Overreacting to Spike's feelings?

[Lindsey McDonald]

The chip does not make...er...Spikelus into Spike. It is not a soul. He feels no remorse. He's not doing evil. But he wants to. That's not approaching being part of the group. That's not even close.

 

[frankie]

No I think it was a fair reaction. He's a violent and dangerous. The group are a convenience to him, help them out - don't get staked. He'd kill them if he could, it's in his nature. His " love " for Buffy is legitimate I think, but so what! He loves her a lot and hopes to kill her friends. Not the best selling point in love declaration.
In the latter part of season 5 he proves that he can think of the group and not just Buffy. He won't sell out Dawn, he'll feel sorrow for Joyce' death and he'll even help save the world. It's a sign to Buffy that he can go beyond just pure lust and think of others. The group telling him to piss off was probably the best thing that could have happened to him. It matured him. In protecting Dawn it earned him a kiss from Buffy and more so, it was an action of heroism that she wouldn't forget. She invited him back into her home and most importantly gave him the job of protecting Dawn. The groups reaction was right and fair and it had a good effect on Spike but season 6 clearly shows that those basic traits of violence are still a part of him and without Buffy to support and urge him to do good, the dark side of him would always come out. After he saw how he hurt her he set out to change himself, to become better and gain a soul. A part of me always thought that if Buffy hadn't been changed so much by being brought back from death and still resembled the season 5 version we knew - then Spike could have been a hero without the soul because she would have helped him to be. It didn't play out that way though, he needed the soul to urge himself on and be a good guy.

 

[TaylorSwift]

I don't think Buffy overreacted. Let's remember Spike was considered "safe" in season5 just because of the chip..that's why they didn't stake him good and proper when it was the time. They all know how vital "obsession" or "love" are a part of Spike's world. They know that kind of attention from a former dangerous vampire who ran around with Angelus of all, can be quite tricky. He had previously showed the gang how violent he was and that his affection for women is basically linked to violent behavior. When he wanted to do that love spell on Drusilla, he kidnapped Willow and Xander and beat them without even thinking, just to gain Drusilla back. It's what you expect from a vampire and it's what they expect from Spike of course. If he's in love with Buffy, where this obsession of his is going to take him?? I think that's what they were all thinking in Crush and further episodes.

 

[PrincessBuffy16]

I think they tried to make it funny. Vampire in love with a Slayer.. again !? The only difference is that Angel had a soul, Spike didn't at the time.. so many people didn't bought it. They first tried to make his feelings funny, but then they saw a potentialy good couple, and made it serious.

Your point is good, Buffy's reaction was hard, but probably it was that way because she has been fighting evil for years, now evil fell in love with her. I guess that feeling is weird.

 

[StarSlayer]

You would know that his motives were pure? How? He did a LOT to keep Dru alive (ok, undead) in Season 2, and now all of a sudden he's quite happy to kill her. That's the thing with obsession. It doesn't last. And Spike's shown all the signs of throwing one toy away to replace it with another. Doesn't speak to me of him being capable of feeling love. Not at this point.

I don't see it as Spike throwing out one toy for another though when he fell in love with Buffy. In his own crazy way, he did love Dru, wanted to try and win her back, and even blamed her for his feelings for Buffy because she left him, forcing him to come back to Sunnydale. Now, his relationship with Harmony...I think she was the toy Spike tossed around.

 

[Icarium]

2. At this point, Spike hasn't raped anyone.

We don't know that. And even if it's true (which is extremely doubtful) he is still a serial murderer, so...

3. At this point, it was kind of obvious Spike was changing. He had Buffy unconscious... if he really wanted to kill her, all he had to do was say the word and Dru would have done it.

To quote Buffy herself "So you haven't killed anyone lately? Let's be best buds!". He didn't want Buffy dead at that particular point but so what? He is extremely fickle and odds are he will soon change his mind about that. Also, he still wants to kill other people, so he shouldn't be trusted anyway.

He just didn't know how to show her he loved her.

Yes, sure, that was the only problem. The fact that Spike was still itching to go and murder people is irrelevant. Okay...

And of course, Spike wouldn't know how to show his love, considering he is incapable of feeling love the way people with souls can. The last thing he needed was encouragement from Buffy or anyone else, I think we all saw where things went when she did encourage him in season six...

I see it differently i guess. It seems like others are off easy than the rest that is what I am saying. I know he was a killer but by this point you can see his character changing. I didn't just see him as a ruthless killer.

