered an acceptable final battle plan and on par for what we should be expecting re: believable solutions against the first Evil, then I don't see why chaining Spike to the wall and having Buffy guard him can't be considered an equally acceptable plan when it came to dealing with the first's trigger. And as long as we're talking about "good enough" plans to hang your hat on in the fight against evil, what about asking a graduating class to shoot arrows at and engage in combat with a bunch of rabid vampires? Again, I think keeping Spike chained to the basement wall is par for the course in a show that isn't really so much about whether the fight is a well mastered plan but more about having faith and trust in one another. It sounds cheesy, but analyze just about any other method of defeating a large, looming evil in the series and I think you'll find that to be true. That's actually one of the things I like best about the show. It isn't "The Art of War" after all; it's a show about relationships above all.

Buffy wasn't with Spike or even in the house 24/7.

Again: pre- "First Date," she was either with him, or he was chained up. After that, yes, he roamed free for reasons I stated before.

She didn't stop him from anything other than killing Andrew

Right. Because the first was "done with Spike" and didn't utilize the trigger, until eventually the trigger was neutralized.

It's a common fan fallacy to claim that just because things worked out well in the end the characters were right to do what they did.

And I would say that it's equally wrong to assume that just because things could have not worked out well in the end means the characters should have assumed they wouldn't. Like I said, taking more precautions would have been fine with me, killing Spike is not. But it sounds like you agree with me there.

Or like Ben.

Killing Ben meant preventing all hell dimensions from setting up shop on Earth. Ben, also, happened to be the same entity as a hell god. Spike's trigger meant that, when enacted, he would start acting like *gasp* a vampire. I don't know how you can even compare the two consequences. The only reason why Spike did so much damage was because neither he nor the slayer had any idea what he was doing. Once they did, even if they failed to keep him under control, he wouldn't get very far before Buffy could do something about it. We are talking about something on a very different scale from the events of The Gift. And even then, with such monumentally different stakes, no one could even say aloud that killing Ben was an option, (with the exception of Xander who immediately realized how horrible it was).

She of all people, should have been most wary of her allies turning against her as this had happened like a dozen times already. Bizarrely she behaved as if trusting Spike had anything to do with the situation.

Maybe because she had plenty of faith that she could stop Spike from killing if it came down to that. She's stronger, faster, and has done it plenty of times before. And because in every other way he had earned her trust, that did have a lot to do with the situation. Like I said, he earned the right to stick around; to be given a chance.

If Spike could just resist the First's influence, then he was fully to blame for the dozen murders, so he needed to be killed anyway. She can't just claim The First forced Spike to murder those people, attack Andrew, throw something at Dawn, etc. and yet Spike can totally resist the trigger. Either he is in control or not, she can't have it both ways.

No one is claiming that Spike could have resisted the First. He couldn't even remember what he'd done while under the influence and just barely started putting the pieces together enough to beg Buffy to further evaluate the situation. Hence the chains. And like I said a dozen times, she could have been more careful. But you're making it out to seem that she did practically nothing to solve the problem. But Buffy, the slayer, could control Spike. It's not as if they needed an army to stop him if the first did decide to pull his strings again, now that they knew what they were dealing with.

Was the anger Giles's felt about Buffy removing Spike's chip justified? Yes. Spike was a ruthless mass-murderer before he got that chip who would stop at nothing to kill Buffy. Giles was absolutely correct in reacting how he did.

By the time Buffy had decided to remove the chip, Spike had a soul and was a human being for all intents and purposes. He deserved to be given free will. Taking that away from him would be cruel. Why not argue that Angel should be chipped too? At that point both vampires had souls. Why, in the case of one, let his past dictate how to proceed where his free will is concerned, yet call the other one a champion and pretend that Angelus is some totally unrelated creature?

 

[Icarium]

Don't ask me. I too think it's bizarre that they weren't more concerned, as I stated before. But I also have no freaking clue why in the first place they thought they could even beat "the First evil" and its army or thousands of Uber Vamps when Buffy could barely take out even one. If turning 20 or 30 girls into a slayer army in order to take down thousands of opponents that nearly killed one slayer in a one to one match was considered an acceptable final battle plan and on par for what we should be expecting re: believable solutions against the first Evil, then I don't see why chaining Spike to the wall and having Buffy guard him can't be considered an equally acceptable plan when it came to dealing with the first's trigger.

I agree that the plan in Chosen was just as stupid as the plan to deal with the trigger but this only proves my point, doesn't it?

And as long as we're talking about "good enough" plans to hang your hat on in the fight against evil, what about asking a graduating class to shoot arrows at and engage in combat with a bunch of rabid vampires?

Not one of my favourite episodes and I think Joss took like seventeen writing shortcuts to make Buffy win, but it's not as if Buffy had much of a choice in this situation. The real problem for me was her classmates already knowing that Buffy was protecting them. That was a retcon if I ever saw one.

