Why Do Some People Hate Spike?

[Gum Gnome33]

Because, for all they knew, the chip could have stopped working at any moment. They risked innocent lives by not getting rid of him. He rarely contributed any information they couldn't have gotten somewhere else, especially after S4. He might have been helpful, but he repeatedly proved that he was still dangerous.

After "Intervention" there was far more reason to believe he was helpful than harmful, and the scoobies didn't have any reason to believe he would start killing again, especially after he'd risked his life in Intervention, Spiral, and the Gift to save human beings. To stake him on the spot after all he'd done at that point would have been plain bizarre.

If we're just talking about season 4 however, yes, perhaps they should have. Luckily the story doesn't end there.

He has to help them if he wants them to keep giving him money for blood and not leave him to fend for himself against all the demons who'd be happy to kill him now that he's killed so many of them.

Again, that's true in season 4. It's very clearly stated in that season by Spike and other characters that safety is his motivation for helping them. However, I"m talking about late season 5 and season 6 in which it is very clear to me that his motivation is, initially, to win the approval of Buffy. And very clearly something more after she is dead, when he continues to help. (By the way, after Buffy's death, who's protecting him from demons? Certainly the argument that he's only saving the scoobie's lives on a daily bases in exchange for safety no longer works. 🙂 )

Because this isn't the kind of rule that allows for exceptions, it's a universal law, like gravity. All soulless beings are *always* irredeemably evil at their core. They can make a show of being better than that if it benefits them, and they can play the part so well that they even convince themselves, but they can never make even a tiny amount of genuine progress towards being good under the surface. You're going have to explain to me why Spike *can* be an exception to the rule, because it's much less logical to assume he's an exception than to assume he always has selfish motives driving his actions.

Honestly, regardless of what you or I believe about what souls are and who has them, this is a show about a series of truths and a universe that the writers came up with. They can set up rules and then break them as they see fit so long as they do so in a believable way, and I happen to think that they did. That's all.

Another example of a universal law in the Buffyverse is that all vampires are soulless.

Exactly. And at first they set up the seemingly black and white truth that those with souls can be good, and those without them are all bad. There's a twist when it turns out that that's not entirely true; that there's some grey area there. Again, that's what I consider to be a captivating story.

Spike being able to change for the better because (if I recall right from previous discussions) he has an extra helping of humanity compared to other soulless vampires is *not* an explanation that makes sense.

Nope, it's not his humanity alone. Again, it's the chip that provides the catalyst. Yes, if he was a vampire without a certain degree of underlying humanity, the chip might not have been as effective in basically retraining a lot of his impulses, up to a point. He needed both, not just one or the other. That is why he was different. Put a chip in formerly saint-like Dru and you might get the same result. If she was lucid enough to benefit from it that is.
All of that is just as air tight an explanation to me as "they did some magic and now he has a soul so he couldn't possibly kill people." 🙂

When writers set up an ironclad rule (soulless vamp=evil) that they keep for *years* with no intention or hint of breaking it, and then more than halfway through the show's run attempt to break it for one character without explaining why that's suddenly possible, it's extremely sloppy storytelling, and I don't feel inclined to put up with it.

And you're entitled to that opinion of course! But for me, establishing that there might be a twist or an exception to a rule that has existed for only 4 years--especially in a world that is quite frankly full of contradictions, exceptions, and magic--is not something I find to be sloppy writing. I find it engrossing and so do a lot of people, and while for some it is a fail on the writers' parts, for others it's one of the main reasons they are fans.

I can find selfish motives behind all of soulless Spike's actions quite easily, and so the Buffyverse continues to function properly.

But there are selfish motives between each and every character's actions, from the virtuous ones to the monsters, soul or no soul.

We already have a character who came along and was an exception: Buffy. Buffy is the first Slayer *ever* to have friends and family and go to school while slaying. Her exceptionalness is the point of the show, not Spike's (which is obviously debatable anyway).

Can't there be more than one exceptional character? I mean, exceptional in a different way? I think a lot of the characters are exceptional, and that's what makes them fun to watch. They're not what you'd expect; they overcome and better themselves. For me, not having souls should not prevent them from being exceptional as well. Especially when the 'verse gets to decide what it means to have one in the first place, and as we discover, it's not as simple as it seems in the first few seasons. Again, this is my perspective.

Also, the show never tackles the problem of how come Spike could change while it's perfectly okay to kill all other vampires based on the assumption that they can't.

As you know, I agree with this completely. But that doesn't speak ill of Spike's character, it means that once he came along and established some new truths about what vampires could achieve, that needed to be addressed. And I've already stated that that bothers me. 🙂

 

[Aloverssoulz]

I don't hate Spike, but I think he went from badass scary vampire to complete loser when he got the chip. I had no interest in his character in season 4 and season 5. It wasn't till season 6 when he became interesting again.

