Was Spike A Good Man?

[Gum Gnome33]

What a load of sick, disgusting rape apologist nonsense. Gum Gnome33, I just lost all the respect I had for you.

I have to say I was shocked and deeply hurt by this comment, but I know I shouldn't be. You don't know me, and you aren't even taking into consideration the complexities of my argument.
Did you know that as of 2008, in the US alone, 14% of reported rapes came from within a marriage? Health and safety experts claim that the number is likely much higher than reported. Rape has many faces and it's often those who are abused by ones whose trust they'd already earned are often dismissed. In many cultures and societies it is believed that once a woman is married, she cannot be raped because the act of getting married effectively turns her body into the property of her husband, and she no longer has the right to refuse sex.
To deny that rape can't come from a relationship in which two people are in love is to further ignore the very harrowing reality that so many people face alone because they believe that they have no rights over their own bodies.

Even the most sick, sociopathic and evil human beings are capable of love. They experience it in unhealthy ways and they express it in unhealthy ways. But love is not an absolute concept; rather, it's relative to those who experience it. A cruel, violent person capable of rape can also be capable of love--it just isn't the same kind of love that results in a trustworthy, safe partnership. It is a horrible truth but to deny it is to put ourselves in danger, and to take away of the voices of those who are told that they can't be raped by someone who loves them.

 

[zobothehobo]

By season 7, no. He was still entirely self centred, thinking he was doing right to get a girl, he wasn't doing good for good, he was doing good so he could hold it up in front of her and beg her to love him.

By his very last Moments in Chosen? Yes, he'd finally realised how to do good to be good, not to use it as a way to make someone love you.

Had he not realized that in Touched? I mean... I don't think just his last moments in Chosen are where he learned this. His speech to Buffy about what it means to love her an how he loved her because she deserved to be loved and how when he told her he loved her, it wasn't because he wanted her and he didn't expect anything from her shows that, does it not? I mean this is about love and that is about how to do good to be good... but it's the same principle.

And I mean... I don't think Spike learned "how to do good to be good and not to try to make someone love you." I think he learned that you can't make someone love you. Which in turn taught him how to be good to be good... but I think the central lesson was that he learned that you can't make someone feel something. You can show them why they should feel it... but then you just have to let them feel what they feel. I think he learned to accept and respect emotion as a personal thing. And I think that's one of the biggest, if not the biggest lesson in the show.

Spike WAS a good man. By the end of season 7, he was a man to be admired. I, personally, think he was always a good man, just misguided, scared, and frustrated. He made some HORRIBLE choices and did some TERRIBLE things... but all good men do, don't they? A good person isn't someone who doesn't do bad things, and doesn't make bad choices... doesn't fall in with the wrong crowd, or believe something that's not true. A good person is someone who loves. And Spike always loved. Love is the central point of his entire character.


People may, have, and will argue that because Spike learned to do the right thing out of love and because love was always his biggest motivator that he wasn't inherently good, just acting like it to please the object of his affection. But if you can use that argument, can't you use the same one for the bad stuff he did while with Drusilla? And if someone who's actions are always motivated out of love isn't a good person because they're motivated by love... what is a good person? what does love even mean at that point?

---------- Post added at 02:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

Well I'd say the start of Angels mission was inspired by Buffy, but it became more then that eventually.

Spike never reached a point in the TV show, where he wanted to do a good thing, just for the sake of doing a good thing, it was always about Buffy.

Angel's mission was inspired by Buffy, but then became about himself and redemption.

Spike's mission was inspired to make Buffy love him, and became about just loving her.

Spike and Angel are very similar, but their stories aren't complete mirrors of each other. Spike learned how to love... That was the central question of his character, "how do you love someone" since he was a human. Every incarnation of Spike asked this question. In the comics, he's still asking that question. That's his journey.

Angel's journey is about how do you redeem yourself, how do you overcome, how do you do better.

While I like Spike's better, and I relate to it more... They're both complex and interesting and I wouldn't say anything about either journey in a way that makes it seem or sound like they didn't become better people or grow. Spike's story isn't just about love for Buffy, it's about love in general. And he HAS grown, and in the comics is continuing to grow. Writing that off simply because his love hasn't moved on is kinda sad.

 

[ladydorotea]

Spike's story isn't just about love for Buffy, it's about love in general.

And this line actually glosses over the biggest controversy to the topic of this thread - 'Was Spike A Good Man ?' Because no, Spike's story insofar has not turned into a story about love in general. Because generally speaking Spike does not show himself capable of loving anybody - gasp - apart from himself and his current object of sexual obsession. He has trouble grasping the concept of atonement, apology and redemption - exactly because the abstract idea of 'love' in general - as in parent's love for his/her child, person's love for his/her friends - that are NOT potential sexual partners is of exactly zero importance in his story. Zilch. Nada. Never existed. Maybe eventually it will surface - it sort of started to form around the edges in AtS S5. But then in transition into canon comics ( and I don't count Brian Lynch's individual projects as true canon) it simply vanished. As of S9 proper we have Spike once again pining over unrequited sexual passion - and surrounded by a faithful crew of ... intelligent insects, from whose faithful insectoid heads he likes to bounce cigarettes' butts... way to go with 'love in general' story.

