That's the thing - Spike didn't resist it, yet Buffy in LMPTM is all "Spike is good now" as if this has anything to do with the issue of the trigger.
I think she was referring to the fact that he had a soul and was now able to be good in spite of the fact that at that moment a trigger was controlling him. In other words: what was going on was out of his control and merely temporary and thus should not define how he is treated in general, or what can be expected of him in the future.
Her assertion that the trigger must be inactive because she said so was even worse
I agree that sometimes when Buffy hopes for something she falsely assumes it to be true which is a mistake. Not saying that is the case throughout all interaction with Spike as others do obviously, but I'll concede that it happens here.
There is a huge space in between forgiving somebody and trusting them blindly.
Yup! But I don't see her trust in Spike as "blind," but rather very much earned. The forgiveness too.
By "the writers saying so" I mean them writing the characters as OOC. I don't think this can be a basis for a good story.
But what may be an OOC character moment for one person might be a well earned development for someone else. I'm saying that sometimes though one dismisses an action because the writers seem to have put it in ill advisedly, in fact they may have been leading up to it for a while, (Buffy trusting and forgiving Spike being a perfect example IMO).
I don't recall demanding all relationships staying the same. And the same argument can be used to justify any and all development no matter how well or how badly written it is. It basically means nothing whatsoever as it presents a false dichotomy - either one likes the change in the story or they are told that otherwise there would have been no change at all. This ignores the very obvious possibility of different changes happening instead of what actually unfolded. Maybe this would have made the show worse but it's entirely possible that this would have made it better.
I apologize if you think I"ve misrepresented you, but when someone dismisses certain things on the basis that they can't be because they weren't before, I infer that they resist change. And of course, when the writers aren't careful, said change embrace can look disastrous and make for an awful story, (see Giles in seasons 6 and 7, or Dark Willow). But I do feel that when it comes to Spike's development there is a lot of "it can't be therefore it's bad" argument out there, and if no specific reasons are given other than that, it's hard to see more than a resistance to his development. Again, I apologize if this is not at all what you mean.
Of course at this point in season 7, if one doesn't accept the fact that Spike would get his soul voluntarily or that Buffy should ever forgive him for formerly being her enemy no matter what he does from this point forward, then of course we'll disagree every time!
Well, as a viewer I feel nothing profound about a trust level which depends on the current plot needs. Maybe that's just me.
Ah, but here's the old chicken/egg argument: does the trust level depend on the plot needs, or is the plot merely reflecting the fact that Buffy trusting Spike would be inevitable at this point in the story, and is it existing around that fact, (if clunk-ily at times?)
🙂