 

[Skytteflickan88]

drizzlydaze agrees: I love Spike (from the get-go) so I don't agree with all of your post, but I did feel the need to be on Buffy's side with the disgust. So I felt really confused whether I still liked Spike or not whenever Buffy brushed him off.

he's always been a character with both despicable(I wonder if I've ever gotten to write that word before, hope I spelled it right) and admirable character traits. From the start , in his first ep, we saw both a caring boyfriend and a cold murderer. I just never really appreciated the ambiguousness of his nature until he got his soul.

 

[Aloverssoulz]

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I sometimes berate on Spike a lot because (not trying to get flamed) his fans are some of the worst. Many franchises has that one character that for whatever reason attracts the nutcase fans that get too attached to a character. Known as "fanboys/fangirls"

Resident Evil franchises character is Leon. His fans are normally teens who didn't play RE1-3 and rant on about how awesome RE4 and Leon is and hate on Chris because Chris is the main villains main enemy.

X-Men is another franchise ruined by fanboys/girls with Wolverine. Wolverine shows up acting all badass and overpowered and attracts the kids that never shut up about him making the company turn Wolverine from a teammate to the main character. People used to joke that they should change the X-Men comics to "Wolverine and the X-men" and you know what happened? A cartoon called "Wolverine and the X-Men" came out.

Vegeta and Broly in Dragon Ball Z: When Vegeta came into the show all the boys went crazy over him because he was a badass that didn't take orders. With Broly (a character that was in a NON-CANON MOVIE) the same happened. Broly didn't even speak much, but because he was so powerful he gained a bunch of fans that don't even know the difference between canon and non-canon and now Broly is everywhere.

Assassin Creed 2's Ezio: Assassin Creed 2's character comes along all charming, witty and well written compared to the first games main character Altair who was poorly written and dull. Doesn't sound wrong saying Ezio is a better character than Altair does it? No, it doesn't, but being a better written character wasn't good enough for the crazy fanboys/girls. They had to continue on saying Ezio is also a better assassin even though all Ezios best weapons were made by or belonged to Altair and Altair is viewed by everyone (including Ezio himself) to be the greatest assassin ever. Poorly written or not.

Same thing happened with Buffy. Spike shows up in season 2. Everything is fine, but once he became a full timer in season 4 all the crazy fans started watching and got attached to his character. Then it really went off in season 6.

To show you i'm telling the truth i'll compare and you'll see that the crazy fans of Buffy do the same thing the crazy fans of the franchises I mentioned already do. Look.

* Over hype the new/small/side character till he gets main character status. Vegeta, Wolverine, Leon, Ezio, Joey from Friends.

* Compare over hyped new side character to older main character of same genre (Spike vs. Angel). Leon vs. Chris. Wolverine vs. Cyclops. Vegeta/Broly vs. Goku. Ezio vs. Altair.

* New over hyped main character get's countless spin offs, side stories etc. to the point where said character is now the "face" of the franchise. Joey from FRIENDS is a perfect example of this when he got his spin off series. Ezio too, who went on to get 2-3 more games with him as the main character.

* New over hyped main character becomes controversial and splits (RUINS!) the show/comic/games fanbase causing countless debates, fights and comparison trends on websites.

Again, not trying to get flamed, but Spike's character attracts the worst kind of people to the show - the most immature fanboys/girls you can find who constantly have to compare Angel and Spike...which happens on this board a lot. And would have been A-OK if Buffy the Vampire Slayer was renamed "Buffy and Spike"

Not saying all Spike fans are like that, but it's a huge reason why Spike became so big...and hated by others.

 

[Moscow Watcher]

Honestly, I don't see any subtlety in this journey, however hard I try. Here we have a character who basically turned into a monster because he could not get laid, spent over a 100 years under a skirt of a dominating, cheating girlfriend while occasionally snacking on a young girl or two on the side, then 'turned good' after being rejected by yet another woman and turning sexually violent on her. I can call this a parody or an outright pulling of fans leg, devious Jossean sarcasm, but there is certainly nothing subtle about it. At least Kubrick did not shy away from Alex admitting his flaws and raising a question of free will vs enforcement. Spike's story sweeps the part with embedded chip under the carpet and pretend it did not play the key role in his change.

I was speaking about the subtlety of the subversion. The Clockwork Orange is never mentioned, but Spike's story always polemizes against the film's throughline about the innate evilness of human nature. Yes, humans may be violent, cruel and dangerous. Yes, government attempts to improve them always fail. But people can change because of love. It's a hard and messy way, but it's the only way. Love.

(I admire Kubrick's genius, but his films invariably leave me depressed.)

 

[ladydorotea]

people can change because of love. It's a hard and messy way, but it's the only way. Love.

Hmm, firstly supposedly *vampires*, soulless ones in any case, are not people - and that was the whole premise of the show - otherwise Buffy as a character basically equates with Dexter Morgan, the serial killer of bad guys. Thus, in order to make the power of love being your changer-bender you have to subvert the story and honestly believe that Spike is a special snowflake good sparkly vampire -- capable of luv. I understand that this is Spuffy-fandom #1 postulate - and I won't argue with you on this one, because it is pointless -- but just want to point out that without this postulate the entire Spuffy legend falls apart - and there won't be any good side to this whole story. See above - why I cannot accept that 'potentially good guy' can get away with AR on the premise 'but he had no soul', and yet at the same time 'was capable of changing through luv'.