 

[zobothehobo]

And this line actually glosses over the biggest controversy to the topic of this thread - 'Was Spike A Good Man ?' Because no, Spike's story insofar has not turned into a story about love in general. Because generally speaking Spike does not show himself capable of loving anybody - gasp - apart from himself and his current object of sexual obsession. He has trouble grasping the concept of atonement, apology and redemption - exactly because the abstract idea of 'love' in general - as in parent's love for his/her child, person's love for his/her friends - that are NOT potential sexual partners is of exactly zero importance in his story. Zilch. Nada. Never existed. Maybe eventually it will surface - it sort of started to form around the edges in AtS S5. But then in transition into canon comics ( and I don't count Brian Lynch's individual projects as true canon) it simply vanished. As of S9 proper we have Spike once again pining over unrequited sexual passion - and surrounded by a faithful crew of ... intelligent insects, from whose faithful insectoid heads he likes to bounce cigarettes' butts... way to go with 'love in general' story.

Funny you bring up the love between a parent and a child in your list of loves Spike hasn't felt because I'd say the love for his mother was the strongest he's ever felt other than his love for Buffy.

Although, maybe I should have worded myself differently. Because you're right. Spike's story isn't about all types of love. It's about romantic love. Sexual attraction and romantic attraction are different though... I mean if you think sex is the only reason Spike loved... I mean come now. It's not the sex Buffy could give him that Spike loves, it's Buffy. As a soulless creature (before season 7 when this thread is based in), he had a difficult time telling the difference. But he did feel sexual attraction and love differently. He was sexually attracted to Harmony... but he didn't, by any means, love her. There are three people in canon that Spike has had sexual and romantic feelings for. They are (in order of the chronology of his life) Cecily (pre-vampire), Drusilla (soulless vampire), Buffy (chipped and souled vampire). However, I'd argue he did love on some level everyone he came to fight beside. Including the scoobies and Angel's team. Not to mention, I think he did genuinely love Joyce. I don't think these loves were as developed as they should have been. But because I believe love is the center of Spike's entire everything, I believe he loved them.

But I am curious... how does pointing out that Spike's story was about romantic love and not all types of love gloss over the central question of the thread? Is learning how to love romantically a bad thing? Is a character whose journey is about romantic love not a good person? How?

 

[Icarium]

Were there no change in Spike, how do you explain any of the good he does, given how he came into the show?

He likes to fight and because of the chip he can't fight with humans any more, so...

I, personally, think he was always a good man, just misguided, scared, and frustrated. He made some HORRIBLE choices and did some TERRIBLE things... but all good men do, don't they?

Most good (or bad) people aren't serial killers who revel in torture and gruesome murders, so apples and oranges much? I really don't like this strawman, often used by fans to defend their favourites - "well, no one is perfect, so what X did isn't that bad!". Okay, no one is perfect but there is a world of difference between being imperfect and being a serial killer.

But if you can use that argument, can't you use the same one for the bad stuff he did while with Drusilla?

No, because he would have enjoyed killing even if Drusilla had decided to have nothing to do with him after she sired him. Vampire, remember?

 

[Gum Gnome33]

He likes to fight and because of the chip he can't fight with humans any more, so...

I know we've had this out before but again, there are countless ways in which he could have hurt the scoobies and the world as a whole without ever having to lay a finger on anyone. He chose not to, starting in season 5.

He has trouble grasping the concept of atonement

It was pretty clear to me, (and to a few others) that Spike went to Africa and endured torture as penance for what he did to Buffy, with the added (known) bonus of never being tempted to do it again.

apology

Spike knows well that what he did, both personally to Buffy, and as a vampire for over a century, goes far beyond apology. Were he to not understand the concept of apology, he'd be foolish enough to believe it could possibly apply to the horrible things he'd done. He understands quite well however that an apology is something you offer when you've neglected to invite a friend to a birthday party, not when you've been a murderer. I believe he instead chooses to do right by those he's hurt, to the extent that he can, instead. It's all he can do.

redemption

It's true, Spike has not yet genuinely sought out redemption. It's clear to me that this is because he doesn't feel he deserves it. It's akin to the notion of not apologizing. So he fights and does good because he is compelled to do so. In the face of all he's done, he could easily crumple himself up and weep crocodile tears, but he does the exact opposite, which is truly heroic. It doesn't bother me that it's not done for the sake of redemption but rather because it's the right thing to do. I think that's fitting.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Had he not realized that in Touched? I mean... I don't think just his last moments in Chosen are where he learned this. His speech to Buffy about what it means to love her an how he loved her because she deserved to be loved and how when he told her he loved her, it wasn't because he wanted her and he didn't expect anything from her shows that, does it not? I mean this is about love and that is about how to do good to be good... but it's the same principle.