It sounds cheesy, but analyze just about any other method of defeating a large, looming evil in the series and I think you'll find that to be true.

I disagree. The plans to defeat The Judge, Adam and Glory were sound. And I very much object to the idea of the Scoobies as a bunch of incompetents who never could think of any good plans and needed the writers to bail them out all the time. During much of the series there wasn't even a big bad that was any stronger than Buffy.

That's actually one of the things I like best about the show. It isn't "The Art of War" after all; it's a show about relationships above all.

Isn't that a strawman argument? A show doesn't need to be like The Art of War in order to have protagonists who defeat the antagonists without any deus ex machinas or other kinds of blatant help from the writers. Also, the relationships between the characters suffer because of the myriad of plotholes. Like Buffy's blind trust in Spike which is obviously supposed to be oh, so romantic and yet I can hardly think of it of anything but showing how incredibly stupid Buffy was.

And why do you even bother debating the plot holes if the plot mechanics are so irrelevant for you?

And I would say that it's equally wrong to assume that just because things could have not worked out well in the end means the characters should have assumed they wouldn't.

Well, things could have worked out but this depended on the extremely unlikely scenario of the First not pressing its "I win" button. Might as well claim that a hypothetical scenario of the Scoobies letting Oz roam around the town in his wolf form wouldn't be criminally irresponsible of them just because there would be a very small chance that he would only have chased vampires and demons instead of humans.

The only reason why Spike did so much damage was because neither he nor the slayer had any idea what he was doing. Once they did, even if they failed to keep him under control, he wouldn't get very far before Buffy could do something about it.

Says who? Let's say Buffy is at work or on her date with Wood or wherever and Spike decides to kill everyone in her house. There is a chance of Willow managing to stop him but assuming the First wasn't braindead (quite a bold assumption but bear with me) it would want her dead first. Sure, the idea that only Buffy was the obstacle towards the First's world domination was silly considering his minions wouldn't live two minutes against modern weapons but that was the story of S7. With everyone else dead and Spike turning against her, Buffy probably would have gone catatonic again or at the very least would have been an easy prey for the First's minions.

No one is claiming that Spike could have resisted the First.

Buffy had a whole speech about how she saw Spike's penis...sorry, penance in Never Leave Me (m god, that is some of the worst writing I have ever seen) after he attacked Andrew. Granted, she also wanted to keep him chained at this point, so this was mostly an excuse to throw in the shippy melodrama but still. Or maybe I just wanted to rant against this ridiculous scene. 😀

 

[Willow My Love]

By the time Buffy had decided to remove the chip, Spike had a soul and was a human being for all intents and purposes. He deserved to be given free will. Taking that away from him would be cruel. Why not argue that Angel should be chipped too? At that point both vampires had souls. Why, in the case of one, let his past dictate how to proceed where his free will is concerned, yet call the other one a champion and pretend that Angelus is some totally unrelated creature?

First off, human beings don't drink blood to survive. He had the soul he was given when he was human, yes, but he was still a vampire, and to think any differently is absurd.

Soul or not, old grudges die hard. The chip was the only reason he got his soul, because he couldn't hurt people any more, and it forced him to be around Buffy more and develop feelings for her. Besides, who's to say that now that he got it out, he wouldn't go to have his soul taken away? It's a possibility. And then he's William the Bloody all over again, so yes, Giles' anger was justified. He didn't trust Spike.

It also had to do with Buffy not talking to Giles about it. I think he was hurt as well.

Um. When did I go to a parallel universe where I stated my feelings about Angel at all in this conversation? I see no where that I said that I thought Angel was a champion and pretended he wasn't evil, or that Angelus isn't a part of him. We're talking about Spike here. Angel and Spike are incredibly different. Simply because they both have souls is not enough reason to compare them.

 

[dexeded]

I feel the need to clarify something here, for everyone who's arguing about Giles being justified. We're talking about not if Giles was right, but if he had the grounds to believe so, right? If it was in character, considering his past experiences with vamps as well as what Spike has proven etc..

I personally think he was not justified. S7 wrote Giles terribly. We all know his issues with souled vamps and unsouled vamps, but Giles wouldn't have teamed up with Robin to off Spike, especially since Robin's motive was a personal vendetta. Plus, there's no way that Robin would be able to feasibly defeat Spike, and Giles must've known it. As for the justified bit about Giles' anger at Spike's chip getting removed, I think Giles would have been angry, but more at Buffy not informing him than an actual threat. The trigger thing, which was the true danger, still worked even with the chip.

First off, human beings don't drink blood to survive. He had the soul he was given when he was human, yes, but he was still a vampire, and to think any differently is absurd.

Soul or not, old grudges die hard. The chip was the only reason he got his soul, because he couldn't hurt people any more, and it forced him to be around Buffy more and develop feelings for her. Besides, who's to say that now that he got it out, he wouldn't go to have his soul taken away? It's a possibility. And then he's William the Bloody all over again, so yes, Giles' anger was justified. He didn't trust Spike.