Secondly, I personally dislike the trope ( that is basically the premise of every bodice-ripper paperback novel out there) of a 'bad boy' being turned into fluffy kitten reciting poetry by the luv of a beautiful maiden. It is especially puzzling to me that in this fandom - claiming to be projecting 'feminist perspective' so many female fans jump on this bandwagon of believing that the spot between pretty woman's legs is so precious that a man can be changed in his basic nature via denying/allowing access to it... Sorry for a bit of a crude language - I would understand this in a different fandom... but not with fans that prefer Whedon over daytime soap operas.

I still believe that everybody can be saved and changed - but not via wanting sex with somebody so badly that it drives them to seek out a 'Spark'. That story is bad on so many levels that it makes my cringe and shiver with distaste every time I try to think about the idea. Sorry, but the whole attempted rape made me become a better man thing just throws me into a spin.

A man can change - but not by luv, only by his own willpower, not by dangling a carrot of a promised happy-happy before his nose.

 

[Moscow Watcher]

Hmm, firstly supposedly *vampires*, soulless ones in any case, are not people - and that was the whole premise of the show - otherwise Buffy as a character basically equates with Dexter Morgan, the serial killer of bad guys. Thus, in order to make the power of love being your changer-bender you have to subvert the story and honestly believe that Spike is a special snowflake good sparkly vampire -- capable of luv. I understand that this is Spuffy-fandom #1 postulate - and I won't argue with you on this one, because it is pointless -- but just want to point out that without this postulate the entire Spuffy legend falls apart - and there won't be any good side to this whole story. See above - why I cannot accept that 'potentially good guy' can get away with AR on the premise 'but he had no soul', and yet at the same time 'was capable of changing through luv'.

Secondly, I personally dislike the trope ( that is basically the premise of every bodice-ripper paperback novel out there) of a 'bad boy' being turned into fluffy kitten reciting poetry by the luv of a beautiful maiden. It is especially puzzling to me that in this fandom - claiming to be projecting 'feminist perspective' so many female fans jump on this bandwagon of believing that the spot between pretty woman's legs is so precious that a man can be changed in his basic nature via denying/allowing access to it... Sorry for a bit of a crude language - I would understand this in a different fandom... but not with fans that prefer Whedon over daytime soap operas.

I still believe that everybody can be saved and changed - but not via wanting sex with somebody so badly that it drives them to seek out a 'Spark'. That story is bad on so many levels that it makes my cringe and shiver with distaste every time I try to think about the idea. Sorry, but the whole attempted rape made me become a better man thing just throws me into a spin.

A man can change - but not by luv, only by his own willpower, not by dangling a carrot of a promised happy-happy before his nose.

[MENTION=9316]ladydorotea[/MENTION] - I respectfully disagree with you - but it looks like it's a matter of perception.

Where you see bodice-ripper cliches and manipulations around "the spot between pretty woman's legs" and "dangling a carrot of a promised happy-happy before his nose", I see an original, daring, brilliant story about love, obsession, connection and sacrifice. I think that Joss' take on human nature is more profound, more complex and, ultimately, more artistic than Kubrick's ruthless exposure of human sins and vices.

So - let's agree to disagree. It was nice to discuss this matter with you.

 

[Icarium]

Secondly, I personally dislike the trope ( that is basically the premise of every bodice-ripper paperback novel out there) of a 'bad boy' being turned into fluffy kitten reciting poetry by the luv of a beautiful maiden. It is especially puzzling to me that in this fandom - claiming to be projecting 'feminist perspective' so many female fans jump on this bandwagon of believing that the spot between pretty woman's legs is so precious that a man can be changed in his basic nature via denying/allowing access to it... Sorry for a bit of a crude language - I would understand this in a different fandom... but not with fans that prefer Whedon over daytime soap operas.

Yes, I am puzzled by that phenomenon too. It gets even funnier when some die-hard fans of Spike and Spuffy post long rants about how Angel, Xander, Riley, Dollhouse in general or other aspects of Joss's works are so problematic from a feminist perspective (don't get me wrong, I am very much not convinced by Joss' feminist street cred either, but for different reasons) but Mr. Bodice Ripper not only gets a pass but is their hero. Maybe this question would be interesting to explore in another thread. Becuase this one is already a bit too controversial. But if someone would like to explain how come a story which can be summarised with "don't give up crazy stalkers, eventually the girl of your dream will sleep with you" dodges criticism from a feminist perspective I am all ears. Seriously.

Also, they weren't actively trying to kill each other at the time. It was a shaky alliance.