I don't think so no. I think right up to the moments before he died he still didn't know what doing good for good was like, he was still doing it to be with Buffy. He may have loved her at that point, properly loved her, as he has a soul now. But everything he was doing up to that point had all been for Buffy.

In the final moments, when she says she loves him, and he says no you don't, he realised she didn't love him, but that he still wanted to do the right thing. It was the first proper unselfish thing he's done, that was about saving the world, no about make Buffy think she loves him.
(That's my opinion, I don't think there's any other good excuse for why he would say no you don't, and the really bad excuses I've heard so far have just made me chuckle. I'm also not talking About Buffy loving him after that, I'm just talking up to that point!)

And I mean... I don't think Spike learned "how to do good to be good and not to try to make someone love you." I think he learned that you /QUOTE]

I don't really see the difference...

It's not the sex Buffy could give him that Spike loves, it's Buffy. As a soulless creature (before season 7 when this thread is based in), he had a difficult time telling the difference. But he did feel sexual attraction and love differently. He was sexually attracted to Harmony... but he didn't, by any means, love her. There are three people in canon that Spike has had sexual and romantic feelings for.

I definitely disagree with this. He couldn't tell the difference between love and sex. He may have used Harmony for sex, but when he started having sex with Buffy and had feelings for her, because she was using him for sex he thought that meant she loved him, because he couldn't separate the two.
When he tries to rape her, he explains his thought process, he tells her she'll feel love when he's inside her, because he doesn't know any better, he thought sex meant love.
When she kicks him off and says she can never love someone without a soul, he goes and gets a soul, thinking that once he got a soul she'll have to love him, that that's the only thing stopping their relationship.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

It was pretty clear to me, (and to a few others) that Spike went to Africa and endured torture as penance for what he did to Buffy, with the added (known) bonus of never being tempted to do it again.

I never get this because, nothing he says when he's deciding to go to Africa says anything remotely like he's feeling bad, listening to the words he says it sounds like he got his soul out of spite, not disgust with himself, or not wanting to do it again. "Bitch is gonna see a change" doesn't sound 'penancey' at all.

 

[Icarium]

I know we've had this out before but again, there are countless ways in which he could have hurt the scoobies and the world as a whole without ever having to lay a finger on anyone. He chose not to, starting in season 5.

He didn't really choose anything, he was (through the miracle of plot contrivance) apparently too damned stupid to think of a way to hurt people indirectly. I can't really give him credit for that, you know.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

I never get this because, nothing he says when he's deciding to go to Africa says anything remotely like he's feeling bad, listening to the words he says it sounds like he got his soul out of spite, not disgust with himself, or not wanting to do it again. "Bitch is gonna see a change" doesn't sound 'penancey' at all.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but the writers have made it very clear that the reason they have him say that ridiculous "bitch is gonna see a change" line is because they wanted to make the audience believe that William the Bloody was back, misdirecting us from the intention to get his soul. It's completely ridiculous and creatively it was such a poor choice since it leads to this confusion.
But the writers have made their intentions clear, and they do it as well in the form of Spike in "Beneath You" when he explains very clearly why he did it, while pressing himself against a cross--the very illustration of penance, indeed.
Don't know what else to say about it!

he was (through the miracle of plot contrivance) apparently too damned stupid to think of a way to hurt people indirectly. I can't really give him credit for that, you know.

There is nothing in the script or in canon to indicate that the reason Spike withheld from actively doing evil was because he was "too stupid" to think of ways in which he could do so. So why assume it to be the case? Because you don't like him?

In fact he tells Buffy, "I'm changing. A man can change," which is a pretty clear indication that not only is his non-evil doing not merely due to a mere lack of smarts but rather that it is an intentional effort on his part. He is withholding in order to prove that he can change. Why does that get dismissed entirely in favor of the "he was just too stupid" argument, and where is the text for it?

And if he was so exceedingly stupid that he could not think of ONE way in which to hurt the people who put their lives' trust in him on an almost nightly basis, particularly after Buffy's death, then it'd be highly unlikely he could have existed as one of the world's master vampires for over a century and survived it.

He doesn't have to be any more than stupid, for example, to choose NOT to save Giles from that obese vamp in Bargaining. Why not just run away? That would be a fairly non brilliant plan that even a "moron such as Spike" could have come up with if he wanted to.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Check his actions in 6ABB01 where Spike is taking care of Dawn and in the subsequent part (of the two-part episode) where he helps Dawn get away from marauding hellions on motorcycles. At this point, Buffy is dead and buried. He knows nothing of the plans to resurrect Buffy. He has no hope of benefitting from this arrangement, but he continues to take care of Dawn and does so effectively at risk to himself.

