Question Spike Over-Saturated?

[HushSarah]

I've been thinking about this for a long time and I believe I've come to the conclusion on something that has been bugging me since 2002 up until my recent rewatch.

What was the reason behind Spike being over-saturated in Season 6?

Was Joss listening to the Spike/Spuffy stans online too much or did he really want Spike/Spuffy to be more front and center for the entirety of the season?

I was a huge Spike fan from Season 2 & 4, and even I thought he was everywhere this season. It seemed like the more Spike was included in the A plots, the more mature, almost soft core porn the show had gotten which felt derailing. And I understand that Joss had some reservations about bringing the show back, which explains S7 being mostly phoned in, but it seemed like Buffy wasn't important unless she was attached to Spike. I am a Spike fan, but it feels like a chocolate bar to me. If I eat it too much I start to get sick from the taste. I didn't think I would but I did feel myself rolling my eyes at the writers plugging him into situations where it wasn't always necessary. Where Buffy could have opened up to her friends more than a vampire obsessed with her.

Obviously, they couldn't bring Angel back and they needed Buffy to have a love interest, but did Spike need to have a prominent presence in every aspect of Buffy's life? Was this a sort of "realistic" approach the writers were going for with his character? As much as I love him, he got irritating and shoe-honed after a while, halfway through the season, I remember shouting at my TV for a lot of the second half of the season.

Maybe it's just me feeling this way, but every time I re-watch the season I get irked with a bitter taste in my mouth whenever Spike's name or scene comes up in the final seasons.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

If you go through every episode of S6 and look at who the central characters are in each one, I think you'll quickly find that Spike is not as important as you may have remembered. He has memorable scenes in most episodes, but the stories rarely revolve around him.

For example, he is completely removed from the action in the the three climactic episodes, and he is the least important character in the opening two-parter.

And in the most Spike-heavy episodes like "Smashed" and "Dead Things" have a lot of stuff going on that does not relate to Spike. None of the big Spike-episodes, such as "School Hard," "Lovers Walk," "Fool For Love," "Crush," "LMPTM" or "Destiny" are in S6. "Smashed" is by far the closest to a Spike-centric episode, but with the parallel Willow-story, Amy, Tara/Dawn, The Trio, Buffy and all the other stuff it's a bit of a stretch. You could say the same about "Lovers Walk," I guess, but Spike still has more scenes in "Lovers Walk."

 

[one eyed chicklet]

I don’t think he’s oversaturated but I just think the nature of the scenes make them more memerable so it feels like hes in it more.

 

[thetopher]

I agree. Even if there's no reason for him to be in the current storyline the writers shoe-horned him in; there are several episodes where its just 'its the middle of the day and Spike shows up in a blanket to get involved with the hi-jinx lol', with bonus points if he's wearing something stupid. Tabula Rasa, 'Gone', 'Older And Far Away'; there are incredibly flimsy reasons for him to show up when he does. It gets distracting.
And then there's the end where Spike even gets his own little sub-plot/quest thing away from Sunnydale. No other character on BtVS gets that apart from Buffy herself in S3 (1 episode) and Willow in S7 (2 episodes).

However the over-saturation becomes far worse in S7.

 

[Taake]

I think part of the problem is that Spike is typically alone with Buffy, which makes his presence more felt than if it had been more dispersed in a group setting. The isolation of Spuffy is definitely a problem, and I feel even Spuffy fans sometimes find this grating. It makes sense in season 6, but I agree it leads to a feeling of over saturation when it comes to Spike, because he's always around, whether it makes sense or not, and when he's around the Scoobies become little more than set-dressing.

In season 6 he doesn't have that many plots of his own but he is the character who is there for all of Buffy's significant moments, like realizing she had clawed herself out her grave in the opening of the season, finding out she was in heaven, stopping her dance in OMWF, being with her when she realizes she's not Joan in Tabula Rasa, etc etc... which makes him feel like a pretty front and center character, much more so than the Scoobies. Like Dawn's klepto subplot feels more filler than significant, whereas Spike even just bringing a date to Xander's and Anya's wedding seems to get more of an emotional response from Buffy. The show is in essence telling us that Spike is the most important person in Buffy's life, over and over again, because when he's around it seems he's the only person in her life (who matters). For me this was a lack of balance that turned me against the character because, as you say, it was like eating too much of a chocolate bar.

