Spike's attempted rape

[white avenger]

Well by admitting there is a blind spot, there has to be something you can't see, or else you'd have just kept saying you were right!

😉

No, by admitting that even if there MIGHT be something wrong that I don't see, I am saying that I will never see anything wrong. If I don't see anything wrong, how could I possibly admit that you are right? You can't win, simply because I refuse to admit defeat. None of your so called logic and carefully thought out arguments can ever possibly affect my opinion of Spike, because, to me, nothing that you say is valid. You're a marshmallow trying to beat down a stone wall.

So, pound away, sonny. You'll get tired long before I stop laughing at your futile efforts.

 

[Kean]

No, by admitting that even if there MIGHT be something wrong that I don't see, I am saying that I will never see anything wrong. If I don't see anything wrong, how could I possibly admit that you are right? You can't win, simply because I refuse to admit defeat. None of your so called logic and carefully thought out arguments can ever possibly affect my opinion of Spike, because, to me, nothing that you say is valid. You're a marshmallow trying to beat down a stone wall.

So, pound away, sonny. You'll get tired long before I stop laughing at your futile efforts.

So anyone who disagrees with you doesn't espouse a valid opinion as far you are concerned?

I understand liking a character so much that nothing they do could cause you to turn away from them, but do you really mean that you see nothing wrong with anything Spike has done? Spike, the vampire, has done nothing wrong?

 

[Black Eye Guy]

No, by admitting that even if there MIGHT be something wrong that I don't see, I am saying that I will never see anything wrong. If I don't see anything wrong, how could I possibly admit that you are right? You can't win, simply because I refuse to admit defeat. None of your so called logic and carefully thought out arguments can ever possibly affect my opinion of Spike, because, to me, nothing that you say is valid. You're a marshmallow trying to beat down a stone wall.

So, pound away, sonny. You'll get tired long before I stop laughing at your futile efforts.

Wow that is a powerful pair of rose tinted glasses you wear, they not only work on Spike, but on your posts, lol

You literally said, if you swapped Angel for Spike, you could understand why Buffy could stake him.

So without your bias you see that moment as a slayable offense, with your bias it's a moment that had to happen to lead to the noble Spike getting his soul... I'm not sure how else you could mean that, but that means you think the scene is inexcusable, unless it's Spike, then it's into the blind spot with that scene.

This logic is the exact reason I hate Spike. I've said it many times I find the character boring, but grew to hate him becasue off all the justification, and this is exactly it, something that would have been inexcusable is excusable because it's Spike.

And before you say it, If I swapped Angel into the Seeing Red scene, I would still have the same problem with it. There's a reason you dont get Angel fans going around saying Angel became Twilight to limit the number of slayers killed, it was his excuse in the comic, and the fans still hate it and are still annoyed at the character, they dont chuck it into a blind spot and call it a day.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

For the record, I don't see things through Spike-colored glasses. 😉 I watched the show, prepared to love or hate any character as I saw fit. These guys aren't real, why should it mean any more or less if one of them failed to impress me? I put forth my opinions as a result of my interpretation and if someone in the future makes a really compelling case which convinces me that Spike is a worthless character, I'll believe it! As it is, I've re-evaluated some of my thoughts already. 🙂

So ok, just getting back to the issue(s) at hand for a sec:

1) The inappropriateness of the scene itself and the irresponsible way in which it was handled in the aftermath, specifically with regard to the victim (Buffy's) own experience. This I am completely on board with, no argument there.


2) Spike's motivation in getting the soul and whether he's to get any credit at all for seeking it out.

Here's what I don't understand: why does it have to be so black and white? From what I"ve seen expressed on this thread, it seems that if it's not noble that indeed it must be somehow bad--something to be looked down upon.
Why can't it be something in between? Spike is, himself, very much "something in between" when it comes to morality, development, and behavior.

I am completely ok with the notion that what he did was not noble. I happen to think it was because the inclination came from a vampire for whom it'd have been much easier to go very much in the opposite direction. Relative to his nature, it was noble indeed.

But let's say it isn't. Great. What is it, then? Selfish? You bet. He did it for love. Why's that a strike against him?