I wish some of the people I knew were up to his standard.

 

[ladydorotea]

Funny you bring up the love between a parent and a child in your list of loves Spike hasn't felt because I'd say the love for his mother was the strongest he's ever felt other than his love for Buffy.

Hmm, I don't disagree that human Willy Pratt loved his mother. Having a young son however, I do pray that I never have to experience what Spike did to his mother *after* he was turned. See - there is an instance when the difference between having a moral perspective and not having one is of major importance. The difference between vampire's (demon's) 'love' and real love is highlighted. The difference between what Spike and Willy Pratt are is the whole point of this exercise in discussion. And , by the way, Willy Pratt and Spike with a soul are still not quite the same personality. Because Willy Pratt does not quite have two centuries countless innocent victims murder run on his hands. And that's really is my major point of contention in this whole conundrum. To make sure we differentiate between Willy Pratt, William the Bloody and Spike with a soul are noted - and to make sure we take into account soulless vampire's inability to be good and to instantly adjust and change - just because behavior modification chip is restricting their drive to kill.

Although, maybe I should have worded myself differently. Because you're right. Spike's story isn't about all types of love. It's about romantic love.

Glad we agree here.

]Sexual attraction and romantic attraction are different though...

Maybe you can detail on this one?

I mean if you think sex is the only reason Spike loved...

Potential of sex, or if you like it better - potential to feel good about oneself, potential to experience orgasms, to claim helluva of a prize ( Slayer's blood is an aphrodisiac), and potential to boast.

I mean come now. It's not the sex Buffy could give him that Spike loves, it's Buffy.

Buffy the 18+ human with doubts about herself, unfinished university degree, financially troubled, self-doubting young woman, dedicated to her friends and family, helpless when facing financial troubles, prone to depression and ever hopeful of things solving themselves? Whenever it was that soulless Spike wanted 'that' ? As far as I can recall - he wanted the Slayer- a creature that was part demon, that 'belonged in the dark, with him', that's why he spent all that effort in separating her from her loved ones and undermining her self esteem while lying to her and stalking her. Was he thinking of that vulnerability when he ordered her sex-bot? When he stole her underwear ? When he chained her to the wall and tried to coerce her into giving in to his desires? When he grabbed a shotgun ? When he tried to rape her? When he whined, run after, stalked, and begged his way close to her in S7?

As a soulless creature (before season 7 when this thread is based in), he had a difficult time telling the difference. But he did feel sexual attraction and love differently. He was sexually attracted to Harmony... but he didn't, by any means, love her. There are three people in canon that Spike has had sexual and romantic feelings for. They are (in order of the chronology of his life) Cecily (pre-vampire), Drusilla (soulless vampire), Buffy (chipped and souled vampire).

And that manifested how? Which one of the three he never threatened to stake, shot, or otherwise harm? Hmm, was it Cecily? Was it actually because Willy Pratt was in possession of his soul, still ?

However, I'd argue he did love on some level everyone he came to fight beside. Including the scoobies and Angel's team.

Apples and oranges here. Apples - without a soul. Oranges - with. And 'some level' is a key.

But I am curious... how does pointing out that Spike's story was about romantic love and not all types of love gloss over the central question of the thread? Is learning how to love romantically a bad thing? Is a character whose journey is about romantic love not a good person? How?

See, romantic (sexual desire) love is always about possible convenient returns - such as pleasure of sex, protection and material gain, bragging rights, higher self-esteem, connections, having somebody to watch your back, even simple procreation. The element of sacrifice is optional. So, yes, the character whose all existence is about all of the above IMHO is far from being good. Its that simple.

 

[Icarium]

There is nothing in the script or in canon to indicate that the reason Spike withheld from actively doing evil was because he was "too stupid" to think of ways in which he could do so. So why assume it to be the case? Because you don't like him?

Because I really don't think there was nothing in canon to indicate that. There were so many way of getting around the chip - using minions, betraying the Scoobies, so someone else could kill them or just accepting the pain following his attack (which was or wasn't an option depending on the writer since the whole chip was a maddeningly inconsistent plot device). Or he could have actually tried to remove it after the first two unsuccessful attempts.

And if he was so exceedingly stupid that he could not think of ONE way in which to hurt the people who put their lives' trust in him on an almost nightly basis, particularly after Buffy's death, then it'd be highly unlikely he could have existed as one of the world's master vampires for over a century and survived it.