It also had to do with Buffy not talking to Giles about it. I think he was hurt as well.

Um. When did I go to a parallel universe where I stated my feelings about Angel at all in this conversation? I see no where that I said that I thought Angel was a champion and pretended he wasn't evil, or that Angelus isn't a part of him. We're talking about Spike here. Angel and Spike are incredibly different. Simply because they both have souls is not enough reason to compare them.

The chip was the only reason he got his soul? The chip was the catalyst that set him on his path of 'turning good', even if it were for selfish purposes (loving Buffy). What motivated him to get his soul was the AR. He saw what a monster he was. He couldn't be a man or a monster--he had to choose. When he went to the cave, he could've easily wished the chip out of his head. But he didn't. He chose to be a man, to gain his soul. So it stands to reason that even though he got his chip out, he wouldn't get rid of his soul, no matter how much torment it gave him, because he already chose. (Plus, going all the way back to Africa and facing the trials to take his soul away? Nuh-uh.)

 

[Gum Gnome33]

First off, human beings don't drink blood to survive. He had the soul he was given when he was human, yes, but he was still a vampire, and to think any differently is absurd.

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.

I see no where that I said that I thought Angel was a champion and pretended he wasn't evil, or that Angelus isn't a part of him.Simply because they both have souls is not enough reason to compare them.

You're right you didn't, and I didn't mean to suggest that you, specifically, were. But for the sake of this argument, they are very comparable. A lot of fans think that Angel and Angelus are to be treated as two separate entities, and that Spike pre soul and post soul are all the same guy. When you said that souled Spike should stay chipped, implying that because of the decisions he made when he was still soulless he could never again be trusted, I made the comparison to Angel. 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?

Besides, who's to say that now that he got it out, he wouldn't go to have his soul taken away? It's a possibility. And then he's William the Bloody all over again

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?

He didn't trust Spike.

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.

It also had to do with Buffy not talking to Giles about it. I think he was hurt as well.

Yes, I agree here.

During much of the series there wasn't even a big bad that was any stronger than Buffy.

Right, like a master vampire who managed to kill her in seconds without so much as a fight, Adam, Glory, Dark Willow, Uber Vamps. Actually, they are all shown to be far stronger than Buffy.

And why do you even bother debating the plot holes if the plot mechanics are so irrelevant for you?

Because usually I am the one saying, "yes, I know said plan is weak but it's the overall message that I care about." I did that for like 100 posts back when we were arguing about whether the plan in "Showtime" made any sense, and I stated that the best thing is that Buffy wins because she has to, not because she's a mastermind. The plot holes that I debate strongly are the ones that occur in the personalities of individual characters, or in the relationships among them. Because, like I said, I believe that is what the show is really about. If I really sat and analyzed whether the plan that the scoobies came up with to defeat them was so air-tight, I would go nuts. Joss himself admits to having holes where that is concerned.

Says who? Let's say Buffy is at work or on her date with Wood or wherever and Spike decides to kill everyone in her house.

Because you brought it up, ok, let's talk about this plot hole! 🙂 It's ridiculous, I agree. It's before they discover that the First is "done" with Spike, and after the discussion about Spike staying chained up or around Buffy. It makes no sense that he's wandering around in this episode. *shrugs.*

 

[Icarium]

The plot holes that I debate strongly are the ones that occur in the personalities of individual characters, or in the relationships among them.

But as I said it can be downright impossible to assess characters and their actions without making sense of the context. If you think that Buffy is a good leader based on nothing but the plot saying so as is the party line of S7 you would be bound to be pissed at Scoobies in Empty Places. But if actually analyse the situation properly and notice that Buffy's leadership would lead to disaster unless the writers help her then you would be on the Scoobies' side. If you go with the show's party line that Anya and Spike were harmless you wouldn't think that letting them join the gang is hugely OOC. But if you actually consider Anya and Spike's past, suddenly this starts looking hugely OOC, not just for the Scoobies but for Anya and Spike too. If you go with the flow you wouldn't ask why Buffy didn't ask Riley and his commandos or the English coven that made Giles almost as strong as Dark Willow for help in the battle with the First. If you don't, this is yet another huge flaw of Buffy's leadership.

Moreover, anyone can write a story where the outcome the author desires ends up happening. The tough thing is to make it all seem believable. In the case of BtVS I like the victories to feel earned. What's the point of making the Big Bad so powerful when the ways to defeat it are so stupid that they would probably not have worked even against Lyle Gorch and the likes back when the show was actually well written? Maybe it's because I have seen this happens too much on TV or in movies or books but there are very few stories that are so mind-numbingly boring for me than the good guys defeating the villain for no reason other than the plot saying so. Was early BtVS ideal in that respect? Hell, no. Was it a far cry from the "Buffy wins because I say so, I am too bored to explain why" mentality of S7? I would argue that it was.