They were trying to kill each other actually. Spike's infamous wet dream of Buffy is a plot twist made even more shocking because we expect her to attack him (as she had just done in a previous scene). More to the point, people tend to not forget all that easily when someone has tried to kill them or their friends (works for both Spike and Buffy). Do a little mental exercise - do you think it would make sense for Buffy to fall in love with Warren or vice versa? If not, why do you think it made sense for Spike and Buffy?

He couldn't engage in the usual debauchary, so the monster side was restrained.

Neither could The Master or Balthazar or Spike in the wheelchair but oddly enough this didn't make them any less evil. Nothing, except for plot contrivance, prevented Spike from getting a gang of minions and causing havoc indirectly. Or visiting the african demon in S4 and getting the chip removed. Really the chip excuse only works if Spike is really stupid and couldn't think of any ways to remove it or to harm people without his brain getting fried.

And for the bit on killing vampires indisciminately. Spike had a chip, plus special snowflake vampire. I covered this in my reply to Tarako, just above this one, so you can read that, but suffice to say (a) he had another catalyst and was rendered harmless regardless, and (b) not all vampires would have reacted like him. They are inherently evil. Conditioning them to change like Spike would require too much to warrant sparing them.

None of this is actually addressed in the show, though.

I'd just like to point out that almost all of the criticism given of Spike in this thread is about the grey area his character exists in and how that confuses/makes the people criticizing Spike uncomfortable.

You are confusing "grey area" with "sloppy writing". Both are subjective and what you think is a deliberate grey area to someone else it can be bad writing. Doesn't mean that you are wrong and he is right or vice versa. It's all subjective.

Suspension of disbelief again, with Willow and Anya and Angel and Faith and Spike. It's pretty damn good TV already; they can have a couple slip-ups.

A couple of slip ups? Almost half the cast is comprised of serial killers and/or people who worked to destroy the world. There is moral ambiguity and there is just whitewashing. Joss is very much into the latter, thanks to his unfortunate belief that having good guys become bad is he main way to create conflict and drama. And even more unfortunate belief that once they do it they don't need to be punished, feeling bad is also optional.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Again, not trying to get flamed, but Spike's character attracts the worst kind of people to the show - the most immature fanboys/girls you can find

Honestly, I've never seen another character in the verse whose fans are under so much personal attack as are Spike's. That's where the overzealous defense comes in quite frankly; how often it is that we are left having to defend ourselves when in the midst of offering an explanation for our appreciation of this fictional character!
I don't understand when/how it got to a point where judging Spike negatively meant extending that sentiment toward his fans. It's extremely upsetting. But alas, that seems to be such a big part of the original question posed by this thread, (or at least the two are somehow linked), and honestly I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation.

 

[Icarium]

Here is an example of the type of Spike fan that gives other fans a bad name (IMO, YMMV and all that jazz) - http://zoewintersbooks.com/2008/09/06/why-buffy-isnt-a-feminist-icon/

Some quotes:

I'm someone who believes that in Season six if Buffy had been strong enough to follow what she really wanted, she would have been with Spike. She would have admitted and integrated her own darkness into who she is as a person instead of denying her darker urges. But because she was too easily led by the opinions of others and their expectations for her, she is weak.

Yeah, Spike was perfect, the only reason they didn't plan the wedding in S6 are those pesky Scoobies.🙄

Spike is the Hero of Buffy, and Buffy is lame. She doesn't really deserve him.

No comment.

And she was so incredibly stupid. I couldn't respect her as a character after the way she treated Spike. He protected her sister, helped her friends, was broken when she died, mourned her, "Saved her every night", He is the template on which all men should be based, and bringing up his former mostly petty evils (when he's a vampire and hello they drink blood), is stupid!

Apparently thousands of murders and rapes are "mostly are petty evils". Wait, no rapes. It's so out of character for Spike to commit a rape. Don't ask me why, that's what many Spike fans say.

The weirdest thing is that I have seen many Spuffy shippers who don't even seem to like Buffy. I don't get it, I really don't. I have never seen people ship any other couple without liking both parts of the couple.

Of course, I need to reiterate that there are far more Spike and Spuffy fans who do not hold such extreme views. But due to the nature of the internet and vocal minorities, the few bad apples can leave quite an impression.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Here is an example of the type of Spike fan that gives other fans a bad name (IMO, YMMV and all that jazz) - http://zoewintersbooks.com/2008/09/06/why-buffy-isnt-a-feminist-icon/

So first of all, I actually have never felt personally attacked by you, [MENTION=8821]Icarium[/MENTION], (or [MENTION=10901]Taaroko[/MENTION] ). While we disagree and I get frustrated, neither of you has directly made me feel like I'm less of a person for liking Spike and I haven't seen you do that to others either. But you can see very clearly that that kind of treatment does exist, and often. See [MENTION=10218]Moscow Watcher[/MENTION]'s rep comment to me about her experiences, or some other posts on this thread.