I guess what I'm saying is that if you don't want to give him credit for doing a good thing, that's fine. But it comes across somehow as if the soul-getting is actually a ding against him. Why's that?

Here's the thing: there are a lot of terrible people in the world. Criminals. People who for whatever reason have done disgusting, unforgivable things. Undeniably, a victim is under no obligation to forgive them when they show remorse or make any gesture to do the right thing in the wake of their misdeeds. But if these criminals--monsters of all sorts--attempt to do something positive, should that action be disregarded on an objective level?

As I've said, Spike could have re-committed himself to take down Buffy and her whole crew after his attack. He could have killed himself, too. He could have assumed that there would never be anything he could do to make it right and consequently done any number of things that were destructive. Instead, he did something that is undeniably, objectively positive: he became one less vampire without a soul.

So maybe this gesture doesn't make him a good guy. Does it make him a worse one, though?

One more thing to consider when talking about his motivation for getting a soul that I don't think I've mentioned before. When Buffy "breaks up" with him she tells him almost word-for-word that she can't love him because he has no soul. If all Spike wanted from the soul was to make Buffy feel compelled to love him, why not go in search of it right then?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to say that Spike got his soul for fully altruistic reasons--entirely for the purpose of being a good guy and making the world a better place. Obviously a huge part of the impulse was to win Buffy's love. But if the argument is that he did it solely to guilt her into taking her back, or to prove to her that she would love him as long as he had a soul, why not do it earlier? Why is it that he doesn't actually make the move to go until he has hit absolute rock bottom and has realized that he can't be a good man with out the soul, once and for all?

*Bottom line: the timing of Spike's quest for a soul indicates to me that he didn't seek it out for one reason alone; that part of his motivation was to actually change himself for Buffy. Not to prove something to her or make her feel compelled to do something; to actually make himself something better. Again, yes, selfish as hell since he did it for love. But not an act to be disregarded or seen as negative since it wasn't done solely to win an argument or to manipulate.

 

[white avenger]

You literally said, if you swapped Angel for Spike, you could understand why Buffy could stake him.

No, I literally said that if I swapped ANGELUS with Spike in that scene I could understand Buffy staking him. In comparing the two vampires without souls, I can find nothing whatsoever redeemable in Angelus, and I can't, no matter how hard I try, ever imagine him ever feeling the least bit of regret for what he did, or have any desire to willingly get his soul as a step toward atoning for what he tried to do.

Spike, however, even without a soul, I see as a person able to see what he has done and feel genuine remorse for it. I see Spike as being capable of wanting to become a better man in order to show Buffy that he is capable of becoming a better man.

Regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, no matter what his motives were for doing so, Spike, even without a soul, was capable of feeling love and loyalty, and even had a sense of honor, none of which Angelus had. This has been affirmed by Joss himself. Spike was unique among vampires in that he retained the gentler human emotions.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

For the record, I don't see things through Spike-colored glasses. 😉

I totally agree, you actually take the characters actions into consideration to form your opinion, not just pull them out of thin air, becasue you want them to be true.

Here's what I don't understand: why does it have to be so black and white? From what I"ve seen expressed on this thread, it seems that if it's not noble that indeed it must be somehow bad--something to be looked down upon.

I completely agree with that, it's not a bad thing. Although I can understand how it would look like we're trying to argue it's bad, but that wasn't really the intent, the only issue I have with it, is how much credit Spike gets for getting the soul. It wasn't with noble intentions, that to me, shouldn't mean he's praised how he is, but it doesn't make it bad.

I am completely ok with the notion that what he did was not noble. I happen to think it was because the inclination came from a vampire for whom it'd have been much easier to go very much in the opposite direction. Relative to his nature, it was noble indeed.

I get that, although to me, getting a soul was in his nature, cuz he did love Buffy, and he wanted to prove she loved him to. He wanted to get a soul, so she'd have to love him, so I dont think he was going against his nature.

But let's say it isn't. Great. What is it, then? Selfish? You bet. He did it for love. Why's that a strike against him?

To me it is. But thats just personal opinion, I think if he got a soul to be good, thats noble, doing it to get in the girls pants - which is all he understood, thats less noble.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you don't want to give him credit for doing a good thing, that's fine. But it comes across somehow as if the soul-getting is actually a ding against him. Why's that?

