Were Giles and Robin Wood wrong?

[The Bronze]

They also established that is didn't make a difference to Spike(or much of one). But the fact it makes a difference to Angel, gets applied to Spike.
Spike tells Buffy he got a soul for her, how did he get a soul for her, if it's established that he is two different people?

In debates people want to point out all the good spike did and say give him credit, then you point out the attempted rape and it's "look at Angel he's the template, he's two different characters!"

I think you've let a few conversations with people cloud your view of the show and certain characters. It's not the fact that it makes a difference to Angel but the fact that it's established that a soul makes a difference. There is always a difference between characters when a soul is present and when it is not. A soul doesn't guarantee any level of "goodness" just the guarantee of a difference. Spike and Angel talk about past actions in the first person, that's their call, it doesn't change the fact they are different. It just means they're got a head rammed full of memories.

I'm a Spike fan. Don't give souled Spike any credit for getting a soul or any other action while soulless. Equally don't cast him in a bad light because of the actions committed without a soul.

I'm constantly baffled by people pointing to the attempted rape scene as evidence of Spike being a monster. I mean no **** Sherlock. He was a soulless vampire that left a path of destruction behind him for a hundred odd years. Obviously he was a monster. He's not that same monster once he has a soul though.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I think you've let a few conversations with people cloud your view of the show and certain characters. It's not the fact that it makes a difference to Angel but the fact that it's established that a soul makes a difference. There is always a difference between characters when a soul is present and when it is not. A soul doesn't guarantee any level of "goodness" just the guarantee of a difference. Spike and Angel talk about past actions in the first person, that's their call, it doesn't change the fact they are different. It just means they're got a head rammed full of memories.

I'm a Spike fan. Don't give souled Spike any credit for getting a soul or any other action while soulless. Equally don't cast him in a bad light because of the actions committed without a soul.

I'm constantly baffled by people pointing to the attempted rape scene as evidence of Spike being a monster. I mean no **** Sherlock. He was a soulless vampire that left a path of destruction behind him for a hundred odd years. Obviously he was a monster. He's not that same monster once he has a soul though.

And this is why it's incredibly difficult to debate with a Spike fan, you never know which one you'll get. You get tag teamed.

One person says "oh Spike fought for his soul" you reply with "He also tried to rape Buffy" and another person replies with "That was presoul, nothing presoul counts"

Thats great you personally dont count it. I've seen lots of people say they dont count spikes presoul good deeds, but then in another discussion they'll praise him for something he's done from presoul to after soul.

Angel and Spike talk about their past crimes in the first person, but Angel takes ownership for them. His entire mission is about righting that wrong.
Spike talks in the first person, excuses himself for the bad and takes credit for the good.

 

[The Bronze]

And after all that basically things haven't changed. Spike fans maintain that no matter what, Wood and Giles were wrong because everything worked out fine in the end- this is the main crux of their arguments.

That's not the crux of the argument. The crux is that Wood was motivated purely by revenge, knew that Spike had a soul and was different and wanted to kill him anyway. Not just kill him but fight him and satisfy his ego. Making him both wrong and a tool. Giles may have been thinking of group safety but as has been pointed out he was turning a blind eye to other threats in the house. He also went behind Buffy's back and seemingly had no plan in place for the events afterwards. Making him a bit of a hypocrite as well as wrong.

I am now withdrawing from the discussions because it has been drawn to my attention that some fans (though not all, or even the majority) of a certain blonde ensouled vampire are engaging in personal attacks on people here by way of another site.

That's not cool. This place would be pretty dull if we all saw things the same way.

 

[white avenger]

Simplistic in the extreme. The 'double standard' you contend was explored in great depth all through S2 in 'Passion', and again in 'Becoming' Xander would handily kill Angel for the things that Angelus did. (As would Kendra btw.)

This extends into S3 through 'Revelations' and 'Amends'. Xander and Giles and Cordelia all hold Angel resposible for the actions of Angelus. It's only Buffy who (with difficulty) actually seperates the two in her mind.

Explored, yes, but it started in Season 1 so that a romance between Angel and Buffy would be more acceptable, and as part of the reason that Angel was unique from all of the "monster" vampires. His had to be a tortured soul, aching and appalled at the things that he had done, but there had to be some actual reason, other than just a desire to be a good boy now, even if that desire was inspired by the first actual love that his broken heart had ever known. It had to be the stuff of Harlequin Romances, a passion barely falling short of Romeo & Juliet. The Angelus/Angel, two beings occupying the same body, one good, one evil solution wasn't the most original, but at least it was better than giving Angel an evil twin brother.

And it makes perfect sense for Buffy to be the first, even the only, one to accept the "new" Spike and unconditionally forgive, protect, and believe in him despite the sins and transgressions of his soulless self. If she could accept as fact that a soulless monster, not Angel, killed Jenny Calendar, tortured Giles, and plotted to destroy the world, how could she do any less for Spike, her attempted rapist, without being a total hypocrite? To do anything else would be applying a double standard when dealing with Angel and Spike. If one deserved forgiveness and encouragement, then the other should be given the same courtesy. How many times in Season 7 did Buffy have to say, "It's different now. HE'S different," "You risked everything to become a better man, and you can be. You are. You may not see it, but I do. I do," and "The man you're seeking vengeance on doesn't exist anymore," to illustrate that?