Well, yes. That's why the plot is so annoying - Spike isn't usually that stupid. He had to become stupider for the chip plot to work, just like Angel or anybody else never bothered to even try removing the loophole from his curse. And to be honest, going for help to Buffy of all people in Pangs already made Spike looks suicidally dumb. If it weren't for his plot armour he would have been dusted faster than he could say "I come in peace".

But the writers have made their intentions clear, and they do it as well in the form of Spike in "Beneath You" when he explains very clearly why he did it, while pressing himself against a cross--the very illustration of penance, indeed.
Don't know what else to say about it!

I really want to say "He might well have been lying" but I am afraid people would think I am trolling. 🙂

 

[Gum Gnome33]

There were so many way of getting around the chip - using minions, betraying the Scoobies, so someone else could kill them or just accepting the pain following his attack (which was or wasn't an option depending on the writer since the whole chip was a maddeningly inconsistent plot device). Or he could have actually tried to remove it after the first two unsuccessful attempts.

Well yes! I agree with this, every word! Difference is, you think he didn't do any of these things because he was too stupid, and I think he didn't because he wanted to change, which is precisely what he tells Buffy. And yes, you can call him a liar, but why automatically reject his claim in favor of something which has absolutely no place in canon, (ie his stupidity being the reason for his improved behavior)?

And to be honest, going for help to Buffy of all people in Pangs already made Spike looks suicidally dumb. If it weren't for his plot armour he would have been dusted faster than he could say "I come in peace".

I sort of agree with you here, but if you really consider it, what were his options? Go to the "bloody cavalry" hoping they wouldn't harm him because he's defenseless, or die anyway either having been beaten to death by other vampires or (more likely) for lack of blood. He literally couldn't get nutrition for himself under any circumstances and the scoobies were his only hope. So the fact that he came to them for help takes more into question his pride than his intelligence; again, he was going to die either way.

 

[Icarium]

Well yes! I agree with this, every word! Difference is, you think he didn't do any of these things because he was too stupid, and I think he didn't because he wanted to change, which is precisely what he tells Buffy. And yes, you can call him a liar, but why automatically reject his claim in favor of something which has absolutely no place in canon, (ie his stupidity being the reason for his improved behavior)?

Because Spike's behaviour in regards to getting around the limitations of the chip is pretty much the same "let's give some lip service to the idea of him doing evil but nothing more" from Pangs to Grave. There wasn't a sequence of events where he tried and tried and tried for ways to remove it or abuse its loopholes at first then decided not to try that any more because he wanted to change because of love or any other reason. Most of this is unintentional but to be honest I just can't take this plotline seriously, it contradicts itself at every turn, it makes a mockery of the established vampire mythos and it requires everyone, including Spike, to behave out of character.

I sort of agree with you here, but if you really consider it, what were his options? Go to the "bloody cavalry" hoping they wouldn't harm him because he's defenseless, or die anyway either having been beaten to death by other vampires or (more likely) for lack of blood.

Why would he be beaten to death? Spike could fight non-humans. He didn't know it at the time but at least he should checked with Harmony or whoever. As for blood, he could get some minions and tell them to bring him blood or just steal some blood. With superstrength breaking into the local blood bank, butcher shop or whatever should be a piece of cake. And considering Angel spent months underwater not eating anything, Spike wasn't exactly in danger of starving to death any time soon. For all he knew the chip might have worked for only a month, no need to immediately go beg for help from your worst enemy who has like 3943549 reasons to kill you and zero to spare you.

 

[WallflowerBitca]

"I may be a monster, but you treat me like a man."
Yes. Yes, Spike was a good man. He loved Drusilla, indefinitely, more than Angel loved Darla. He truly cared about Dru. He loved Buffy, he loved her before his chip, LONG before his soul... He was willing to sacrifice everything for Dawn, for Buffy, for all of them. He displayed joy at Willow and Tara's reunion in S6, despite his claim that "he doesn't care what happens" he still helped them time and time again, and he felt true happiness when Buffy returned. He was able to feel remorseful, sorry, hurt, scared... and no matter what, he came through for them. In the end, he was their champion.

Spike was a good man, a misguided, often unhappy man with a truly poetic soul, but ultimately a good man.

 

[zobothehobo]

[MENTION=9316]ladydorotea[/MENTION] I'm going to properly respond to your post later when I'm feeling less hard about Supernatural and can actually get my thoughts in order long enough to type them... but I wanted to elaborate on the difference between sexual attraction and romantic attraction.

It is possible to be sexually attracted to someone without being romantically attracted to them. You can see someone, deem them as sexy, and even go as far as fantasizing about or actually having sex with them and not want to be in an actual romantic relationship with them. You can also have romantic feelings for a person without the sexual feelings. This is where the idea of romantic orientation (vs sexual orientation) comes from http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Romantic_orientation

To be honest, I find it really concerning that you specify "romantic (sexual desire) love," I mean is that what you think romance is? Just sexual attraction? I mean hell, I'm sexually attracted to the people in the porn I watched last night. But I don't even know their real names or anything about them or their real personalities... I just know they look good naked having the sexy times with each other. That is sexual attraction. Romantic attraction is so much more than that.