I think it might come across like that, when debating against people who's arguments aren't based in evidence from the show, but on what they want the character to be, maybe the arguments get overhyped and come across like it should be a negative. But for me, its not a negative, it's just not as great as people want it to be.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to say that Spike got his soul for fully altruistic reasons--entirely for the purpose of being a good guy and making the world a better place. Obviously a huge part of the impulse was to win Buffy's love. But if the argument is that he did it solely to guilt her into taking her back, or to prove to her that she would love him as long as he had a soul, why not do it earlier? Why is it that he doesn't actually make the move to go until he has hit absolute rock bottom and has realized that he can't be a good man with out the soul, once and for all?

*Bottom line: the timing of Spike's quest for a soul indicates to me that he didn't seek it out for one reason alone; that part of his motivation was to actually change himself for Buffy. Not to prove something to her or make her feel compelled to do something; to actually make himself something better. Again, yes, selfish as hell since he did it for love. But not an act to be disregarded or seen as negative since it wasn't done solely to win an argument or to manipulate.

I'd be lying if I said I agree with this at all 🙂 I pretty much see this as the exact opposite of what you've said.
To me, if getting the soul wasn't just about this moment he would have gotten it before. I would think he didn't get a soul when she said it, becasue he didn't believe her, he doesn't believe her right up to the scene in SR. He think she loves him, how he proves that is by him feeling it when they have sex, he wasn't able to do that so goes to prove it in another way. He also wanted forgiveness for that moment.
If it wasn't just for forgiveness and proof, why wouldn't he have gotten it at any other stage, he shows he has no real understanding of what having a soul actually means, so he wouldn't have thought he could get any better or be loved any more till he needs to actually prove it, and the only way to prove it is to get the soul.
If he didn't believe that, why would he have thought that she'd get the spark when he got a soul - and just to clarify, this is all going by soulless spike logic, which was to the best of his understanding, but it does make up the reason for him getting a soul, not what he does with it once he has it.

No, I literally said that if I swapped ANGELUS with Spike in that scene I could understand Buffy staking him. In comparing the two vampires without souls, I can find nothing whatsoever redeemable in Angelus, and I can't, no matter how hard I try, ever imagine him ever feeling the least bit of regret for what he did, or have any desire to willingly get his soul as a step toward atoning for what he tried to do.

Spike, however, even without a soul, I see as a person able to see what he has done and feel genuine remorse for it. I see Spike as being capable of wanting to become a better man in order to show Buffy that he is capable of becoming a better man.

Can you quote from the show, where Spike says he got it to prove he got a soul to be a better man for the sake of being a hero, and not just to get in her pants? The part where he says he would change once he got a soul and become a better man, I haven't seen it, only the scene where he tells her SHE'D change when he got a soul.

Also as [MENTION=6332]Lyri[/MENTION] said your logic makes no sense, why bother swapping Angelus in for that scene? Spike had 2 years worth of development. You'd be better off swapping School Hard Season 2 Spike into that scene and see if you still think he would be running off to get a soul after what he did?

Regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, no matter what his motives were for doing so, Spike, even without a soul, was capable of feeling love and loyalty, and even had a sense of honor, none of which Angelus had. This has been affirmed by Joss himself. Spike was unique among vampires in that he retained the gentler human emotions.

Relevance? Has anyone said that in this thread? If you read back though it, you'll find I said to Gum Gnome33 multiple times, that Spike is a different vampire, who is capable of love and getting close to pretty much having the conscious of a soul - it's one of my reasons for seeing souled Spike as still a little responsible for what happened in SR, the fact he's capable of that level of understanding makes what he did worse.

The fact your separating them into souled and unsouled in the first part and saying they should be judged as such, then saying how unsouled Spike can love and is unique, but is still a completely different person with a soul, makes no sense to me. Surely that shouldn't matter if everything unsouled Spike did is irrelevant?

Aside from that, we know there is a connection between the two states, so it's not a clean divide down the middle. Angel is fighting to make up for what Angelus did, if the divide was complete, he wouldn't need to do that.

 

[Kean]

2) Spike's motivation in getting the soul and whether he's to get any credit at all for seeking it out.