Well, that's your prerogative but can you honestly build a case of the characters seeing Spike as you do? If not, why would you expect them to react the way you do?

I am honestly baffled by the support Spike gets and the criticism of Buffy and her friends. It's not about disliking Spike - I like Anya fine and I still think the Scoobs were freaking idiots to accept her into their ranks just like that. It's about the internal logic of the story. The BtVS mythos leaves absolutely no room for ambiguity - unsouled vampires are evil and should not be trusted. Period. Spike helps the Scoobs from time to time in the episodes before the discussed incident but he also has clearly betrayed their trust no less than three times (that they know of, actually it's more if we include things like hiding Harmony in his lair). And yet people are somehow disappointed by the Scoobs not trusting Spike?!? I don't get it. I really don't.

In fact, I would go further and say that even keeping Spike unstaked is grossly out of character for the Scoobs and incredibly irresponsible of them. Yet, that's somehow okay while hurting Spike's feelings is a big no-no...

 

[StarSlayer]

The BtVS mythos leaves absolutely no room for ambiguity - unsouled vampires are evil and should not be trusted. Period.

I completely disagree. Yes, we have the basic BtVS mythos about vampires, but we began to question all that with Spike, at least I do. In "Crush," Spike could have easily chose the path of evil again. He could have decided to get back together with Dru. She would do the killing and he would drink their blood, which is exactly what happened at the Bronze. But, he didn't. Something inside him (obviously not his soul though) said not to go down that path.

Spike helps the Scoobs from time to time in the episodes before the discussed incident but he also has clearly betrayed their trust no less than three times (that they know of, actually it's more if we include things like hiding Harmony in his lair). And yet people are somehow disappointed by the Scoobs not trusting Spike?!? I don't get it. I really don't.

Some of us just have a lot of sympathy for Spike 🙂 For me, I get somewhat disappointed at times (but I understand where the Scoobies are coming from) only because JM plays the character brilliantly. He makes me sympathize with him, even though I probably shouldn't. It's awesome 🙂

In fact, I would go further and say that even keeping Spike unstaked is grossly out of character for the Scoobs and incredibly irresponsible of them. Yet, that's somehow okay while hurting Spike's feelings is a big no-no...

It was Buffy's call. She didn't want to kill him because she didn't feel right about killing him, if he couldn't really fight back. Maybe that's irresponsible, naive, whatever. But, the way I see it is that Buffy is full of love. She understands that she doesn't have a license to kill just because she's the slayer. Since Spike couldn't kill people or turn them into vampires because of the chip, and the slayer kills vampires to protect people, I think she saw Spike as a rare exception.

 

[Flannen]

I'm also on the 'they didn't overreact' wagon. I don't like Spike, so maybe that's why, in the same way that we make excuses for our favourite characters and sympathise with them at all costs.

Spike hasn't really done anything for them in the sense that it wasn't out of the goodness of his unbeating heart. As someone else said he only 'helped' them when it was helping himself. The kidnap and tying up, which was bad and I don't see how Buffy not being nice to him about it is a justification for him doing so, and came after Buffy herself had caught him in her room going through her clothes. (She did, didn't she? lol) And if we use the excuse Buffy should have been more understanding or he wouldn't have behaved in such a manner screams stay away to me. Not being nice to someone you don't even like, who has tried to kill you, when they tell you that they love you and their immediate reaction is so impulsive is just another reason for them to be concerned about how volatile Spike is with his feelings. And of course they'd rescind his invite into the Summers' home. What would he do next if Buffy continued to send him away?

I do think that Spike did love Dru, as you said StarSlayer, in his own 'crazy' way. Who would want that kind of crazy love for themselves and for their friends? There is an awful lot more justification for how the Scoobies reacted compared to how Spike chose to deal with his rejection.

 

[Icarium]

I completely disagree. Yes, we have the basic BtVS mythos about vampires, but we began to question all that with Spike, at least I do.

Vampires are either fully evil or not fully evil. There is no middle ground. No basic mythos and other mythos. Even if Spike is somehow an exception to the rule, something that the (terribly written, IMO) story never made clear one or the other, back in "I Was Made to Love You" The Scoobs didn't know that, so they couldn't use it as a reason to trust Spike.

It was Buffy's call. She didn't want to kill him because she didn't feel right about killing him, if he could really fight back.