But we all have different tolerances for what is or isn't too much chocolate, so what was over-saturation to me, was probably barely enough for others.

 

[Ceadsearc03]

I agree. I’m sure part of it was that I really liked pre-Spuffy Spike, so it felt like he was just everywhere AND I didn’t like it. I do agree with the above comment about the scenes being one on one and that making it seem like more, though.

I don’t know if it was Joss or who that pushed the storyline that much but I do remember even SMG had issues with what was going on. (Not Spike being there specifically but the course the season took.)

 

[katmobile]

I think Spike actually came from the fact people liked him. I also think that season six was the writers kicking back against it saying you shouldn't be rooting for this guy but also making it so if you did it by the end it fitted with their morality you did. I know people have a wide variety of reactions it if they agreed with that or it worked for them but that I strongly believe was the intent. Hmmm a lot of plot did centre on Spike in the last two seasons and the mileage on if it was too much or not is going to vary radically according to what you feel and your interest levels in that.

 

[one eyed chicklet]

Also, I think Spike being in it was more about Buffy ( from gone to as you were) because a lot of the time it was her who sought him out. This season is very much about addiction and I think having Spike around a fair amount was kind of pointed out the issue more that he was taking over Buffy’s life, kind of like Willow with her magic stuff. I don’t really have a big problem with how much he was in season 6 because to me it was perfectly in character for Spike to want to be involved a lot more than he was, I wasn’t suprised that he was around Buffy a lot because he was desperate for her to love him. Although, his appearances do seem to come more dull after Smashed.
I think it was important for everyone to understand that falling in love with Buffy does not equal being redeemed.
Also Spike fighting for his soul was necessary because I think we needed to see him suffer for him to ever be redeemable to the audience. Personally if I didn’t see that and it was revealed to the audience at the same time as the scoobies I would have a bigger problem with him.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

S4-6 are all Scooby-saturated. That is true of Xander and Willow, but even more so of the supporting cast. Cordelia and Oz rarely got the kind of attention that Anya and Tara got. The added focus on character is what I like the most about the post high school seasons.

 

[HushSarah]

Spike was initially introduced as a Deadpool-like vampire and he was solid all throughout Season 2. But after Season 5-7, especially the episode "Crush" it got forced. This reminds me of the show Arrow and the character Felicity Smoak. Was meant to be a one off character but the audience loved them so the writers throw any and all plot armor at them to keep them on as long as they want to. Only in this case, I think Spike was more likable because of James' sick performance, Felicity is just a nagging control freak Mary Sue. I just hated how much they overused his character just because of the public's admiration. Even Cordelia was scaled back some in Season 3 and Joss said point blank that Spike was meant to be brought back as the Cordelia/comic relief.

Also, how come they never explained why Spike can hit Buffy, a human, without the chip hurting him? Every time I watch that over it bugs me. Tara said some small exposition on it but I feel like the chip arc was meant to give him plot armor so he can crash the scoobies but yet not officially be a scoobie. Season 4 made it funny, sure, but then he started having creepy dreams about Buffy and became more of a love interest Gary Stu than an actual character.

 

[TriBel]

Was Joss listening to the Spike/Spuffy stans online too much or did he really want Spike/Spuffy to be more front and center for the entirety of the season?

He claims he didn't listen to B/A fans objections (I'll find the quote if I can) when he split B&A so why should he allow B/S fans to dictate the direction of his work? According to this (below), he likes Spike as a character. He also implies he had long-term "plans" from the beginning (without knowing what the plans were):

Interviewer: So when did you realize that Spike was more than just a villain?

Joss Whedon: Pretty much when James Marsters auditioned for it. Spike was, you know... Spike was somebody that I loved conceptually, and then James just brought and then kept on bringing. So it was a pretty gradual process, but it was always happening.

Interviewer: A unique transition in that character from just a villain to almost the typical anti-hero. And yet never completely there.