Here's what I don't understand: why does it have to be so black and white? From what I"ve seen expressed on this thread, it seems that if it's not noble that indeed it must be somehow bad--something to be looked down upon.
Why can't it be something in between? Spike is, himself, very much "something in between" when it comes to morality, development, and behavior.

I don't believe the opinions on the matter are so black and white but rather that in threads like these those are the opinions that end up being showcased. As I'm sure you are well aware (😉) these aren't the nicest threads to take part in. A lot of the time I don't even want to post because it is just so stressful, so I can't imagine someone who doesn't feel conviction to either extreme having much inclination to get involved in discussions such as these.

I am completely ok with the notion that what he did was not noble. I happen to think it was because the inclination came from a vampire for whom it'd have been much easier to go very much in the opposite direction. Relative to his nature, it was noble indeed.

But let's say it isn't. Great. What is it, then? Selfish? You bet. He did it for love. Why's that a strike against him?

I think this ultimately comes down to the narrative each viewer has experienced with Spike. We clearly haven't experienced the same narrative. Spike, to me, is a monster who was muzzled and then adapted to his situation to survive. He isn't special and he certainly didn't change for the love of a good woman. In my opinion, he damn near destroyed that woman. What happened in Seeing Red confirms every thought I've ever had about Spike as a character. My interpretation makes perfect, flawless sense to me within canon. So when you see love, I see a sinister obsession. When Spike says he loves Buffy, he shows it by separating her from her friends, by preying on her fears about her self, by telling her she belongs in the dark with him, by trying to rape her. To me, that is Spike's love. And that is why it is a strike against him.

It is not until Chosen and he tells Buffy he wants to see how it ends that I see nobility and the potential for good, selfless work in Spike.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you don't want to give him credit for doing a good thing, that's fine. But it comes across somehow as if the soul-getting is actually a ding against him. Why's that?

Because to me, he isn't getting a soul to be better. He isn't trying to be a better man. From where I am sitting the only reason he is getting the soul (something I don't believe he believed would change him in any significant way other than making Buffy more amenable to him) is to have sex with Buffy. He hasn't learned from trying to rape her, instead he is now even more determined to have her. To me, he is still forcing himself on her. If Buffy said she couldn't love him because his hair was blonde Spike would have been taking a trip to the salon rather than an African cave. Getting the soul isn't, in my opinion, a significant thing to Spike, possessing Buffy is. Whatever he needed to do to have her, he would have done. And there is no pure emotion in that for me. I have no reason to not see it as a mark against him.

Here's the thing: there are a lot of terrible people in the world. Criminals. People who for whatever reason have done disgusting, unforgivable things. Undeniably, a victim is under no obligation to forgive them when they show remorse or make any gesture to do the right thing in the wake of their misdeeds. But if these criminals--monsters of all sorts--attempt to do something positive, should that action be disregarded on an objective level?

It was accidentally positive, not intentionally so. I don't believe Spike anticipated his reaction to having a soul. I believe he went for it in order to have Buffy, and in my eyes that translates as hurting Buffy.

As I've said, Spike could have re-committed himself to take down Buffy and her whole crew after his attack. He could have killed himself, too. He could have assumed that there would never be anything he could do to make it right and consequently done any number of things that were destructive. Instead, he did something that is undeniably, objectively positive: he became one less vampire without a soul.

The result was positive but for me his intentions were decidedly not. The results Spike rendered were not what he had anticipated nor were they what motivated him in the first place.

So maybe this gesture doesn't make him a good guy. Does it make him a worse one, though?

It makes him exactly who I thought he was: a monster, hell bent on possessing a woman who didn't want him anymore.

One more thing to consider when talking about his motivation for getting a soul that I don't think I've mentioned before. When Buffy "breaks up" with him she tells him almost word-for-word that she can't love him because he has no soul. If all Spike wanted from the soul was to make Buffy feel compelled to love him, why not go in search of it right then?