And yes, it's true... the mind is a beautiful thing and will actually shape your physical attraction to someone based on your emotional attraction to them. If you have a strong meaningful emotional attraction to someone, they will become more physically attractive to you. And if you find someone deplorable in their nature, they will become physically less attractive to you. But that doesn't change the fact that romantic feelings and sexual feelings are completely different.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Why would he be beaten to death? Spike could fight non-humans.

HA, whoops, my brain. I meant to type "initiative" and not "vampire," hmmm that's a mouthful right there. But anyway, yes, I meant that the initiative would beat him to death or capture him again. And arguably he needed to stay in Sunnydale in order to get the chip out, (at least that's what he figured at the time which makes enough sense for me.)

As for blood, he could get some minions and tell them to bring him blood or just steal some blood. With superstrength breaking into the local blood bank, butcher shop or whatever should be a piece of cake.

Fair enough, completely true.

And considering Angel spent months underwater not eating anything, Spike wasn't exactly in danger of starving to death any time soon.

Ah, but see, Spike had no idea that that was possible--it hadn't even happened yet in real time. I doubt Angel would have thought he could survive that long if you'd asked him, before it happened.
Also, there's a plot hole/inconsistency( surprise!): In Pangs Spike truly looks "ill" for a vampire, he can barely hobble around, even at night, and he's significantly paler than usual. I know this is all to play up the "he has to go to the scoobies for help" which is in turn to create that relationship, but at the time we the viewers have no reason to think that he really might die without getting blood relatively soon, and neither did he.


But, yes. Butcher shop would make a lot of sense. I still don't think his failure to take that route in that particular case proves that the entire time in which he refrained from doing evil things it was merely because he was constantly "stupid" or short sighted. But I agree that there are so many issues in the writing that not all truths can exist at once and make sense.

 

[zobothehobo]

Hmm, I don't disagree that human Willy Pratt loved his mother. Having a young son however, I do pray that I never have to experience what Spike did to his mother *after* he was turned. See - there is an instance when the difference between having a moral perspective and not having one is of major importance. The difference between vampire's (demon's) 'love' and real love is highlighted. The difference between what Spike and Willy Pratt are is the whole point of this exercise in discussion. And , by the way, Willy Pratt and Spike with a soul are still not quite the same personality. Because Willy Pratt does not quite have two centuries countless innocent victims murder run on his hands. And that's really is my major point of contention in this whole conundrum. To make sure we differentiate between Willy Pratt, William the Bloody and Spike with a soul are noted - and to make sure we take into account soulless vampire's inability to be good and to instantly adjust and change - just because behavior modification chip is restricting their drive to kill.

Just because without a soul, Spike didn't know HOW to love doesn't mean he didn't love. The love he felt for his mother was just as real after he was turned than before. As the mother of a son in this universe, I'm sure you're in no danger of experiencing what Spike's mother did after he was turned... because vampires don't exist... and I don't see your son becoming soulless any time soon.

There isn't a difference between Spike and Willy Pratt. They are the same person... just at different stages in their life. I mean... there are the differences of Spike being a vampire and William because a human... But I wouldn't consider them different people. (it should be noted, I wouldn't consider Angel and Liam different people either... or Darla or Dru before and after they turned... or Harmony before or after she turned...)

Also asking for the ability to instantly adjust in order to be a good person is a bit much, don't you think? I don't do well with change... am I a bad person?

And I guess you could argue that a man's actions aren't what makes him a good person... it's why. Which is the argument people who argue that vampires cannot be good without souls argue... which brings me back to his why was ALWAYS love.

Potential of sex, or if you like it better - potential to feel good about oneself, potential to experience orgasms, to claim helluva of a prize ( Slayer's blood is an aphrodisiac), and potential to boast.

I think you're missing like the ENTIRE point of the Spike's story. I'm speaking of the entire story, not just Buffy. I'm speaking of Dru as well. Sex isn't the reason he loved Dru. He loved Dru because she saw something in him. He loved Dru because for the first time in his existence, someone chose him. Sex had nothing to do with it. They were a sexual couple, but sex isn't why Spike loved Dru. Sex isn't why Spike loved Buffy either. At first, he experienced sexual attraction to her, then he developed those "I love to hate you" feelings which quickly transformed into "I hate to love you." He fell in love with BUFFY. Not the potential to feel good... although let's be real now... the potential to feel good is why pretty much all of us do anything. This isn't a Spike specific thing or even a soulless specific thing. This is a human nature kind of thing. which is ironic since you're supposed to be arguing how anti-human Spike is.