Yet she has no problem killing Bathazar or Gachnar or any random vampire just coming out his grave who are basically sitting ducks who can't fight back either. Theoretically nothing is stopping Spike from recruiting sidekicks and using them to do evil. Heck, he actually does it in Crush and Out of My Mind! The absolute ridiculousness of Spike's presence in the show is shown very clearly when Riley who has plenty of reasons to dust Spike and zero to keep him undead uses a plastic stake instead of wooden one. Also in Checkpoint where the supposedly hardcore Council leaves Spike unstaked too. Why? No reason is given, they just do...

Also, you'd think that after the Angel debacle the very last thing Buffy would want is to take chances with Spike and basically have the blood of his future victims on her hands, yet this never seems to occur to her. The possibility of Spike getting rid of the chip and going on a killing spree again is ignored. Is that really a risk worth taking? Why does Spike have a right to live? As he himself says "Evil, remember?".

 

[Ojuice5001]

It's a whole lot easier to be sympathetic towards Spike in this episode IF we know how his character is going to develop and evolve in the later seasons, and how close he and Buffy will eventually be by Season 7's finale. Seeing him as only the monster that he portrayed from his introduction in Season 2 up until that moment, however, as Buffy and her friends obviously did, it becomes much more understandable.

Come to think of it, Season Five was the first season I saw, so I watched these episodes without knowing too much about either Spike's past or his future. And under that circumstance--when he's just this shady but defanged vampire--he still comes across as pretty sympathetic. At the same time, this just goes to show that in "Crush," the writers were quite right to make it an episode that shows how Spike still has his potential for evil--not in the most ordinary of circumstances, but as soon as he meets up with Drusilla and her plans for restoring the old Spike she knew and loved. Bringing back Drusilla was a great way of showing that Spike is extremely conflicted in both directions.

 

[Lindsey McDonald]

Also, Spike is perfectly happy to stand and watch Drusilla kill two people. I don't have so much of an issue with him drinking the woman's blood. That's icky, but not evil. It's the cavalier disregard for any human life that doesn't help him get his way that shows he really hasn't changed all that much. Two completely innocent people, killed. Maybe he was enjoying himself, maybe it was just to trick Drusilla into trusting him so he could tie her up. Either way, he's still a monster on the inside.

 

[StarSlayer]

Vampires are either fully evil or not fully evil. There is no middle ground. No basic mythos and other mythos. Even if Spike is somehow an exception to the rule, something that the (terribly written, IMO) story never made clear one or the other, back in "I Was Made to Love You" The Scoobs didn't know that, so they couldn't use it as a reason to trust Spike.

There's no middle ground? Come on. From "Intervention" onward, Spike shows that he isn't fully evil, or at least can learn how to be good. To say that vampires are either fully evil or not fully evil, and that there's no gray area, just throws out any room for originality or creativity. For me, that just sounds really boring and predictable. And Spike was never that IMO.

Yet she has no problem killing Bathazar or Gachnar or any random vampire just coming out his grave who are basically sitting ducks who can't fight back either. Theoretically nothing is stopping Spike from recruiting sidekicks and using them to do evil. Heck, he actually does it in Crush and Out of My Mind! The absolute ridiculousness of Spike's presence in the show is shown very clearly when Riley who has plenty of reasons to dust Spike and zero to keep him undead uses a plastic stake instead of wooden one. Also in Checkpoint where the supposedly hardcore Council leaves Spike unstaked too. Why? No reason is given, they just do...

Yeah, but those vampires had no chip. They would have tried to kill her, but Spike literally couldn't anymore with his chip. I don't remember Spike recruiting anyone is "Crush," but I agree he still wanted to kill Buffy in "Out of My Mind." Of course, then he had the dream about Buffy where he began to wonder if his feelings for her were something else and ran deeper. And didn't the council still have stakes with them when they questioned Spike? Maybe Giles or someone told them not to kill Spike because Buffy didn't want Spike dead. But, that's just speculation. For me, I honestly don't need a reason why they didn't kill him.

Also, you'd think that after the Angel debacle the very last thing Buffy would want is to take chances with Spike and basically have the blood of his future victims on her hands, yet this never seems to occur to her. The possibility of Spike getting rid of the chip and going on a killing spree again is ignored. Is that really a risk worth taking? Why does Spike have a right to live? As he himself says "Evil, remember?".

Yeah, you would think, lol. The Scoobies certainly didn't want to take that risk. They wanted Spike dead, chip or no chip. But, I think Buffy felt like she needed Spike because he provided valuable information to them. Even if it was for money, Buffy saw him as useful in her fight against evil. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

 

[Icarium]

There's no middle ground? Come on. From "Intervention" onward, Spike shows that he isn't fully evil, or at least can learn how to be good. To say that vampires are either fully evil or not fully evil, and that there's no gray area, just throws out any room for originality or creativity

Changing the rules mid-story is not creativity, it's bad writing. What if one episode Spike suddenly found out he loved sunbathing and for no apparent reason this wasn't deadly to him? Would you still call it creativity or nonsense?

