So, Andrew kills Jonathan...

This topic concerns itself with a great question regarding the show... moral ambiguity.

At the end of the day Spike has revealed himself to be worthy (As a point of proof to this fact, who even questioned Angels fight on the "good side" after it is revealed he has a soul. It interesting watching the first few seasons of Buffy to watch how relaxed everyone is with angel (even Xander really).. Having Angel as a boyfriend is no big deal to her friends because he has a soul....

Spike on the other hand, because we know him as a "blood sucking fiend"; many are easy to reject a new version of himself (ensouled) because of his past actions. He is a new man lets not forget ...any evil sides of his character on screen were shown to be because of the first...

Andrew on the other hand was a human gone bad, its already been pointed out all the terrible things he did (hello? Rape???? ensouled?) Is it a giant leap for Buffy to see him as the bad guy??
 
Warren was more of a big bad then "tucker's brother" I'm extremely glad this isn't a "spike can do no wrong" thing. i hate Spike. I don't know why. Actually, I liked him before he turned into a moping little neutered puppy dog....but Andrew tried to repent too, and come on, Spike did all tohse thigs BEFORE he felt the need to repent, so...does it really count?
 
^ Spike felt the need to repent as soon as he fell in love with Buffy. Not for the attempted rape, obviously, as that hadn't happened yet. But for all the other horrible things he's done.
Sure, it was because he was in love with her and wanted to impress her, but IMO, yes it still counts. His motivation was selfish, but he helped others, bottom line. His actions were generous and driven by love, which I find to be kind of beautiful, actually.

I agree that Warren was worse than Andrew. But Andrew was his little puppet, his right-hand man. And that does mean he should be held accountable.

Joan the Vampire Slayer agrees: Well, actually, Andrew didn't rape Katrina..although it appeared he was willing too.
Click to expand...
That's why I said "nearly" raped a woman. 🙂
 
I'm saying, Spike wasn't hurting anyone with (most of) these actions. He was doing selfless deeds for selfish reasons, but in the process of doing these deeds, he was not harming anyone. So it's not exactly "the ends justifies the means" although I know it sounds that way.
Some people are really bothered by the fact that he only did good things because he loved Buffy, but that doesn't bother me. He did some great stuff out of love. Where's the bad there? We're all motivated by love in one way or another.
 
JasperFan said:
Warren was more of a big bad then "tucker's brother" I'm extremely glad this isn't a "spike can do no wrong" thing. i hate Spike. I don't know why. Actually, I liked him before he turned into a moping little neutered puppy dog....but Andrew tried to repent too, and come on, Spike did all tohse thigs BEFORE he felt the need to repent, so...does it really count?
Click to expand...

If you hate a character, you should know why. Then you can intelligently argue your stance 🙂
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
fly on the wall said:
I'm saying, Spike wasn't hurting anyone with (most of) these actions. He was doing selfless deeds for selfish reasons, but in the process of doing these deeds, he was not harming anyone. So it's not exactly "the ends justifies the means" although I know it sounds that way.
Some people are really bothered by the fact that he only did good things because he loved Buffy, but that doesn't bother me. He did some great stuff out of love. Where's the bad there? We're all motivated by love in one way or another.
Click to expand...

See, all of Spike's actions were always modivated by, inspired by, and as a result of love. He's a "fool for love", "love's bitch", and a hopeless romantic and he admits it. no matter what the reason for doing good- he did it. That's all that matters. He was inspired to get a soul, to be a better man, as a result of loving Buffy. And well said, flyonthewall. We ARE all modivated by love, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But this is a convo for another thread 🙂
 
Likin' this thread, JtVS!

I always thought Andrew was called a "murderer" and whatnot because he did the killing on his own. Granted, the First was whispering in his ear, and I think he should have been forgiven or at least excused for that, but ultimately he had a choice. Spike, on the other hand, was triggered by the First and was basically turned into a rabid attack dog; hence Buffy saying, "Spike didn't have free will. You did." All in all, though, they treated Andrew pretty well for a guy who'd been part of the villainous trio in the previous season, so I don't think he was complaining too much. 🙂

There are lots of potential Spike arguments going on in here, as well, but I think I'll just say that I think Spike paid full and well for the crimes he'd committed. In fact, I think he went through absolute hell trying to gain himself redemption. And he succeeded.

And also, I agree completely about Spike being motivated by love. There are selfless people like Buffy who will do something because it is simply and innately the right thing to do, but there are other people who need something more tangible to grasp than an ideal. I've never had a problem with Spike doing good through love; in fact, I've always found it the highlight of his character.
 