But here's another point: from what I saw the above link shows a very specific sentiment that "he can do no wrong and all characters are deficient for not hugging him all of the time" sentiment which I will go as far as to say that the majority of us don't subscribe to. We attempt to understand, explain, and accept the things he does as part of the larger picture of who he is, and somehow that gets interpreted as finding him flawless, where as you can see by contrast, this other fan actually does think he is.
The bottom line is: we're not talking about him like that. Just because we can understand his flaws doesn't mean we excuse or endorse them. The above link isn't an example of something that someone posted on the boards, yet posters here are called negative things because of their views which are often distinctly different from those.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Sexbot
Attempted Rape
Stealing and sniffing of the underwear
BDSM factor
Chains

Your tidy list could be applied to any character. I could write an equally unattractive list about Willow,

Engangered everyone while selfishly bringing Buffy back from the dead
Almost killed her and Dawn in a car accident
Tried to end the world

and a worst one about Angel -

Fell in love with a 15 year-old (hello, pedo!)
Tried to kill Buffy's friends
Erased Buffy's memories without her consent
Tried to end the world

and these two had SOULS when they made many of these decisions.

Your personal dislike for Spike and his fans is blatant. At least admit it rather than make up "reasons" we should all hate him.

And BDSM? Clains? Huh? What's wrong with that when it's mutual? Spike didn't force Buffy to do anything. Having a BDSM fetish doesn't make Spike anyone else worthy of hatred. Once again your close-minded prejudice is obviously on display.

Do you really contribute anything to our discussions except character bashing? Bored now.

 

[ladydorotea]

Do you really contribute anything to our discussions except character bashing? Bored now.

[MENTION=3210]Joan[/MENTION] the Vampire Slayer

Have you by chance missed the title and purpose of the thread declared by the poster who started it? I am sorry to have been innocent enough to believe the purpose was stated in the title.

 

[Taaroko]

]
and a worst one about Angel -

Fell in love with a 15 year-old (hello, pedo!)
Tried to kill Buffy's friends
Erased Buffy's memories without her consent
Tried to end the world

Nope, try again. It was Angelus who tried to kill Buffy's friends and end the world, not Angel. Also, Angel did not erase Buffy's memories, he asked the Oracles to take his life back in exchange for ensuring she wouldn't die early, and they decided the best way to do that would be to rewind time 24 hours (which means Buffy never even had those memories or lived that day to begin with). Also, pedophilia is defined as sexual interest in prepubescent children. Whether or not Angel was romantically interested in Buffy from that first time he saw her at age 15 (which I don't believe he was), she was definitely post-pubescent.

As to the charges laid against Spike, I agree with Dorotea, though I don't blame soulful Spike for any of those any more than I blame Angel for what Angelus did. And by the way, some of us find BDSM and chains very disturbing, so whether it's consensual or not, we're not going to see it as endearing or romantic at all. What makes Spike's actions (the stalking, knicker sniffing, Buffybot shagging, and attempted rape) particularly disturbing is that they were all done by someone who believed he was in love with Buffy and deserved to be loved by her in return.

 

[brinkster130]

Your tidy list could be applied to any character. I could write an equally unattractive list about Willow

True, however this thread was created specifically asking why some people dislike SPIKE; not all buffyverse characters.

Your personal dislike for Spike and his fans is blatant. At least admit it rather than make up "reasons" we should all hate him.

And BDSM? Clains? Huh? What's wrong with that when it's mutual? Spike didn't force Buffy to do anything. Having a BDSM fetish doesn't make Spike anyone else worthy of hatred. Once again your close-minded prejudice is obviously on display.

Do you really contribute anything to our discussions except character bashing? Bored now.

I don't know what you hope to accomplish here by singling out one member when several have mentioned their frustrations with certain parts of the fandom. If you wish to respectfully discuss (which several people have been able to do thus far) why some people dislike Spike then feel free but being rude and talking down to others is not welcome on these boards.



***This is the one and only warning this thread will get, if this topic cannot be discussed in a respectful manner then the thread will have to be closed. Everyone please remember that liking Spike is just as valid an opinion as disliking him and vice versa.***

🙂

 

[Kairos]

Trying to boil this down to a fairly straightforward answer to the original question, and hopefully illuminate a little of the corollary personal-offense-to-Spike-fans question:

The way I see it, there are two ways to look at Spike's character in light of the attempted rape - he's capable of doing good without a soul, or he isn't. If he isn't, it's the story of a monster who tries to rape a woman, accidentally gets a conscience in the aftermath, and uses it to sacrifice himself and save the world, thus gaining his own salvation.

If he can, however, make moral choices, it's the story of a man who tries to rape a woman, feels bad about it, and comes back to her to make amends. It's also the story of how she not only forgives him, but would conceivably get back together with him.

I have enormous problems with Buffy being a woman who would shrug off something like that, but in addition, I have problems with Spike being someone who would do that. The first interpretation, in which he's a monster, is honestly the kindest possible understanding that I can apply to him. I want to like the guy, and I can't do that if he's the same guy as he was in Seeing Red.