Because it wasn't until she kicked him across the room that he realised that she wasn't going to "give in." He went looking for the soul then because it was the last resort. He wasn't going to sleep with her again without one.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to say that Spike got his soul for fully altruistic reasons--entirely for the purpose of being a good guy and making the world a better place. Obviously a huge part of the impulse was to win Buffy's love. But if the argument is that he did it solely to guilt her into taking her back, or to prove to her that she would love him as long as he had a soul, why not do it earlier? Why is it that he doesn't actually make the move to go until he has hit absolute rock bottom and has realized that he can't be a good man with out the soul, once and for all?

Same as above. It wasn't about realising he wasn't a good man. It was realising that he wasn't going to be able to have her if he didn't have a soul. He thought it was that simple.

*Bottom line: the timing of Spike's quest for a soul indicates to me that he didn't seek it out for one reason alone; that part of his motivation was to actually change himself for Buffy. Not to prove something to her or make her feel compelled to do something; to actually make himself something better. Again, yes, selfish as hell since he did it for love. But not an act to be disregarded or seen as negative since it wasn't done solely to win an argument or to manipulate.

Same as I said above, it wasn't that he had reached rock bottom himself and was having a personal crisis but that this was the last thing he could do to have Buffy again, he'd tried everything else and it didn't work.

No, I literally said that if I swapped ANGELUS with Spike in that scene I could understand Buffy staking him. In comparing the two vampires without souls, I can find nothing whatsoever redeemable in Angelus, and I can't, no matter how hard I try, ever imagine him ever feeling the least bit of regret for what he did, or have any desire to willingly get his soul as a step toward atoning for what he tried to do.

There is nothing redeemable about Angelus. He is a monster. End of story. There isn't an ounce of good in him and the last thing he would seek out is a soul.

Regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, no matter what his motives were for doing so, Spike, even without a soul, was capable of feeling love and loyalty, and even had a sense of honor, none of which Angelus had. This has been affirmed by Joss himself. Spike was unique among vampires in that he retained the gentler human emotions.

I don't believe soulless Spike was any of those things but for arguments sake, lets say he is, he still isn't the one and only "Special One." There have been several vampires in the verse who have been shown to exhibit human emotion and one who even consciously chose to reject the traditional vampire behavior in favour of more a "human friendly" existence.

Harmony, dimwitted, airhead Harmony chose, of her own accord to not drink human blood. She had no soul, no chip, no band of humans to sway her either way and she decided that all on her own. She goes on to betray those that trusted her but she still made that choice. That is unheard of.

James and Elizabeth were in love for hundreds of years. As twisted as it was, they were committed and proclaimed their love to each other often.

Lawson was tormented by his vampirism. He hated it, his body was in direct contention with what he believed in. He killed for 60 years and felt nothing from it. Not the thrill of the kill that Spike had, not the artistry that Angelus revelled in, just nothing, ashes.

There's probably a few more I've missed, but my point is that Spike wasn't an anomaly, there were plenty of other vamps shirking the "tradition" and embracing different aspects of human life and emotions.

 

[white avenger]

I don't believe soulless Spike was any of those things but for arguments sake, lets say he is, he still isn't the one and only "Special One." There have been several vampires in the verse who have been shown to exhibit human emotion and one who even consciously chose to reject the traditional vampire behavior in favour of more a "human friendly" existence.

But he IS the one and only "special one" in that bathroom with Buffy, and that's why I'm defending him. And no, he isn't the only vampire who was in some way atypical. I said that he was unique, and one of the definitions of that word is "different than MOST." For all we know, there may be any number of vampires just as capable of feeling love as Spike is. I'm not defending a one of them. I AM defending Spike, and I am defending him on the grounds of what I see in the character and his actions, and what I interpret as being his motives.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

[MENTION=5973]Black Eye Guy[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7585]Kean[/MENTION]

You guys make solid points and while I don't see things the same way I do respect them.

It's true that things sort of become black and white when we're forced in corners in order to justify/explain things.

And yeah, these threads are stressful as hell!! 😱

 

[Kean]

But he IS the one and only "special one" in that bathroom with Buffy, and that's why I'm defending him. And no, he isn't the only vampire who was in some way atypical. I said that he was unique, and one of the definitions of that word is "different than MOST." For all we know, there may be any number of vampires just as capable of feeling love as Spike is. I'm not defending a one of them. I AM defending Spike, and I am defending him on the grounds of what I see in the character and his actions, and what I interpret as being his motives.