And you are absolutely right about suggesting that a particular participant in a discussion should "calm down," even if said suggestion was delivered in all sincerity and true concern for that person's emotional health and mental well being isn't cool, any more than comparing another's honest opinions to bovine excrement. Feeling passionate on a subject is no excuse for rudeness, regardless of who is or isn't appearing to win a particular debate.

But saying that someone has plenty of nuts isn't the same thing as calling him a nut.

 

[thetopher]

That's not the crux of the argument. The crux is that Wood was motivated purely by revenge, knew that Spike had a soul and was different and wanted to kill him anyway. Not just kill him but fight him and satisfy his ego. Making him both wrong and a tool. Giles may have been thinking of group safety but as has been pointed out he was turning a blind eye to other threats in the house. He also went behind Buffy's back and seemingly had no plan in place for the events afterwards. Making him a bit of a hypocrite as well as wrong.



That's not cool. This place would be pretty dull if we all saw things the same way.

Well, I agree that Wood was wrong- he was motivated by revenge and wasn't thinking clearly. I agree.
Wood wanted to draw out the vengeance, unvent all that anger- I'm not sure it was an ego thing at all, but that really doesn't matter.

But the more I think about 'turning a blind eye to other threats' in the house the more I think its balony. There was no other threat at that time that even came close to trigger-happy Spike.

Willow- People forget that, more than anybody, Giles knows that Willow is no longer a threat, he worked with the coven for months to ensure her rehabilitation, seeing her remorse, her struggle, her change.
He knows she's not the same person who killed those people- darkest magics notwithstanding.

Anya- Did Giles even know about Anya returning to vengeance. I don't even know- even so she'd helped him on several occassions since reverting to being human again Beljoxier's Eye (?) I think. Not a threat any longer.

Faith- Actually not even there yet, not a issue. But I would've accepted Giles being deeply wary of her when she showed, it just never comes up because they were all overtaken by events and Caleb.

Andrew- Not superpowered, not triggered, no where near the same level of potential threat as Spike. He's barely even a prisoner at this point but I admit he should've been tied up/slapped around a bit more by pretty much everybody.

Plus, Giles' plan? Eliminate the threat and convince Buffy that it was the right choice after the fact.
What was Buffy's plan? Cross her fingers and hope? Buffy had no plan besides wailed 'but he has a soul now!'- ignoring the fact that Spike killed a dozen or so people while having that soul plus a chip- so clearly, having a soul has nothing to do with whether Spike was a threat or not.

It was Giles who came up with the 'cure' for the trigger, after all. He tried that plan, and it appeared to have failed. Giles, being proactive, tried something else.
Is it good that he failed? Well, yeah, because in the end Buffy's faith in Spike is sorta vindicated.

But the actual question is was it wrong that Giles tried what he did? No, it wasn't- he did what he thought was nessesary. That's the thing about Watchers and their training/personality. (you can see this with Wesley and what he did with Conner) they make the tough call because they think its right based on what they know at the time.

Giles doesn't do any of this lightly, and he knows that it will hurt Buffy because of her feelings for Spike, but ultimately he does it to safeguard her life and the lives of others in the house. I can't call foul on him for doing that, because I look at his motives.

 

[Doppelgang]

When people start using the term fan w*&k, you know a discussion has gone off the rails. It's the fan forum equivalent of a Hitler reference.

I have not been following all the debates on here, though I get the idea its turning into a polarized argument between Spike Lovers and Spike haters/Angel Lovers. I remember some such heated debates in the past when I used to be posting regularly.

To give my personal view on the question at hand in the thread. It would have been very much a spike friendly view in the past, but now I like to think I have come to see things slightly less biased.

The mistake was the manner of doing it behind Buffy's back, this was bound to cause friction amongst the group later on, whatever the outcome. Yes, Buffy was not going to be persuaded by anything, but if they had tried to persuade the rest of the group, the potentials, etc.. and brought Faith into the fold, then she would have had to accept the threat of Spikes trigger at risk of being excluded, (as of course ended up happening later on) and some course of action would have had to be taken, rather than the just ignoring it and turning it into a polarizing issue within the group.

Which, funnily enough, now seems to have become a polarizing issue on this thread 😀

To summarise, (I am not going to change this ise to ize despite the red marking) Buffy at times didn't properly address the danger Spike presented as she was blinded by her allegiance with him and her belief in him as now being good. This blind spot is the reason something like what Giles and Wood did was an inevitable reaction. But it is just the manner in which they went about it that they got it wrong.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I'm gonna go ahead and close this up as it's over 100 posts.

Strongly urge everyone to reread the thread. The passive aggressive digs aimed at people rather than at someones points and the digs directly aimed at people were all from one side of this argument.

Lumping everyone in together isn't fair when the personal attacks were all on one side.

If you can't reply to someone's points, no need to imply they're crazy, resort to name calling or reach out for help to get other people to write your replies for you.