From what I've seen, many of Spike's fans acknowledge the issues with both interpretations, but they address it by creating a third option, in which Spike is kinda monster kinda man. I see where this is attractive - there are nice little scenes in S5 and S6 that a shipper wouldn't want to lose - but he's either accountable for his actions or he's not, and I see it as an act of cowardice to refuse to deal with matters of sin directly. The idea of an incomplete conscience is not a solution; if you've had the wherewithal to make one selfless choice, it's not going to mysteriously vanish the next time you're presented with a moral dilemma.

I'm aware that I'm not going to convince anyone to drop the third option, but consider this: to me, when you say Spike did something good without a soul, it looks like you're saying he's a man. And that looks like you're saying he's a repentant rapist. And that looks like you're saying his intended victim should drop her misgivings about their past and rekindle a sexual relationship with him. I can talk myself out of that chain of logic probably as well as you can, but I can't keep the associations from being there at the outset.

Grey is my favorite color. I do not in any way feel flippant about the accusations I level at Spike and his following. I'm neither confused nor uncomfortable, and I recognize the gap in communication between the factions. But if the options are hating Spike or letting him classify the crimes of his past as mistakes, then yeah, I hate him.

(I won't be making any other posts on this thread; it already contains most of what I like the least in fandom, and I think the responses from others here pretty much have my viewpoint covered. Good job, zombie arms!)

 

[Gum Gnome33]

[MENTION=10219]Kairos[/MENTION], I know you said you won't be posting any more in this thread, but I wonder if you'd be ok with me addressing some of these points. It seems you've spent some time attempting to at the very least appreciate where we might be coming from, and I think that's really great. That just really makes me want to clarify things a bit further, even if, as you said, the divide will always be there.

From what I've seen, many of Spike's fans acknowledge the issues with both interpretations, but they address it by creating a third option, in which Spike is kinda monster kinda man.

Yes, this is sort of it...

but he's either accountable for his actions or he's not,

He's certainly accountable for his actions, but at the same time his accomplishments deserve to be acknowledged and seen for what they are. In other words, a soulless monster doing good deeds as if he were a man is pretty impressive, in spite of the fact that said soulless monster will still act according to his nature at other times.

and I see it as an act of cowardice to refuse to deal with matters of sin directly. The idea of an incomplete conscience is not a solution; if you've had the wherewithal to make one selfless choice, it's not going to mysteriously vanish the next time you're presented with a moral dilemma.

Yes but, as I see it, that is exactly what Spike realizes before he gets his soul. By definition he is no longer a coward when he deals with what he's done by risking his life to put something within him that he believes will keep him from ever doing it again.

when you say Spike did something good without a soul, it looks like you're saying he's a man. And that looks like you're saying he's a repentant rapist. And that looks like you're saying his intended victim should drop her misgivings about their past and rekindle a sexual relationship with him. I can talk myself out of that chain of logic probably as well as you can, but I can't keep the associations from being there at the outset.

I fully respect what you're saying here, and I acknowledge that you see them somewhat automatically. But I just want to address them from my pov so that they might in effect illustrate a potential "fourth" opinion about Spike. 🙂
First: saying he did something good without a soul does not mean he's being considered as a man. Just the opposite; again, it's more impressive that he does something good without a soul because he isn't being considered as a man. I don't give Xander extra brownie points for choosing to do the right thing because, all things considered, I expect that he'll come to this conclusion because of the fact that he's a human being without psychopathic instincts. A soulless monster behaving well is another matter.
Next: He is a repentant (would-be) rapist. But that doesn't, for me, lead logically to the conclusion that his "intended" victim, (quotation marks because I don't think it was his intent but that is another issue) should drop her misgivings about him. I think the fact that he risked his life getting a soul in order to guarantee that he'd never hurt her again, and came back to fight by her side, allows me to accept that she might forgive him and in time consider rekindling a relationship with him. So it's not A jumps to F for Buffy--there are four letters in between. 🙂

 

[dexeded]

They were trying to kill each other actually. Spike's infamous wet dream of Buffy is a plot twist made even more shocking because we expect her to attack him (as she had just done in a previous scene). More to the point, people tend to not forget all that easily when someone has tried to kill them or their friends (works for both Spike and Buffy). Do a little mental exercise - do you think it would make sense for Buffy to fall in love with Warren or vice versa? If not, why do you think it made sense for Spike and Buffy?

It doesn't make sense for Buffy to fall in love with Spike, and she didn't. It makes sense for Spike to fall in love with Buffy, when love in this case is more obsession/lust at the onset. Which slowly changes through the seasons, at which points they are no longer trying to kill each other.

Neither could The Master or Balthazar or Spike in the wheelchair but oddly enough this didn't make them any less evil. Nothing, except for plot contrivance, prevented Spike from getting a gang of minions and causing havoc indirectly. Or visiting the african demon in S4 and getting the chip removed. Really the chip excuse only works if Spike is really stupid and couldn't think of any ways to remove it or to harm people without his brain getting fried.