Okay, this is where I keep getting tripped up. Are you saying you are defending Spike's actions in that bathroom? In your eyes they are justified, necessary even? But only for Spike? Not Angelus? Or Xander? Or Andrew? Or Riley? Or maybe that guy across the street?

And if you are defending them, why? I'm not being glib but I am honestly at a loss as to how anyone finds Spike's actions defensible. I don't understand why a fan would even want to defend that, or why they feel they have to? I understand that Spike is soulless at this point but that doesn't change the fact that what he was doing was also wrong.

I just want to understand where you are coming from because I don't, I completely don't.

And speaking of which, I just want to explain where I am coming from. This isn't about Spike for me, he just happens to be the attacker in this instance, my issue with this topic is recognition of attempted rape. I've been in enough of these discussions where people have denied it even was a sexual assault, where people have blamed Buffy and insisted that she led Spike on, where people actually felt sorry for Spike and angry at Buffy at how she treated him in that bathroom, people who felt Buffy deserved it. That reaction is what motivates me to keep participating in these threads, because that reaction terrifies me. It terrifies me because I worry if that logic is being transferred to other, real life situations. Because rape culture is something nurtured and socialised into us. It's everywhere and it won't just turn off when we encounter a similar situation in real life, we can't just scoff and say "This is fiction, it isn't real", well it's real enough for us to go page after page in thread upon thread dissecting it. So, what I am saying is, this is much bigger than the verse for me, this is a real cause and a concern I have. If we can't recognise the wrong in fictional rape situations, how can we see them in RL?

 

[white avenger]

Okay, this is where I keep getting tripped up. Are you saying you are defending Spike's actions in that bathroom? In your eyes they are justified, necessary even? But only for Spike? Not Angelus? Or Xander? Or Andrew? Or Riley? Or maybe that guy across the street?

I am in no way defending Spike's actions in "Seeing Red" except in the fact that it had to take something that powerful and disturbing to act as the final catalyst to convincing Spike that he would never be the sort of man who Buffy could love as long as he had no soul. And note, I said "could" love, not "would" love, because by the time that he left Sunnydale, Spike had pretty much figured out that he would never be able to MAKE Buffy love him.

When I referred to Spike as the "special one" in that bathroom, it was only to distinguish him from the other special vampires who you named. How each of them is special and why they are so isn't part of my argument, though it might make for an interesting thread in its own right.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I am in no way defending Spike's actions in "Seeing Red" except in the fact that it had to take something that powerful and disturbing to act as the final catalyst to convincing Spike that he would never be the sort of man who Buffy could love as long as he had no soul. And note, I said "could" love, not "would" love, because by the time that he left Sunnydale, Spike had pretty much figured out that he would never be able to MAKE Buffy love him.

But what makes you think that, cuz everything in the show says otherwise?

 

[Kean]

I am in no way defending Spike's actions in "Seeing Red" except in the fact that it had to take something that powerful and disturbing to act as the final catalyst to convincing Spike that he would never be the sort of man who Buffy could love as long as he had no soul.

So, to you, "Seeing Red" was a transformative opportunity for Spike to change?

I can't help but see that as the only way Spike could become a person who Buffy could love was by trying to rape her. That's a terribly troubling narrative to me.

 

[white avenger]

So, to you, "Seeing Red" was a transformative opportunity for Spike to change?

I can't help but see that as the only way Spike could become a person who Buffy could love was by trying to rape her. That's a terribly troubling narrative to me.

I've tried to find the direct quote from Marti Noxon on this scene, but all that I can find is an indirect quote stating that the attempted rape scene was used as the reason for Spike to finally realize that Buffy could never love him as long as he was a soulless vampire because only something that powerful and disturbing would make him undertake something as unthinkable as trying to regain his soul. I have already posted a site containing that indirect quote.

Since I can't find the original source, I will only say that that explanation makes perfect sense to me, and that that explanation leads me to the belief that Spike got his soul for Buffy. A couple of years later, in "The Girl In Question," Spike himself said that getting a soul was "the right thing to do," which I have no reason to doubt, even though Angel, and no doubt several members here, did.

That is my reasoning on the attempted rape scene and what happened afterward. You can call it fanwank if you want to, since I can't point to a direct quote for substantiation, but since I se Spike as a totally redeemable character, it makes perfect sense to me. In other words, that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. It's part of that stone wall I mentioned earlier. Feel free to bash your heads against it to your hearts' desire. It's part of those Spike colored glasses you accuse me of using.

 

[Kean]

I've tried to find the direct quote from Marti Noxon on this scene, but all that I can find is an indirect quote stating that the attempted rape scene was used as the reason for Spike to finally realize that Buffy could never love him as long as he was a soulless vampire because only something that powerful and disturbing would make him undertake something as unthinkable as trying to regain his soul. I have already posted a site containing that indirect quote.

Since I can't find the original source, I will only say that that explanation makes perfect sense to me, and that that explanation leads me to the belief that Spike got his soul for Buffy. A couple of years later, in "The Girl In Question," Spike himself said that getting a soul was "the right thing to do," which I have no reason to doubt, even though Angel, and no doubt several members here, did.

That is my reasoning on the attempted rape scene and what happened afterward. You can call it fanwank if you want to, since I can't point to a direct quote for substantiation, but since I se Spike as a totally redeemable character, it makes perfect sense to me. In other words, that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. It's part of that stone wall I mentioned earlier. Feel free to bash your heads against it to your hearts' desire. It's part of those Spike colored glasses you accuse me of using.

I know changing your mind is futile but like I said in my previous post I am really trying to understand your POV. We aren't getting anywhere so I just won't bother anymore.

 

[Robb Stark]

I've tried to find the direct quote from Marti Noxon on this scene, but all that I can find is an indirect quote stating that the attempted rape scene was used as the reason for Spike to finally realize that Buffy could never love him as long as he was a soulless vampire because only something that powerful and disturbing would make him undertake something as unthinkable as trying to regain his soul. I have already posted a site containing that indirect quote.

Yeah, I know that Noxon based that on something she did in her life, but earlier in this thread [MENTION=12236]itssmiletime[/MENTION] raised a great point that was never addressed. Why? Why did it HAVE to be attempted rape? When Buffy beats the unliving hell out of him in "Crush", when she says "I CAN'T love you, you don't have a soul", why isn't that enough? Spike's not stupid. He can clearly tell in S6 that while he's sleeping with Buffy, she's not exactly happy. Why does rape have to be the magical catalyst? Maybe this is the big one for me that I just don't get. Why does Spike without a soul have to be some unique champion of good (when he's done so many evil, evil things) to make him an interesting character? I find that the fact that he fights with Buffy because he loves her, and not because he really cares about the right thing, to be far more interesting. To me, the notion that he regained his soul for selfish reasons and then became a REAL hero and good person from S7 on is an incredible story.

And who knows, it may very well be Noxon's own fanwank of how she wanted her clearly pitiful love life to resolve, but even if that's the case, why wouldn't they make it clear? If Spike suddenly realized that "hey, what I just did was pretty crappy. I feel true remorse here", and wasn't just thinking "damn, now she'll never admit she loves me and she'll never have sex with me again", why wouldn't that be emphasized? Why would he march around a cave battling for his soul, for the love of his life, and say "bitch is gonna see a change. Bitch is gonna get what she deserves". I get the writing swerve they were shooting for, but the words were still said.

These points have been raised several times so far, and haven't been answered. At all. Rose-colored glasses are fine, we all wear them from time to time, but if you (or anyone else) can't answer these adequately, then as @black eyed guy so brilliantly put it, basically...we win.

 

[white avenger]

And who knows, it may very well be Noxon's own fanwank of how she wanted her clearly pitiful love life to resolve, but even if that's the case, why wouldn't they make it clear? If Spike suddenly realized that "hey, what I just did was pretty crappy. I feel true remorse here", and wasn't just thinking "damn, now she'll never admit she loves me and she'll never have sex with me again", why wouldn't that be emphasized? Why would he march around a cave battling for his soul, for the love of his life, and say "bitch is gonna see a change. Bitch is gonna get what she deserves". I get the writing swerve they were shooting for, but the words were still said.

These points have been raised several times so far, and haven't been answered. At all. Rose-colored glasses are fine, we all wear them from time to time, but if you (or anyone else) can't answer these adequately, then as @black eyed guy so brilliantly put it, basically...we win.