Joss Whedon: As a villain he was... you know, the Master that we started with was a straight up villain, like, his belief system was just evil. And what was fun about Spike was, I said, okay, that's great and Mark Metcalf did a wonderful job, but now we need a villain that we can relate to in the way that we're relating to our other people, so that thematically they can become useful. So to introduce this guy who is clearly "oh, I'm such a badass" and then have him very tenderly in love with another vampire... from the very beginning the idea was, well, he's not just a cardboard. He's gonna have levels to play. How many I didn't at the time realize, but in a way, he really didn't change that much. He's a character that I always liked a little bit more than Angel, because...

Interviewer: He's got more of an edge.

Joss Whedon: He was more evolved, though. He had more of an edge, but at the same time, you know, he chose to have a soul. He learned from his mistakes and he -- Angel was kinda the classic Lestat puffy shirt, you know? And Spike was sort of the new mod rebellion against that, so I like that character. I always, always thought he was a good guy, even when he was a bad guy. (The Write Environment, 2008)

My own personal take on it is, in terms of the concepts they represent, B&S together function as a dialect. Each is the catalyst for change in the other and this allows Whedon to map out a new subjectivity, a new way of "being". (I should add, my personal take is both theoretically convoluted and bloody boring).

Also, how come they never explained why Spike can hit Buffy, a human, without the chip hurting him?

Buffy came back different - Tara notes this. It's Buffy and Spike's reading of the situation that categorizes difference as "wrong" and I think they're doing this because they're speaking as polar opposites, as characters who inhabit different worlds/different realities - singular worlds rather than one world made up of pluralities. Life Serial posits the idea of the "Social Construction of Reality":
WILLOW: (lowers hand, speaks to Mike) Because social phenomena don't have unproblematic objective existences. They have to be interpreted and given meanings by those who encounter them. (Buffy stares at Willow) MIKE: (O.S.) Nicely put. So, Ruby, does that mean there are countless realities?

As for Buffy being a human, the definition of "human" isn't a timeless one. There have been periods in history when women, black people and Jews have all been considered less than human. What Buffy thinks and what the text thinks aren't always compatible. What we see in S7 is a deconstruction of previous ways of thinking.

Spike's behaviour towards Buffy changes from Smashed because the chip tells him she's a demon (prior to this he has her on a pedestal - she epitomised humanity). He treats her as a demon because he believes she's a demon (Science/Technology tells him so). The question remains as to whether his understanding is inherent or taught. The more he treats her as a demon, the more of a "monster" he becomes. Similarly, the chip firing confirms for her that her difference is monstrous so she cedes to her desire (which she thinks is monstrous) for Spike knowing it's "justified" by the label. It all becomes very self-fulfilling (and incredibly sad).

Let's put it like this - the chip is programmed for Yes/No - it's machine logic. Buffy causes it to malfunction because she's in the space marked by this: /. Put another way, the chip is programmed to differentiate between Blue/Green and Buffy's turquoise. Some languages don't have a word for turquoise - it's either Blue or Green. In effect, what happens through 6/7 is B&S learn they're "turquoise". We might not be told this directly but it's intimated by everything else.

Whedon suggests as much (and I think 6/7 are about objectification and identification).

Objectification and identification are at war but they're at war in the way that people are, that narrative is, that creates art and humanity and life. Like they have to be at war. You have to root for the girl and the monster. It's something nobody wants to admit. Nobody ever wants to admit that there are two sides to anything. They either want to be right or – no, they just want to be right. Sorry, I don't know of that many people that want to be wrong. But the truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle. Joss Whedon on Comic Books, Abusing Language and the Joys of Genre

I should add that the "middle" he's describing here is so contradictory it's also described as the impossible middle.

As for the original question, I'd go along with what @WillowFromBuffy and others have said. It's his relationship to Buffy that pushes him into the spotlight (see Restless and Storyteller) and this relationship is the vehicle for something else. Whether Whedon's "message" could have been conveyed differently, I don't know. I don't think Spike's singularity could be substituted.

Spike was meant to be brought back as the Cordelia/comic relief.

Okay...but see Freud on comedy and jokes and their relation to the unconscious. Comedy allows for the expression of our deepest sexual, aggressive and cynical thoughts and feelings which would otherwise remain repressed.

 

[thetopher]

I always, always thought he was a good guy, even when he was a bad guy.

lol. The inherent problem with Spike in a nutshell. 'Vampires are evil, except Spike who is good 'cuz reasons.'