Joan the Vampire Slayer
Joan the Vampire Slayer
This post is brilliant. I completely agree. :)
J. Ruby
J. Ruby
Agreed. (And your sig seems oddly fitting.)
I should probably know why....I THINK it's the fact that he was all funny and badass then he fell for buffy and went all whimpering and wussy...that was the chip too though....damn military...

I mean, I LOVED him in Lovers walk....funny, funny...some good one liners
 
Spike was controlled, Andrew wasn't
Spike has a soul now and so far hadn't done anything than Andrew while in possession of that soul
 
I love Andrew, he's one of the most entertaining characters, but even if he believed what The First told him, he still killed Jonathan. Just because "Warren" told him to. I don't know how forgivable that is, because I believe killing an innocent person knowingly is one of the worst things you could possibly do.

But Buffy's treatment of him did annoy me. A lot.
 
All right, I'm going to preface this by saying that I love all the characters I'm about to talk about (actually, I like almost all of the characters, period) so none of this is "Spike bashing", or "Andrew bashing", etc. I just feel like you can objectionally analyze the characters without hating them as characters. This should be self-explanatory but it seems like a few people really have trouble with this. Okay, moving on.

As others have pointed out, the Andrew situation was quite different from the Spike situation. Spike was being worked over by a form of mind control, really. Andrew was more or less talked into killing Jonathen. True, he wouldn't have killed Jonathen without the influence of The First, but I don't think a person is entitled to a "get out of jail free card" just because someone else talked them into doing something bad. No one really forced him to listen to The First. He chose to, even admitting he knew it couldn't really have been Warren talking to him. If Angel isn't to be held accountable for all of Angelus's crimes, Spike shouldn't be held accountable for everything he did pre-soul either. I think part of the reason people have trouble with this is because James portrayed Spike in much the same manner with a soul as he did without a soul. But the point stands that The First controlled Spike. It merely manipulated Andrew. So Buffy isn't just being biased. She treats Spike better than Andrew because Andrew has done a very bad thing and doesn't have a really reasonable excuse for it.

Now, here's the thing. I'm really surprised everyone is focusing on her treatment of Andrew in contrast to her treatment of Spike when a better comparison could be made. No one has mentioned Anya. Like Andrew, Anya has killed without the excuse of "not having a soul" or being controlled by The First. While we never get an exact figure, we do know she has probably killed many, MANY more people than Andrew and cursed many more beyond that. And she's doing it again at the start of season seven. Now, of course in season 7, she gets the convenient option of taking her murders back. Andrew doesn't get that option, but it's pretty clear he would have taken it back if he could have. So does that really make Anya any better than him? Realistically, she's probably done many, many more bad deeds than Andrew and she is welcomed into the Slayer's inner circle very easily and no one really even suggests holding her accountable for what she's done until she starts doing it again at the beginning of season 7.
 
Revolver said:
Now, here's the thing. I'm really surprised everyone is focusing on her treatment of Andrew in contrast to her treatment of Spike when a better comparison could be made. No one has mentioned Anya. Like Andrew, Anya has killed without the excuse of "not having a soul" or being controlled by The First. While we never get an exact figure, we do know she has probably killed many, MANY more people than Andrew and cursed many more beyond that. And she's doing it again at the start of season seven. Now, of course in season 7, she gets the convenient option of taking her murders back. Andrew doesn't get that option, but it's pretty clear he would have taken it back if he could have. So does that really make Anya any better than him? Realistically, she's probably done many, many more bad deeds than Andrew and she is welcomed into the Slayer's inner circle very easily and no one really even suggests holding her accountable for what she's done until she starts doing it again at the beginning of season 7.
Click to expand...
Interesting point.

I think it's kind of like how they treated Angel when they found out he had a soul. Anya had been a vengeance demon for 1000 years, true...but starting in S3, she wasn't anymore. She was a human. We see that certain characters, Willow in particular, are NOT as willing to accept her as others...but at the end of the day, she was a human. She was no longer the demon that had done all those crimes, so they probably felt that they COULDN'T hold her responsible. Until, of course, when she starts it up again S7.
 
But Anya as a demon wasn't like Angel or Spike. She chose to become a demon, and when we see her as a demon in season 7, she is very much the same Anya she had been. Anya had free will, like Andrew. Demon or not, I think she can be held accountable.
 
Yes. Over 1,000 years ago, she chose to become a demon, because she had just been betrayed. And then she got set in her ways. Maybe they should have held her accountable...even so, I don't know about you, but I hold grudges and even I don't think I'd hold a decision someone had made over 1,000 years ago against them.
 