Balthazar is not a vampire. The Master is used to commanding minions around and is more of the evil overlord type than the get-caught-up-in-bar-brawls Spike.

Buuut I do concede that it was a plot contrivance. Doesn't change the ultimate outcome of said contrivance.

None of this is actually addressed in the show, though.

Can't argue with you there, but it was admittedly a plot possibility that never occured to me because the reasons seemed apparent.

And BDSM? Clains? Huh? What's wrong with that when it's mutual? Spike didn't force Buffy to do anything.

To be fair, I think she was talking about the chains in Crush.

 

[Anca]

Jane Espenson talking with Stan Lee about Joss coining the "Big Bad" term and the evolution of Spike from villain to hero, sacrificing himself for Buffy and the world.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgAvWZklf8U"]Jane Espenson - Cocktails With Stan - Ep1 - YouTube[/ame]

According to Joss Whedon, Spike learned from his mistakes

Joss: He was more evolved, though. He had more of an edge, but at the same time ya know he was, ya know he chose to have a soul.

Jeff: Sure.

Joss: Ya know he ah, he learned from his mistakes..

People are selfish and I think it's hard to accept that others are better, that others can admit that they have made mistakes, that other can change to never repeat the same mistakes again.

 

[Kana]

I'm ok with Spike. He's not my favourite character, but I'm cool with him.

Over the years it seems that Spike has developed into a bit of a marmite character. He can evoke anything from crazy fanboy/girl love to intense hate. Arguably this can apply to any character but for some reason, when it comes to Spike, the voices sound louder to me.

So what is all the fuss about?

Well there are several points of contention that keep appearing and I'll attempt to address them in this post.

Charge 1: Spike's character became pathetic when he fell in love with Buffy.


This certainly one that I've seen a lot. I tend to hear things like "Spike lost his edge when he fell in love with Buffy" etc. This often frustrates many Spike and Spuffy fans as they see this change as vital character development. We knew that Spike was a fool for love from the first episode and his characterization, as much as any human turned into vampire, made some degree of sense. Our fans (and of course the writers) want us to peel back the veneer and see the romantic poet beneath. Why do we want to keep a character who is so rich complex as the wise craking, tough guy villain? Where's the depth in that?

The reply I've sometimes find is "I don't care". I've actually seen a few Spike detracters say the don't wish to see his character development, because they are not invested in his character. Which is fair enough. When we become invested in a character we expect them to see them as we do instinctually. A character can develop in many different ways. Even if said character development makes sense, doesn't mean the traits they exibit have to be to everyone's liking. To me Spike's character development makes absolute sense (as much as any other character), but understanding a character is not the same as liking them.

Charge 2: Spuffy is degrading


While this doesn't merely pertain to Spike, I thought I'd mention it as I've seen many fans discuss this and it's often a major point of contention.

I've seen many a fan talk about mutual abuse and how they find the relationship disgusting as a result.

Then the usual back and forth begins. "But what about Season 7?" Spuffy and Spike fans may reply. "Hang on, I thought Spuffy was a journey. Are we suppose to forget Season 6, does Season 7 make up for it?"

As I once said, the lines are less defined both with Spike and Spuffy. When Spike fell in love with Buffy he was neither her enemy nor her friend or lover. He was the very type of creature that she fights on a nightly basis. albiet somewhat chipped. Many fans find the idea of her being drawn to a soulless vampire perverse along with engaging in an mutually abusive relationship with one. Some feel that shipping such relationships, if we take them in their entirety, is a form of glorifying abuse in relationships, deeming it as something dangerously sexy. Bangel barely crosses those lines because without a soul, Angelus was the enemy and with a soul, he was the lover. If soulled vampires are treated as soulled humans, this seems to work. Soulled vampires and humans=OK, however, soulless vampires= not OK.
This said, is exploring the nature of behaviour, even when that behaviour falls a little outside of what we deem good and moral? Isn't it the defiance of convention that enamours fans to Spike and Spuffy? Sometimes we find ourselves in situations where our feelings don't fall within the framework of what we are taught is normal, so can we not identify with Buffy in this situation? Depicting something that is seen as morally complex is not the same as glorifying it, it's merely exploring it. Part of entertainment is not just seeing what is triumphant and morally unambiguous. It can be to do with identification, understanding that the world does not always make sense, yet we have to find our identity in it anyway.
This said, personally identification works both ways. What some like to explore, some, because of personal experience, may not want to see. Sometimes we lines we draw for ourselves are there for a reason: to protect us. I find it offensive for both sides to condemn the other. Wanting to explore the morally ambguous doesn't necessarily make us morally bankrupt and not wanting to see abuse in relationships in the form of entertainment, doesn't necessarily make us narrow-minded or overly prudish.