 

[Dora]

Here is my view and it will probably get taken down by the mods as anti Spike
here it is
(A) Spike was a fans favourite he was supposed to die in S2 but was saved by fan pressure
(B) James Marster was very friendly with Joss Whedon it is said that he used to take his guitar around to Whedon's home to play and sing giving JW the inspiration for OMWF
(C) Marti Noxon had a thing about JM , let's face it he was naked or had his shirt off for no reason in S6, and when some fans posted about this her reply was who would not want to see James naked
(D) After mid way through S5 what do you do with Spikes storyline if you don't get him with Buffy ? , in fact until he dies at the end what is he's story , what did he do that actually change the events of the final outcome , small things like kill the demon that came through the portal you did not need the demon to come through , or him giving Buffy the Riley talk after she was told to leave her house , can you see the Scoobies taking faith side against Buffy really ? Even Buffy coming back wrong in S6 was just to push Spike / Spuffy story it again had nothing to do with either main big bads the trio or dark Willow
(E) By the latter part of S7 Buffy had become the Spike story ,totally dominating the final episodes
So yes was there was a saturation of Spike , and yes I believe With Whedon, Noxon and Epstein fangirling Spuffy and fan pressure it was to the detriment of BTVS as a whole , especially Buffy's Character and SMG personally and why I think most like the earlier seasons best

 

[katmobile]

People always say "'cos reasons" when they either can't understand or don't want to understand them. What happened with Spike is a perfect storm of the uniqueness of who he was and what happened to him. He had a heart and a spark of humanity that lead him back plus an obssession with slayers that turned back to hurt him almost karmically. You can see ensoulment as an enactment of the way a drive can be turned against you if it leads to evil - in the immortal words of Garbage 'what drives you on can drive you mad'.

The ensoulment of Angel could have happened to any vampire vicious enough to have pissed off that Romany tribe enough. But I'll maintain what makes Angel great is the way he fights for and what he sacrifices to keep his soul.

Spike and Angel are both champions but they pay for having a soul in different ways Spike pays for it up front and doesn't have to sacrifice to keep because he fought for it. Angel didn't but he fights for it and accepts the price to keep it.

There's a brilliant essay called The Elect and the Damned which beautifully describes the difference in neutral terms but the deductive leap I've made is that Angel's Myers-Briggs values are all rational and Spike's are all instinctive. Each attracts fans who are of a similar mindset except the problem with rationality is that thinking can be become unhelpfully rigid, other what isn't understand and unable to see that not everything is black and white and rules are more like generalities or guidelines and sometimes singularities occur because a lot of disparate elements come together to create them. I like it when that happens in fiction but some can't cope with 'the rules' being violated. Neither is wrong but you need to understand and see it for what it is and accept that the other viewpoint exists.

Here is my view and it will probably get taken down by the mods as anti Spike
here it is
(A) Spike was a fans favourite he was supposed to die in S2 but was saved by fan pressure
(B) James Marster was very friendly with Joss Whedon it is said that he used to take his guitar around to Whedon's home to play and sing giving JW the inspiration for OMWF
(C) Marti Noxon had a thing about JM , let's face it he was naked or had his shirt off for no reason in S6, and when some fans posted about this her reply was who would not want to see James naked
(D) After mid way through S5 what do you do with Spikes storyline if you don't get him with Buffy ? , in fact until he dies at the end what is he's story , what did he do that actually change the events of the final outcome , small things like kill the demon that came through the portal you did not need the demon to come through , or him giving Buffy the Riley talk after she was told to leave her house , can you see the Scoobies taking faith side against Buffy really ? Even Buffy coming back wrong in S6 was just to push Spike / Spuffy story it again had nothing to do with either main big bads the trio or dark Willow
(E) By the latter part of S7 Buffy had become the Spike story ,totally dominating the final episodes
So yes was there was a saturation of Spike , and yes I believe With Whedon, Noxon and Epstein fangirling Spuffy and fan pressure it was to the detriment of BTVS as a whole , especially Buffy's Character and SMG personally and why I think most like the earlier seasons best

I disagree and think your issues are clouding your judgement but I understand why as much as I can and I understand why you can't see it. Noxon didn't like Spike at first and there's lots of quotes that show that including her describing him as a bad boyfriend to Dru in the Harsh Light of Day commentary an assessment many would disagree with and being a Riley shill basing him on her husband. I remember this because I kinda held that against her at the time.