Yeah, but those vampires had no chip. They would have tried to kill her, but Spike literally couldn't anymore with his chip.

Sure he could, he just would have had the mother of all headaches. At least that's what the dramatic conflict in Fool For Love hinges on. Of course, this makes no sense considering Spike was so desperate for a kill he almost killed himself in Doomed but that's S5 for you...

 

[StarSlayer]

Changing the rules mid-story is not creativity, it's bad writing. What if one episode Spike suddenly found out he loved sunbathing and for no apparent reason this wasn't deadly to him? Would you still call it creativity or nonsense?

What rules? Who says that you must write vampires as always evil throughout a series? What can't a character go through some growth? I don't see that as nonsense. Nonsense to me is making vampires sparkle 🙂

Sure he could, he just would have had the mother of all headaches. At least that's what the dramatic conflict in Fool For Love hinges on. Of course, this makes no sense considering Spike was so desperate for a kill he almost killed himself in Doomed but that's S5 for you...

"Doomed" was s4, when Spike tried to kill himself. His character went through a lot after that up, including "Fool For Love." And it makes perfect sense because at that point in s4, Spike still craved the violence and he thought the way to get that would be to kill people. He was depressed. He then discovered he could fight demons, which satisfied his need for violence. Fast forward to "Fool For Love," Spike hated the way Buffy said he was beneath her. It sparked that rage and violence in him again to kill her, and he didn't care if it would hurt. But, again. Something happened to him that made decide not to kill Buffy and comfort her instead.

 

[zobothehobo]

Fast forward to "Fool For Love," Spike hated the way Buffy said he was beneath her. It sparked that rage and violence in him again to kill her, and he didn't care if it would hurt. But, again. Something happened to him that made decide not to kill Buffy and comfort her instead.

I feel the need to point out, that wasn't rage. That was deep emotional pain. Buffy chose the words "you're beneath me" because she had just heard the story of Cecily and what she said to William the day he got sired. She wanted to hurt him. He was angry at her for that, yes... but it was more than that, he was so hurt. She couldn't hurt him if he didn't care about her and what she thought... That's what happened that made him decided to comfort her... he cared about her... he realized that when he saw her crying on the steps.

 

[Icarium]

What rules? Who says that you must write vampires as always evil throughout a series? What can't a character go through some growth?

A story needs consistency. If in one episode vampires can fly and in the next they can't the author better explain why it is so. The show never explains how come Spike can choose to go fight for his soul, never deals with the repercussions of that. I find this a case of terrible writing.

"Doomed" was s4, when Spike tried to kill himself. His character went through a lot after that up, including "Fool For Love." And it makes perfect sense because at that point in s4, Spike still craved the violence and he thought the way to get that would be to kill people.

I didn't mean Spike's behaviour, I meant the parameters of the chip. One episode it stops Spike from even pointing a gun at someone, in another he plans to kill Buffy with a gun. One episode it relies on intent, in another it can somehow perceive if Tara is a demon or not.

I feel the need to point out, that wasn't rage. That was deep emotional pain. Buffy chose the words "you're beneath me" because she had just heard the story of Cecily and what she said to William the day he got sired. She wanted to hurt him. He was angry at her for that, yes... but it was more than that, he was so hurt.

I tend to laugh out loud at Spike's "pain" in FFL. Why is he so surprised that Buffy finds him to be beneath her? They have thrown insults at each other so many times and now he is shocked, shocked I am telling you that she doesn't think much of him. Good one, Spike. What's your next revelation going to be - you will find out that Drusilla is crazy? The the sun rises daily?

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Why would Buffy feel disgusting that Spike likes her anyway?

Boy, is this a loaded question, and I could write an entire essay on it, but I'll spare you the meta and just say this;

Buffy reacted so strongly and took it so personally because she had feelings for him that she couldn't admit to herself. She felt dirty for having these feelings, so she transferred that guilt to him, hence saying that he made her feel discusting by loving her. For Buffy, Spike was a monster - irredeemable and loathsome. The idea that he could love her was like a slap in the face to her because she didn't believe that a souless vampire had the ability to love. Later, Spike proved he could, showed her differently - but at this point, Buffy didn't think it was possible.