Buffy the 18+ human with doubts about herself, unfinished university degree, financially troubled, self-doubting young woman, dedicated to her friends and family, helpless when facing financial troubles, prone to depression and ever hopeful of things solving themselves? Whenever it was that soulless Spike wanted 'that' ? As far as I can recall - he wanted the Slayer- a creature that was part demon, that 'belonged in the dark, with him', that's why he spent all that effort in separating her from her loved ones and undermining her self esteem while lying to her and stalking her. Was he thinking of that vulnerability when he ordered her sex-bot? When he stole her underwear ? When he chained her to the wall and tried to coerce her into giving in to his desires? When he grabbed a shotgun ? When he tried to rape her? When he whined, run after, stalked, and begged his way close to her in S7?

Once again, just because he didn't know HOW to love doesn't mean he didn't love. Yes. He fell in love with Buffy the 18+ human with crazy doubts, an unfinished university degree, who was helpless with financial stuff... who would do anything for her friends and family... He fell in love with the slayer who died twice for the cause. He fell in love with the strong young woman who was strong enough to admit she needed people... and yeah, he screwed up. He didn't have a soul. But screwing up and loving her wrong doesn't mean he didn't love her. Remember, his journey is about learning how to love.. not learning to love.

And that manifested how? Which one of the three he never threatened to stake, shot, or otherwise harm? Hmm, was it Cecily? Was it actually because Willy Pratt was in possession of his soul, still ?

I'm failing to see your point. Yes, he loved Cecily in a more morally correct way than Dru and Buffy... because he had a soul. Then when he got it back, he's loved Buffy in an equally moral way. What is the point that is supposed to make?

Apples and oranges here. Apples - without a soul. Oranges - with. And 'some level' is a key.

Some level is key? Really? How? Isn't the point that he loved them at all enough to thwart your initial point I was responding to?

See, romantic (sexual desire) love is always about possible convenient returns - such as pleasure of sex, protection and material gain, bragging rights, higher self-esteem, connections, having somebody to watch your back, even simple procreation. The element of sacrifice is optional. So, yes, the character whose all existence is about all of the above IMHO is far from being good. Its that simple.

Reading this almost made me cry. Like flat out. And it might be that I have like zero emotional capacity today... or it might be I just feel awful that you even felt the need to say "romantic (sexual desire) love." Like those two things are SERIOUSLY equated in your mind. I mean... You have a husband, right? Do you love him solely because of your sexual attraction to him? Or would you love him despite that? Real romantic love is so much more than sexual attraction. It5's more than pleasures of sex, protection, material gain, bragging rights, higher self esteem, having someone to watch your back, and even simple protection. It IS about the connection. It's about personal growth and change. It's about finding someone who understand you. It's about truly understanding another person. It's about seeing a person in the deepest part of them, the parts others hate or never see, and pulling them tighter for it. So yes, a character whose all existence is about all of the above IMHO is one of the most incredible characters ever. It's that simple.

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 PM ----------

I don't think so no. I think right up to the moments before he died he still didn't know what doing good for good was like, he was still doing it to be with Buffy. He may have loved her at that point, properly loved her, as he has a soul now. But everything he was doing up to that point had all been for Buffy.

In the final moments, when she says she loves him, and he says no you don't, he realised she didn't love him, but that he still wanted to do the right thing. It was the first proper unselfish thing he's done, that was about saving the world, no about make Buffy think she loves him.
(That's my opinion, I don't think there's any other good excuse for why he would say no you don't, and the really bad excuses I've heard so far have just made me chuckle. I'm also not talking About Buffy loving him after that, I'm just talking up to that point!)

Ok... so interpreting that scene that way would make that seem true that way... But I don't think that's right. Of course, you already know that... I could talk forever about why I think he was telling her "no you don't" as a warning for her to live a normal life... but as everything I could say has already been said on this board, and you've just said our point of views (our being people who hold my interpretation of the scene) make you chuckle, I'm not going to explain. I mean nevermind restating my opinion for someone who's already heard it... stating my opinion who's really just going to disrespect my opinion and interpretation of the text to the point to tell me they laugh at it... Nope. Been there, done that.

I don't really see the difference...

You really don't see the difference between learning the fact that you can't make someone feel anything and learning how to do good to do good and not to make someone love you? I mean one of the means you can't make someone feel something they don't. Love for you, love for someone else, love for a piece of art... it's easier to manipulate negative emotions, but even then if someone loves something, you can't really make them hate it. The other means you do good to do good not to make someone love you. Spike's lesson, the question of his story, was much more broad than that. It was a bigger lesson here than that.