 

[TriBel]

lol. The inherent problem with Spike in a nutshell. 'Vampires are evil, except Spike who is good 'cuz reasons.'

That's what Whedon said...not me. Personally, I think Spike's singularity can be reasoned but I couldn't fit the reasoning in a nutshell.

It's not the demon that's different but the man. There's seems to be some Oedipal aberration in William (BtVS has a better understanding of Freud than its characters). The Oedipal complex (in a nutshell): "a desire for sexual involvement with the parent of the opposite sex and a concomitant sense of rivalry with the parent of the same sex; a crucial stage in the normal developmental process. …If previous relationships with the parents were relatively loving and nontraumatic, and if parental attitudes were neither excessively prohibitive nor excessively stimulating, the stage is passed through harmoniously. In the presence of trauma, however, there occurs an “infantile neurosis” that is an important forerunner of similar reactions during the child’s adult life".

The aberration is related to infantile neurosis - I think Whedon turns this into a positive (as some re-rewritings of Freud have done). I think he intimates (via B&S) an alternative structure (which, depending on how far you go with it, is either feasible or nigh on impossible). There's a reason Sunnydale - "home sweet home" - implodes.

Oedipus (and the imposition of the incest taboo) is fundamental because it brings desire into being and then channels desire. As a vampire William should cede to his unconscious desire as Liam/Angelus does by killing his father. But - he doesn't (there's no father to kill). What is on offer is the mother but even as a vampire he maintains the incest taboo. He kills her but, symbolically this is different than killing the father. It's this love for the (m)other that's his saving grace. It's also a point of commonality between B&S - both fail to save their mothers; neither is sure they were loved by the mother. Do I think it's coincidence that S12 sees the return of "Joyce" and the (unconvincing) break-up of B&S - nah.

It's far more complex than this - I suspect Whedon's looking at anti-oedipus. I've seen similar models before and I've developed similar modes but usually in relation to literature.

There's the nutshell. Anything else and you're looking at an orchard of walnut trees and a long meandering walk collecting the nuts.

To bring it back to the OP. It's not that the later seasons are saturated with Spike or Spuffy. They're saturated with what each represents.

@Dora "let's face it he was naked or had his shirt off for no reason in S6, and when some fans posted about this her reply was who would not want to see James naked"

And? I can (and do) appreciate Tom Ellis for the same reason. It doesn't preclude me appreciating Lucifer as a whole.

 

[Taake]

Warning, let's remember to be polite to each other and not make assumptions about what will or won't be taken down, what people do or don't understand or what issues they have., it is really rude. We may all be watching the same show, but our viewing experiences are different, the explanations that work for you may not work for others. Infantile neurosis to one, is overinterpretation to another. What is a plot hole to one, is a rich fabric of character growth for another. Whatever our interpretations, this is a fictional show and we can discuss a difference in opinion about a character without getting personal or insulting others. Ok?

 

[thetopher]

That's what Whedon said...not me.

Well duh, I never claimed anything else.

It's not the demon that's different but the man. There's seems to be some Oedipal aberration in William (BtVS has a better understanding of Freud than its characters). The Oedipal complex (in a nutshell): "a desire for sexual involvement with the parent of the opposite sex and a concomitant sense of rivalry with the parent of the same sex; a crucial stage in the normal developmental process. …If previous relationships with the parents were relatively loving and nontraumatic, and if parental attitudes were neither excessively prohibitive nor excessively stimulating, the stage is passed through harmoniously. In the presence of trauma, however, there occurs an “infantile neurosis” that is an important forerunner of similar reactions during the child’s adult life".

The aberration is related to infantile neurosis - I think Whedon turns this into a positive (as some re-rewritings of Freud have done). I think he intimates (via B&S) an alternative structure (which, depending on how far you go with it, is either feasible or nigh on impossible). There's a reason Sunnydale - "home sweet home" - implodes.