The FIRST time she chose to become a Demon was 1000 years ago, which means by the time of season seven, she'd been killing as recently as four years earlier. And my point was there is nothing said or shown in the series to suggest becoming a demon robbed Anya of her freewill the way it did with Angel, Spike, or vampires in general. When a person gets vamped, a demon sort of takes over. Anya, herself, became the demon. And we can see in season seven that as a demon, she still had her freewill. She was still able to act like herself, and experience human guilt and regrets, etc. As such, why should she be absolved of these crimes just because she was a demon when she did them? And even if we take a leap here and say that Anya didn't have her human freewill as a demon, it wasn't just a choice she made 1000 years ago. By the time she became a VD again in season six, she knew the consequences of becoming one and she still chose to do it. Fortunately for her, she was able to take back the murders she committed during that time. But to use her own words (kind of) against her, that doesn't make her better than Andrew. It makes her luckier. Understand that I love the character of Anya quite a lot, but she isn't really ever held accountable for what she did. Yes, there were circumstances that led to her taking those actions, but there were special circumstances for Andrew too. Both chose to kill. Does this make them bad characters? No, but I think realistically she's at least as bad as he is and if they are to hold Andrew's murder against him, they should probably hold Anya's against her as well.
 
Well, their bias in favor of Anya and against Andrew is probably simply because Anya is their friend, and Andrew isn't.

I also think that characters in the Buffyverse have far more sympathy for demons than we think they could. They don't stake Spike when he's been given his chip. He's still a demon, he's still responsible for the past deaths of others, but they don't kill him because he is no longer able to kill, he's no longer a threat. A similar attitude is taken with Anya. Before S7, she was a person who had killed before but was now living as a human. What should they have done, exactly? Killed her? Locked her up? Ostracized her? Whichever you deem appropriate, they didn't do anything. Anya helped them, they began to like and accept her. In S7, she turns to her demon ways again, and Buffy decides to slay her. But then Anya takes back her murders, is in fact willing to give up her own life to do this. I think that was payment enough for her bad decisions that season.
 
I'm not necessarily saying they should have killed her. They certainly didn't kill Andrew. I'm merely suggesting the extent to which they hold Andrew responsible for his crimes is perhaps somewhat hypocritical given their mostly 'ho-hum' attitude toward Anya, even early on in their friendship with her. In regards to them not staking Spike when he got his chip, however, I completely can't see why they wouldn't stake him. Okay, it makes sense in that A) We wouldn't have Spike on the show anymore and B) in hindsight, Spike becomes good and doesn't deserve to die by season seven. But they couldn't know that in season four (and if they knew any vampire could get their soul back, why stop with Spike and Angel?), so in my opinion they never had a valid enough reason not to stake him. Yes, he was helpless, but is cruelty to completely evil creatures something the world should worry about? Especially since Spike could always have potentially gotten that chip out and killed again, or at the very least, plotted against them in ways the chip could not prevent (summoning forth a demon to do his bidding, perhaps?), etc.
 
Well, that's my point...I believe that despite the fact that the Scoobies are opposed to evil, and hunt and slay demons, they do regard them humanely...when the demon has reformed (Anya), gotten a soul (Angel), lived peacefully and without killing (Clem, the Whistler?), been neutered/rendered incapable to kill (like S4 Spike), etc...the examples of this go on and on.

The Buffyverse is not black and white. In fact, it's probably entirely gray. The whole demons = bad and deserving death does NOT carry over to every demon. I think the problem with Andrew was, he had never been a demon. He had been a human so human rules applied to him. And human rules imply some sort of penance or punishment to atone for his crimes. Whereas a demon simply reforming, or trying to do good despite their demon status, or being cursed with a soul, is enough.
 
I understand shades of grey, but I don't see how it applies in terms of Anya. Demons aren't depicted as being "just evil" on Buffy/Angel, but it doesn't follow that this absolves Anya of her crimes. Angel and Angelus are really two completely different guys, which is why Angel isn't held as accountable for his actions as Anya (I take that back, he's held more accountable but shouldn't necessarily be). The flaw in your logic about demon Anya vs. human Anya is that essentially there is no difference between them other than the powers. We see this as Anya is still bloodthirsty and wants back to the alternate dimension she created when she first becomes human in season three. We again see this when she becomes a demon again in season seven as she still possesses the qualities she gained while she was a human. In other words, Anya voluntarily committed these acts. She may not deserve to die for it, but she certainly should be held to the same rules as Andrew. After all, Angel seeks atonement and he's (in my opinion, at least) less guilty of Angelus's crimes than Anya is for her own.
 
I don't know about what should be done about Anya, seemed cheap she got off completely, she killed more people than Angelus/Spike put together, with a soul. The only thing hat changed back and forth was her physical form (demon/human)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom