I don't see how a soulless vampire could 'evolve' into anything from anything - if one uses logic and not emotion.
He evolved in the sense that his behavior and his values changed, pure and simple. Did they do a complete 180? No, but they absolutely did change for the better, until we are shown otherwise.
At the time of Harmony's first betrayal of Cordelia she was coming from a cozy nail painting and gossip on a coach and into selling the gang to vampire pyramid scheme withing a couple of days... At the time of Power Play - NFA Harmony was coming from a place of being a trusted partner and secretary, going out for drinks with Fred.
I don't think anybody actually trusted Harmony, except maybe Cordelia, for one episode. Certainly nobody expected that Harmony would go out of her way to save their life, as they did Spike. Harmony wanted to fit in, to whatever extent that entailed playing the part of dutiful vampire. And as you said, at her first chance, she turned on them. This did not happen with Spike who acted favorably for quite some time before he regressed, hence the surprise.
It is a matter of audience actually willing to forget - the guy is soulles - he can turn on anybody at every point - for the sake of pretty high cheekbones and sense of humor.
Yes, this is just it: he CAN turn on anybody at every point, and he DOESN'T. Not until the AR, when he turns on Buffy, hence the surprise and shock.
I believe it was rather straightforwardly mentioned in every episode from S4 that Spike had a chip in his head and therefore could not do anything *willingly* as in by 'Free Will'. Chip == lack of free will. No chip == free will. That's why it is removed in S7. So, no, not willingly. Under duress.
When was it mentioned that the chip had some sort of magic powers that FORCED Spike to actively SAVE others? And to not go out of his way to get someone else to harm them? As I've stated many times, nothing was stopping Spike from destroying their lives, setting their beds on fire, getting minions to eat them. Certainly not the chip. When Giles calls out for Spike to help him as a vampire is about to eat him, did the chip FORCE Spike to stake the vampire and save Giles? Nope.
What I was saying is that there was plenty of warning.
What I'm saying is that had the AR happened right after Crush, then yes, I'd agree that there was plenty of warning. I'd be the first to hop on that train. But it didn't. It happened after many episodes in which Spike did GOOD things. By choice.
If you want to blame the writers/Joss, please do so. It is just in my opinion they were not that wrong to do it.
I blame them for using sexual assault as a plot device. For everything else, I don't blame the writers, I credit them. You say they weren't wrong to turn on their heels yet you don't actually think they did, since you don't believe that they wrote Spike as a character who had earned people's trust beforehand.
Beating each other bloody in the face was quite literal... I don't misrepresent, I describe.
Buffy beat Spike and left him to die. This isn't meant to be a "let's count up the number of things they each did to each other" but misrepresenting what happened; ie implying that it was a mutual act does little to support the argument. Spike was trying to ensure that Buffy didn't go to prison for an accident, and she beat him into a pulp for doing so, and he let her. This obviously has nothing to do with the AR or, as you've claimed that others do, some justification of it. My point is that if we're going to analyze these characters, let's do justice to what they actually did and didn't do.
But I honestly think Joss and Co were in their full right to rudely awaken the fandom by driving home point that 'no soul' == 'no morality'. Can be affable and likeable and still eat kittens - try to get the girlfriend to love you by forcing her. The nature of demon is the nature of demon.
I too am ok with the fact that they decided to bring home this message--I just don't like HOW they did it. I don't mind that they wanted to point out the tragic duality of a demon and a man attempting to fight for control of a creature and that their final message is that the demon always wins. If anything, I like that message--it makes perfect sense to me. As I've said, I do believe that Spike wasn't actually good without a soul even though he consistently performed good acts. What I'm saying is that the fact that they used this kind of violation of Buffy's trust--of the trust of the audience--is the thing with which I take issue.
---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------
This annoys me so much, you are completely changing situations to meet your desired result.
It annoys me that you are accusing me of doing something that I am not. Just because you may not understand what I'm trying to say does not mean that I am "changing situations."
You say Spike evolved but the show tells you he hasn't. By the attempted rape happening, it's proof that there wasn't any real evolution of Spike - he never had a soul he couldn't tell right from wrong the same way he could have with a soul.
Case in point. I said that the show clearly shows his evolution up UNTIL that point. Which is why the scene is so profoundly shocking. It proves that Spike could only go SO FAR without a soul, not that the things he did without a soul were ALL bad.
For example the scene where he's chained Buffy to the wall, switch Spike with Angelus and you have a completely different scenario, but technically there shouldn't be a difference, both were Vampires without a soul. But it doesn't get held against Spike because he's "different", Seeing Red is the proof he was never that different, he just had a chip.
And it seems you are missing my point when I talk about evolution which clearly happened progressively, AFTER Crush, when Spike realized he'd have to change his behavior if he were ever to be near Buffy again.
Again, Seeing Red proves that in spite of the progress he'd made, he could still fall back on old habits. Not that he never did good things for others.
Again, explain to me please how the chip FORCED him to save the scoobies, and to not send minions after them? It didn't. It altered his diet; the rest was a decision he made, until ultimately he succumbed to his demon in Seeing Red.
To reiterate, in case I'm still not clear for some reason: what Spike did in Seeing Red does not actually negate the good things he did up until that point. Similarly, the good things he did do not negate the horrendous things he did throughout his life. But to resist acknowledgement that he DID take care of Dawn, DID actively choose not to harm the scoobies--rather, to save them, even in Buffy's absence, is beyond frustrating. Again, the AR proves that these deeds did not make him a good man. It proves that he was not ENOUGH. But it doesn't change them, and, again, that is why fans of his felt so betrayed and shocked when it happened. The progress was halted and stunted.
---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------
Just wanted to add: It seems part of the problem others are having with my argument is that it is predicated on the notion that a person can both evolve AND regress. That life is not black and white and a person's actions do not always conform to a linear progression in one direction or another. That a person can do very objectively good things, and then can do very, very bad things.
The bad things are not evidence that the person wasn't really doing good things. They are merely evidence that perhaps this person isn't truly good after all.
This notion is not contradictory, it is in fact very logical and very truthful to life.