Oedipus (and the imposition of the incest taboo) is fundamental because it brings desire into being and then channels desire. As a vampire William should cede to his unconscious desire as Liam/Angelus does by killing his father. But - he doesn't (there's no father to kill). What is on offer is the mother but even as a vampire he maintains the incest taboo. He kills her but, symbolically this is different than killing the father. It's this love for the (m)other that's his saving grace. It's also a point of commonality between B&S - both fail to save their mothers; neither is sure they were loved by the mother. Do I think it's coincidence that S12 sees the return of "Joyce" and the (unconvincing) break-up of B&S - nah.

This is just speculative fluff.
There is no in-verse explanation as to why a demon- Spike- was actually 'different from all others' and decided to be good. Sorry, not 'good', but 'gooder'/better than he was, given that he was somehow special all along.
You can come up with any theory you want to justify the story that was told, but its just unsubstatiated theory. Basically 'cuz reason that i have'.

 

[katmobile]

Well duh, I never claimed anything else.



This is just speculative fluff.
There is no in-verse explanation as to why a demon- Spike- was actually 'different from all others' and decided to be good. Sorry, not 'good', but 'gooder'/better than he was, given that he was somehow special all along.
You can come up with any theory you want to justify the story that was told, but its just unsubstatiated theory. Basically 'cuz reason that i have'.

That's your opinion, you'll obviously never change it and in the interests of ploiteness I'll leave at that.

 

[katmobile]

Warning, let's remember to be polite to each other and not make assumptions about what will or won't be taken down, what people do or don't understand or what issues they have., it is really rude. We may all be watching the same show, but our viewing experiences are different, the explanations that work for you may not work for others. Infantile neurosis to one, is overinterpretation to another. What is a plot hole to one, is a rich fabric of character growth for another. Whatever our interpretations, this is a fictional show and we can discuss a difference in opinion about a character without getting personal or insulting others. Ok?

I didn't think I was being rude. Opinions are not formed in a vacuum and pretty much everyone has biases and things that influence them. Also Dora has PMed me about their reasons behind their views so I do understand where they're coming from here and I sympathise I just don't think they're right.

 

[TriBel]

Well duh, I never claimed anything else.



This is just speculative fluff.
There is no in-verse explanation as to why a demon- Spike- was actually 'different from all others' and decided to be good. Sorry, not 'good', but 'gooder'/better than he was, given that he was somehow special all along.
You can come up with any theory you want to justify the story that was told, but its just unsubstatiated theory. Basically 'cuz reason that i have'.

Really? What constitutes "in-verse"? BtVS is a text. What constitutes textuality? Where does text stop and viewer begin? Is it, in your opinion, lisible or scriptable? I'm presuming from what Whedon said about "bring your own subtext" that he considers it the latter. In which case, while I might be looking for a master, I don't anticipate finding one. My "speculation" is absolutely sustainable. I'm not "coming up with a theory", I'm applying theory that already exists to a text. It's a perspective on the text - on a text which is, in it self, concerned with perspective. It's considered good practice in my line of work.

If you want more "evidence", read this (below). I agree with some of it but I'd politely disagree with parts and diverge towards Irigaray and Deleuze. I've copied the opening paragraph because I think it makes valid points (in bold).

"(Re)Cognising the Body: Performativity, Embodiment and Abject Selves in Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a text open to an array of active readings, from liberal feminist readings which praise the surface-level presence of a female super-hero, to those which suggest it abjects race by representing non-white ethnicities as monstrous, vampirous or demonic. As a series dealing with issues of youth, age and maturation, Buffy explores across seven years the lives of a handful of Sunnydale residents in their struggle not only against vampires and demonic monsters, but against the tendency to fall into simplistic dichotomies of value, stereotyped attitudes, and narrow morals. To paraphrase what has been said of the Frankenstein narrative (O'Flinn, 1986), there is no Buffy, only Buffies a point that is particularly to be borne in mind in light of poststructuralist reception theories in which textual meanings are only activated in accord with discursive reading positions or reading formations (Bennett, 1983: 218). However, what is signalled across many possible readings is a narrative on the disruption of embodied identity and the role of the abject in corporeality."

We seem to be digressing away from the topic. In relation to the above, I think what you're looking for is a surface-level reading. It's not something I'm interested in - I prefer "deep structures".