I definitely disagree with this. He couldn't tell the difference between love and sex. He may have used Harmony for sex, but when he started having sex with Buffy and had feelings for her, because she was using him for sex he thought that meant she loved him, because he couldn't separate the two.
When he tries to rape her, he explains his thought process, he tells her she'll feel love when he's inside her, because he doesn't know any better, he thought sex meant love.
When she kicks him off and says she can never love someone without a soul, he goes and gets a soul, thinking that once he got a soul she'll have to love him, that that's the only thing stopping their relationship.

In the section of text from me that you quote, I state "As a soulless creature (before season 7 when this thread is based in), he had a difficult time telling the difference. But he did feel sexual attraction and love differently." As a soulless creature, he had a difficult time telling the difference between his sexual attraction and love... because he didn't have a soul. But he did feel them different. This is evident in the fact that he did treat Buffy and Harmony differently. It's evident that he had a tough time telling the difference between the two while he was soulless for the reasons you stated, but then again, in the section of text you're responding to... I openly admit that.

 

[Taaroko]

Whoa, I'm really late to this party. I suppose I should address the original question before I respond to other comments.

No, I do not believe that Spike was trying to be a better man prior to getting his soul. I think he was doing anything he could think of to a) make Buffy love him and b) maintain a place in the only group of people he could sort of consider allies, having alienated the vast majority of the demonic community by venting his love of violence on them. "Better man" Spike in S5 and S6 was nothing more than a persona he effected to suit his purposes, much like the original "Spike" persona that came with a change of accent and attitude. It didn't take long before he began to believe the new mask was his real face, but it wasn't. His true nature shone through often enough to prove that.

It doesnt matter that he had a chip because even when he didnt have the chip he actually didnt kill any of the shows main characters unlike Angelus (yet spike gets a bad name all the time).

Relative goodness is not determined by kill count of recurring characters. And it certainly wasn't for lack of trying that Spike didn't kill any of them.

Sue me, but I prefer a cold-blooded monster with no confused notions of 'humanity' over that cheerfully humane fellow who burps and smiles and keeps eating - while feeling luv and jealousy and etcetra.

Agreed, and nicely put. If Spike has no capacity for anything resembling heartfelt goodness, then it's only to be expected that he would do things like trying to attack a woman as soon as it seems like his chip doesn't work or attempting to force himself on the woman he claims to love. If he does have confused notions of humanity, though, then he's clearly making a choice to follow his worst nature when he doesn't have to, and that's despicable.

Spike isn't programmed to do good in S7. He has a soul, which I'm assuming restores his conscience, but he could still choose to do wrong if he wanted to. People with conscience's do wrong all the time. The difference is the, unlike sociopaths, will feel guilt over it. Soulless vampires are pretty much sociopaths. Any good they do will be done not because they feel it is right, but because it will benefit them.

Yep, that's pretty much the closest real-life analogy we have. And a soul definitely doesn't make someone good, it only gives them the free will and inclination to choose good, as well as punishing them with feelings of guilt when they fail to do so. What they do is still up to them. Faith chose to switch to the Mayor's team and kill for him, and then she chose to change and seek redemption. Warren chose to attempt to frame Buffy for Katrina's death, which was the moment he crossed the line from playing at being a villain to actually being one, and he never looked back. For a hundred years, Angel chose to resist his demonic instincts when it would have been so easy to give in to them. And so forth. Without a soul, a being is inevitably evil. With one, there are options.

How many other characters in the show--how many people in the world--regularly do good that is not motivated by otherwise selfish desires? People do things for loved ones because they want to keep them happy and safe, which is ultimately boiled to the selfish desire of keeping them around, and having them love them back.

Holy crap, that's a broad definition of selfishness, and I disagree. Sometimes people do things for loved ones simply because they love them. (I am here referring to people, not soulless vampires.) Sometimes it's less simple, and selfless motives are mixed in with selfish ones. Soulless vampires, on the other hand, can only ever have selfish motives.

--

Evil UU, you gave me chills with all those Spike quotes about how he knows how Buffy relies on the people around her. I always knew he was deliberately pulling her away from all of the good influences in her life in S6, but I never fully appreciated how conscious he was of what he was doing to her. *shudder*

Did you know that as of 2008, in the US alone, 14% of reported rapes came from within a marriage? Health and safety experts claim that the number is likely much higher than reported. Rape has many faces and it's often those who are abused by ones whose trust they'd already earned are often dismissed.

Are these statistics supposed to support your claim that it isn't true that when you love someone, you don't try to rape them? Because all they do for me is prove that at least 14% of married people are actually selfish abusive scumbags who don't actually love their spouses. Rape and love are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist in the same person in the same relationship, and any rapist who claims to love the victim is grossly deluded.

Obviously things are a little more complicated with Spike, because once he has a soul, he's no longer a Spike who would ever try to rape Buffy (there was that iffy moment in "Beneath You" that really creeps me out, but he wasn't really in his right mind then), and yet he has to reconcile memories of doing just that.