I have no answer whatsoever as to why this was the approach chosen for Spike's decision to get a soul, if, as you say, it actually was, and those of us who accept it aren't just interpreting the action in a way that supports our feelings for the character. It has been said time and again that everything that Spike did after that moment up to the finale was all smoke and mirrors, meant to make the viewer think that he was trying to get the chip removed, and maybe the writers just laid it on too heavy. It may be that Joss had actually planned to bring back an evil, non-chipped Spike for Season 7 right up to the last moment, then changed his mind, and had to go back and re-tweak the story to jibe with his new plot line. Personally, I'm glad that the story went the way that it did.

I don't know why there wasn't more time, or any time at all, spent in showing Buffy's reaction to what happened. Certainly, there should have been, and I personally wouldn't have objected to having less time devoted to Warren, Andrew, and Jonathan in order to make time for it. Maybe there actually are a couple of scenes stored away in a vault somewhere that dealt with the aftermath of "Seeing Red" from Buffy's view. Unfortunately, we'll never know, unless Joss mentions it somewhere.

Certainly, if there was supposed to be a collective gasp from all of the fans and a great shout of "Of course! Now I see! Joss, you clever, diabolical b*st*rd!" when the demon returned Spike's soul, it simply didn't happen.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

if, as you say, it actually was, and those of us who accept it aren't just interpreting the action in a way that supports our feelings for the character. It has been said time and again that everything that Spike did after that moment up to the finale was all smoke and mirrors, meant to make the viewer think that he was trying to get the chip removed, and maybe the writers just laid it on too heavy.

What about all the stuff he said in Beneath You that continues to back up what he said in the last 3 episodes, how do you continue to ignore dialog that can't be chucked into the category of "blind spot", since it's no longer a misdirect?

Not that I expect an answer since you've ignored all my requests for actual evidence that would be mandatory in ANY OTHER DEBATE.

 

[white avenger]

What about all the stuff he said in Beneath You that continues to back up what he said in the last 3 episodes, how do you continue to ignore dialog that can't be chucked into the category of "blind spot", since it's no longer a misdirect?

Not that I expect an answer since you've ignored all my requests for actual evidence that would be mandatory in ANY OTHER DEBATE.

Then here's a surprise for you.

Since there isn't any specific, or even obscure explanation, at least as far as I know for Spike's actions I "Beneath You," I will have to resort to what I see and interpret from the scene and build from there (I just know you're gonna love that).

Even though he appeared to be relatively sane during the part of the episode that I assume you're referring to, I doubt that he was thinking quite rationally. I think that he was trying to suppress his soul in some way, pretend and act as though it really wasn't there. If he could suppress it, he could somehow escape the feelings of guilt that it gave him. It would be somewhat similar to someone trying to suppress a great grief long enough to get through some difficult task. Imagine an actor who receives word just before going on stage that a member of his family had just died. There's no time to replace him, so he puts his grief aside just long enough to play his part, then collapses in tears the moment he walks off stage. That's a poor analogy, I know, but its the closest that I can come.

I think that it was Spike's plan to not let anyone, especially Buffy, know what he had done, possibly as some sort of self induced punishment, at least until he had gotten himself under some sort of permanent control. The pain from his chip when he staked the man who had been a Graboid destroyed what control he has been using, plunging him back into his ranting, incoherent state, and, in so doing, let the kittens out of the bag.

That is my interpretation of what went on in that episode. If you are sitting on some hard evidence to the contrary, feel free to bring it out. As I said, as far as I can remember, there never was any statement anywhere specifically explaining Spike's actions there.

 

[Evergreen]

I think that this is one of two major moments on BtVS that was so incredibly out-of-context, out-of-character, and poorly executed that I almost don't consider it canon (the other being Xander leaving Anya at the alter). After re-watching the series, I now simply don't think Spike would go to this point to get Buffy. Every time I see this episode or mention of this event, I wince because I think Spike's reputation was permanently damaged from this.

I'm not sure if I should even explain the above statement, because in my head, it's pretty self-explainatory. But if you'd like my reasoning, I'd be glad to try and verbalize it.