 

[StarSlayer]

A story needs consistency. If in one episode vampires can fly and in the next they can't the author better explain why it is so. The show never explains how come Spike can choose to go fight for his soul, never deals with the repercussions of that. I find this a case of terrible writing.

Spike chose to fight for his soul because of his love for Buffy. Simple as that. His monologue in "Beneath You," that is his whole explanation for getting his soul. How he went to get his soul "to be hers" and to be the kind of man who would never hurt/attempt to rape Buffy. And his explanation is consistent in other episodes. In "Sleeper," Spike said he got his soul for Buffy. In "Never Leave Me," Spike said that he "saw a man about a girl," after Buffy asked how he got his soul back. Buffy later said that he risked everything to become a better man, referring to him fighting for his soul.

The repercussions were that he didn't expect to feel guilty over all his past crimes, and especially guilty for what he did to Buffy. "Angel should have warned me." He just thought that after he got his soul, Buffy would be with him, as Buffy points out as well. But, it wasn't that easy.

I didn't mean Spike's behaviour, I meant the parameters of the chip. One episode it stops Spike from even pointing a gun at someone, in another he plans to kill Buffy with a gun. One episode it relies on intent, in another it can somehow perceive if Tara is a demon or not.

Can't it both? The intent aspect of the chip was also shown in "Fool for Love." And Spike actually never pointed the gun at Buffy. So, the chip didn't have to activate then.

I tend to laugh out loud at Spike's "pain" in FFL. Why is he so surprised that Buffy finds him to be beneath her?

For me, it's not so much that he's surprised by what Buffy says, but that 100+ years later, he's still at the same point he was the night Cecily rejected him. Despite being turned into a vampire, despite his years of violence, and despite killing 2 slayers; he was still a fool for love. And, for him, the truth of what Buffy said was painful, which is why he breaks down crying.

 

[Icarium]

Boy, is this a loaded question, and I could write an entire essay on it, but I'll spare you the meta and just say this;

Buffy reacted so strongly and took it so personally because she had feelings for him that she couldn't admit to herself. She felt dirty for having these feelings, so she transferred that guilt to him, hence saying that he made her feel discusting by loving her. For Buffy, Spike was a monster - irredeemable and loathsome. The idea that he could love her was like a slap in the face to her because she didn't believe that a souless vampire had the ability to love. Later, Spike proved he could, showed her differently - but at this point, Buffy didn't think it was possible.

No offence but this interpretation seems almost insulting for Buffy. She can't be simply repulsed by a psychopath proclaiming his love for her? No, she must actually be hiding her feelings for him? Can you show me any indication Buffy has romantic feelings for Spike at that point?

 

[Marisa]

Well, that's your prerogative but can you honestly build a case of the characters seeing Spike as you do? If not, why would you expect them to react the way you do?

I am honestly baffled by the support Spike gets and the criticism of Buffy and her friends. It's not about disliking Spike - I like Anya fine and I still think the Scoobs were freaking idiots to accept her into their ranks just like that. It's about the internal logic of the story. The BtVS mythos leaves absolutely no room for ambiguity - unsouled vampires are evil and should not be trusted. Period. Spike helps the Scoobs from time to time in the episodes before the discussed incident but he also has clearly betrayed their trust no less than three times (that they know of, actually it's more if we include things like hiding Harmony in his lair). And yet people are somehow disappointed by the Scoobs not trusting Spike?!? I don't get it. I really don't.

In fact, I would go further and say that even keeping Spike unstaked is grossly out of character for the Scoobs and incredibly irresponsible of them. Yet, that's somehow okay while hurting Spike's feelings is a big no-no...

Anya and Spike both had reasons not to be bad Anya lost her power and grew fond of Xander and Spike got the chip and grew fond of Buffy.

I disagree with the vampires without souls are evil and should not be trusted. Even when Spike was at his evilest he could be trusted in a sense. In the end he helped Buffy in Becoming. Also he was changing he just didn't want to be seen as a fluffy vampire. When the other Vamps would criticize him it would get to him. In the end a lot of people will say Spike was evil and only helped because he had the chip I guess that is where the viewers interpretation comes in.

I don't think it was out of character for Spike not to be staked. I will use a example back in season 4 with Oz. Riley just saw it that way Black and White and Buffy and the others see a shade of Grey. I don't know if that will make sense but this world has always been a shade of grey in a sense IMO.

Overall it was how they did it. They were so drastic toward Spike. I don't care if they thought he was dangerous that is one thing they just did it so dramatically and overreacted. I guess in the end all is good because he had proved himself over the years.