Right and that right there is another illustration of the double standard. Spike had that trigger but it was something being done to him he had no control over it until Wood confronted him with it, and yet like you say Giles in particular never trusted him again and it wasn't even Spike's fault, yet with Angel (like DarkAvenger already pointed out) he killed Jenny and Giles eventually was able to see him as an ally again.
I do have to raise one point about the so-called double standards of Giles. He actually stated in Amends that if Angel becomes a threat Buffy may have to kill him, so, how is this different from the situation with Spike? People are mistakenly bringing up Jenny Calender when it's irrelevant. Giles never wanted to kill soulled Spike or Angel out of a vendetta, he merely wondered if Buffy would be strong enough to make the hard choice to kill someone she cared about for the bigger picture. He even used Dawn as an analogy. So no double standards there.
I also don't believe in inherent the strength or weaknesses of Liam/Angel(us) or William/Spike. They are different but both have different strengths and weaknesses.
Let's say for argument's sake that that is true, eventhough I don't for a second believe it was anywhere near that cut and dry. From what we were shown the main reason Angel started the good fight was also Buffy. Whistler showed him Buffy and that is what enticed him to help and then he started helping but for 3 years Buffy was always his priority and hell we find out that even later on AtS he continued to keep tabs on her behind her back. It wasn't until he moved to LA that his reason to fight wasn't to help Buffy. Yet Spike is expected to be a soulless creature and want to save the world and go out and get a soul all without a little incentive? Why don't we give him the same time to come into his own as we did Angel?
I've always thought Angel became a better person because of Buffy and Spike became a better person for Buffy. Neither one is better in my eyes but there is the subtle difference. Spike even states the soul and changes were because it's what he though Buffy wanted.
Angel helped Buffy but it was more about changing his view on mankind. Before he thought mankind existed to hurt one another but htne when he came to Sunnydale he saw differently. It goes back to what I was saying before about thinking about things.
Spike is better at adapting and connecting with the world around him than his inner beliefs. Angel was more about the opposite. Even with a soul he struggles to connect with what's going on around him (See smile time) but he is more thoughtful about philosophical quandaries whether for good (with a soul) or evil (without a soul).
One other interesting thought is that I believe one of the differences between the two is to do with how they approach life. I think Angel(us) is more comtemplative whereas Spike is more of a doer. Angelus always held evil as a belief system but Spike didn't give it much thought. Angel without a soul still had feelings for Buffy but his belief in evil was stronger, although it was centered around her. With a soul Angel places his ideals before love again, in Sanctuary. He loves Buffy but his belief in helping the helpless is the most important thing.
Spike follows his heart more than anything else. I don't believe it was nobility that motivated his actions in Becoming, in fact I don't think it had much to do with the world. Many have been confused between his attitudes in Surprise/Innocence and Becoming but I think the main issue was Dru. He was willing to destroy the world, with the Judge, but I think that was more Dru's impetus and it was more of a case of what princess wants etc. In Becoming I think he's more motivated by getting Dru and his anger towards Angelus. When he gets Dru and he believes Buffy is to die at the hands of Angelus, he shrugs as he leaves even though it would mean the end of the world. So much for his little happy meals on legs speech, he couldn't have been that bothered either way. Had to get that off my chest but...
I completely agree. Its like he felt an obligation to fully embody the bad ass vamp persona when clearly he never even came close to being as purely evil as Angelus was. Spike as we know felt great pressure right after being turned to measure up to Angelus, but even that early on we saw that he had retained some humanity which I think is showcased by the fact that he turned his mother to save her from death rather than just kill her like Angelus an most vamps did with their parents. And then when she instantly was just pure demon and wanted to jump his bones he killed her but it was clear how hurt he was hurt by the whole sequence of events.
I still maintain that all vamps have some sort of humanity but indeed Spike's sensitivity is part of the causal chain that led to his getting a soul etc.
Spike wasn’t the only vampire to retain a part of his humanity, the Judge feels it in Dru as well, as well as the vampire Dalton who he later burns. Many vampires have shown they’re capable of doing all the things we saw soulless Spike do. James, Elizabeth and Dru all showed they were capable of loving somebody, even without a soul, Harmony demonstrated that she to was willing to put her life on the line for Lorne and Eve when she attacks Hamilton and yells for them to run. Like Spike, she was a soulless vampire who risked her own life to help a bunch of good (well Even more or less) people. And like Spike, she was able to show compassion towards somebody as well, she comforted Gunn as he wept over Fred’s death in the same way Spike went to comfort Dawn when she cried over Glory and what she did to Tara.
Agreed.
In my opinion, the chip and the soul *are not* the same thing by a long shot. Spike was a creature who even when he was helping the Scoobies never felt a drop of remorse or guilt for all the people he’d brutally murdered over his sordid history. He was still the same individual who smirks as he talks about Marcus and all the “nasty things” he likes to do to children, he was still the same guy who found pictures of starving children in “those dusty countries” funny, and he was still joking about decorators he ate next to Buffy in ‘Dead Things.’ As far in as ‘Entropy’ he’s maintaining that “if it weren’t for his little handicap” that he’d “do the damage himself” to people like Xander. The chip prevented him from doing any of this and forced him to interact with people whom he’d be trying to kill if he was able to. He tells Riley that if he didn’t have the chip in his head “he’d have killed him long ago.”
I've said before that because Spike doesn't comtemplate morality that much it makes him a difficult case. As you said, he says some pretty heinous things around Season 6 but he's also mr Sensitive in Season 4's The Initiative. The problem is that in Season 6 we have no proof he would have actually drained all the Scoobies (is Spike just postering?) and in Season 4 he was kind of sweet to Willow but he was there to kill her lest we forget.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that soulless Spike was amoral like Riley thought, more that he doesn't think about it that much.
It wasn't until his speech in Shells that I thought, yeah Spike's getting there.
As for guilt in general. I think being overly guilty can lead to self-loathing and self-loathing can lead to dark side etc lol. Also, I'm not entirely sure if we can judge either the soulled vamp or the preceding human on the actions of the vamp, so morally. Dispite his apparent sensitivity Spike still did a lot of damage without a soul. We cannot give him too much credit for not following in Angelus footsteps as largley he didn't find Angelus morally reprehensible, he simply found his style boring, although at first he was quite impressed with it, but without souls can judge them by human standards? Spike like all vamps took on charateristics of the species dispite the retention of humanity. He revelled in the damage he caused but that's generally what vamps do. I don't judge Angel too harshly either.
The main issue I have a problem with is his insensitivity towards Wood and Nikki. most of what he said, wasn't needed. I'm actually not saying he should say boohoo about based on the above...but continuing to wear the jacket of your victim is pretty sick in my view.
All in all, I appreciate both their journeys. I didn't expect some great altruism frm soulless Spike nor do I think he should be chastised so much either. Angel doesn't get any special treatment as such, I just prefer not to look at it like scoreboard. I also don't like the idea that Angel is simply inherently inferior to Spike or vice versa. I think I explained the differences between them and I think in different scenarios, both of their perspectives can be useful. Very random thoughts so...
^ Spike did say, when Buffy asked him why he got it, "to be the kind of man who would nev-- To be a kind of man." I think it was equal parts wanting Buffy and wanting to be a good man for her sake.
I have no doubts that Spike wanted to be a good man for Buffy but I've argued that 'being good' could be more incidental. He was willing to destroy the world for Dru even though he had few apocalyptic tendancies. Was Spike really changing or did his change of morality happened to coincide with his latest love? You decide.