Charge 3: The Attempted Rape

I'm going to brush past this a little, because of the subject matter, but it has to be mentioned. I've always said that I find it difficult to judge soulless vampires in the same ways as soulled vampires, if indeed we can on an objective moral framework. Vampires will tend to do what many humans will find morally repugnant. This psychological shift, it seems, is powerful enough that it justifies Buffy killing them without trial. It's not judging them or punishing them, but recognising that their existence threatens our existence, it's kill or be killed.

Seen as vampirism, essentially is a figurative form of rape, I don't tend to blame the preceeding human or even subsequent soulled vampire. If our emotional responses to our own actions and the actions of others change so much, then it's possible that our perspective on 'doing the evil thing' would change as well.

This, in general, seems like acceptable stance, but then we have Spike. Why is so harrowing to behold the AR when arguably Angel, Anya and Spike himself have done things that can be seen as just as bad if not a lot worse?
Maining because we see it happen. Sometimes when we are told of crimes, they almost take on an abstract element.

They become stories in effect. However see the crime and see it happen to a character we care about and see a character who we began to feel invested in, then it tends to disgust us more. People often talk about the fact that Spike showed more 'humanity' and I think this is thing that bothers a lot of people. Concepts such as 'demons doing evil things' can be more palatable, but the idea that someone can say "I love you" and then hurt you like that, can hurt us all the more.

Now fans are divided in this way. Spike supporters ask us to see what Spike went through to make amends. Spike detracters seem to believe that certain things can't be forgiven. Both are understandable and also personal positions.

Charge 4: How Can Spike be Good, When's he's Evil?

I remember seeing a Spike debate a few years ago and the back and forth went a little something like this...

A: How can Spike be good without a soul?
B: Spike's always been a 'grey' character, not black and white like say Angel, why can't you understand that...?

Needless to say, the debate was short of a resolve and both parties became increasingly exasperated. 'A' defined the soul as a conscience or as Wesley described it 'the deep down urge to do the right thing'. His argument is that it's parodoxical for soullessSpike to do the right thing if he doesn't have a soul.

'B' didn't see it as that simple. Her argument was that Spike doesn't necessarily fit that mould, in that he exibits more humanity which further enhanced by the fact that the chip helps to suppress his demon side. She goes on to talk about some things are grey can't don't always fit into neat little categories.
What 'B' said is sometimes true. Often we place labels on others, on ourselves, on society to make sense of it, even when the labels don't fit. The rub is, without labels, we wouldn't make sense of anything. We have to be careful when we use the word 'grey' because in extreme cases it just be seen as a cop out.

This may be 'A's point of contention. If he defines the soul as a conscience, it is by defintion, impossible to do right thing without one. If such a thing is possible, then he wouldn't need a soul in the first place. 'A' also sees the 'grey area' as a cop out. It's not really answering the question.

'Purists' as I tend to call them deal with this by labeling his actions. They say that they are selfish. His attempts, even his getting a soul, were all about impressing the girl. Now Spike fans will remind him that he fought along side the Scoobies even after Buffy's death. The purists may then pull the 'inconsistency card'. In that the writers established the rules and then broke the rules for Spike, to the extent the rules no longer have any meaning.

Again we need to be careful. Even if something isn't defined, it doesn't mean slapping the wrong label on it makes it better. Perhaps even labelling the soul as the conscience is too simplistic. Perhaps the soul provides certain emotional responses that we would associate with that of a conscience. So perhaps, as I said earlier, vampire behaviour is on the whole different due to psychological differences, but it doesn't mean they cannot exibit similar behaviour, it's just maybe that the behaviour comes from a different source.

Did I define what the soul is here? Well no, but also didn't adhere rigidly to the concepts of good and evil either, I merely talked about the difference in behaviour.

When talking about good and evil and the soul we need to be careful with our definition. Both 'A' and 'B' had reasonable arguments but they were perhaps talking in cross purposes about definitions. We do see Spike doing what many would consider morally right without a soul and defining his actions as merely selfish becomes a circular argument as well: Spike is selfish because he doesn't have a soul and without a soul you can only be selfish.

But at least 'A' is talking about the significance of the soul whilst trying to define it in moral terms. We (and yes I sometimes include myself in this when I slip) is that we talk about getting a soul or having a soul as if it's a big deal without properly defining it. Then we use the word 'grey' when we run into a brick wall.

The next time we praise or chastise Spike, we need to ask ourselves, are we being consistent? Are we inappropriately placing labels on him? Or if we call him 'grey' isn't that just a cop out and are we shying away from asking the hard questions?

There are many more issues with what people hate Spike, but I'll stop there for the time being. As I said before, I like Spike and I can understand why people love and hate him. By the way, this list does not represent all the fan base. We all have different opinions and we don't all fall into these neat categories. I just wanted to bring attention to some of the issues I've seen over the years and look at why they arose.

Other things to consider:

Do we sometimes find it incomprehensible as to why other fans dislike our favourite characters?

Do we find we tend to judge and label fans when they have a particular view on a character?

Do we sometimes forget that liking or disliking a character is not always about justification but personal taste?