"Why the Spike hate?" Continued

[Taaroko]

*sigh* Okay, maybe I should put it this way. To me, the idea that Spike (or any soulless creature) could truly change for the better and acquire any inherent goodness at all has always seemed as ludicrous as spontaneous generation (the now obsolete theory that living things can just materialize from inanimate matter without being put there by anything). True goodness is the soul's domain alone, which means that if something soulless is changing for the better (or feeling any kind of genuine love), it's like he's sprouting bits of soul through sheer force of will, or something equally absurd. So I can't believe Spike is ever really sincere in any of your examples, Miss Kitty, or that he doesn't have some other (less noble) driving motivation behind his actions, because, to me, for his motives to be pure is just not possible.

P.S. When I was talking about Angel's approach compared to Spike's, I meant the initial way he approached a relationship with Buffy, so his "approach" phase was long over by season seven.

 

[zobothehobo]

*sigh* Okay, maybe I should put it this way. To me, the idea that Spike (or any soulless creature) could truly change for the better and acquire any inherent goodness at all has always seemed as ludicrous as spontaneous generation (the now obsolete theory that living things can just materialize from inanimate matter without being put there by anything). True goodness is the soul's domain alone, which means that if something soulless is changing for the better (or feeling any kind of genuine love), it's like he's sprouting bits of soul through sheer force of will, or something equally absurd. So I can't believe Spike is ever really sincere in any of your examples, Miss Kitty, or that he doesn't have some other (less noble) driving motivation behind his actions, because, to me, for his motives to be pure is just not possible.

You know, while I don't agree with it, this actually made sense to me. I of course believe Spike could be pure in his motives while soulless because as we saw he did (in my opinion) have a bit more humanity than a normal vampire after he was sired and he had the chip. Plus as a human, he was such a FEELING person. Some people think the world, some people feel it. William felt it so strongly that as a vampire he also felt it. And therefore I believe and trust him when he talks about his feelings. But I can understand this opinion.

 

[StarSlayer]

*sigh* Okay, maybe I should put it this way. To me, the idea that Spike (or any soulless creature) could truly change for the better and acquire any inherent goodness at all has always seemed as ludicrous as spontaneous generation (the now obsolete theory that living things can just materialize from inanimate matter without being put there by anything). True goodness is the soul's domain alone, which means that if something soulless is changing for the better (or feeling any kind of genuine love), it's like he's sprouting bits of soul through sheer force of will, or something equally absurd. So I can't believe Spike is ever really sincere in any of your examples, Miss Kitty, or that he doesn't have some other (less noble) driving motivation behind his actions, because, to me, for his motives to be pure is just not possible.

You know that we've said Spike couldn't truly change for the better until he got his soul right, lol? And as Zobo mentioned, Spike had some humanity in him that allowed him to put up a fight with his demon. So, his motives at times were genuine and good. It's one of those gray areas. 🙂 I know that's not how you see it, but I respect your opinions. 🙂

 

[zobothehobo]

StarSlayer agrees: I agree about his humanity. IMO, that made it possible for his motives to be good. However, he couldn't be completely good until he got his soul.

I agree. He couldn't be completely good but that doesn't mean he wasn't sincere or that his motives weren't pure.

 

[LadyLavinia]

When Angel was sired and became Angelus, there was no humanity in him.

Why is it that whenever someone talks about humanity in regard to these sci-fi or fantasy stories, we're supposed to believe that it is something wonderful or "good"? There was plenty of humanity in Liam before he was a vampire . . . and after. I just don't believe that everything about human nature is positive. There is a great deal of negativity in humanity. Of the worst kind.

 

[prophecygrrl]

*sigh* Okay, maybe I should put it this way. To me, the idea that Spike (or any soulless creature) could truly change for the better and acquire any inherent goodness at all has always seemed as ludicrous as spontaneous generation (the now obsolete theory that living things can just materialize from inanimate matter without being put there by anything). True goodness is the soul's domain alone, which means that if something soulless is changing for the better (or feeling any kind of genuine love), it's like he's sprouting bits of soul through sheer force of will, or something equally absurd. So I can't believe Spike is ever really sincere in any of your examples, Miss Kitty, or that he doesn't have some other (less noble) driving motivation behind his actions, because, to me, for his motives to be pure is just not possible.

About the soul thing though. I still think it acts more like a conscience than anything else. It's significant in that it distinguishes right from wrong (although a lot of other things, like love, loyalty, etc. can also function this way, but maybe just to a lesser degree), it brings the owner closer to humanity, and in some cases, it's a huge marker between good and evil. But the idea that a soul is the only thing that allows sincerity, goodness, or love? I...I don't know. I'm still a "gray area" kinda girl, I guess lol. I still think it's necessary for true goodness, but I don't believe the absence of one means goodness ("goodness" as in the ability to love, to sacrifice, to feel remorse and grief, etc.) can't be achieved at all. But yeah. I'm probably just going to stick to lurking on this thread now if it gets any more activity, cause I've said similar things on souls in this thread already lol and I guess we just don't agree on the function or meaning of souls? And from that, I'm not sure we can really understand each other's opinions on Spike. 🙂 Oh well. 😀

 

[StarSlayer]

Kana agrees: I would never argue moral superiority either way but I think Angel became a better person because of Buffy but Spike became a better person for Buffy.

However, if that was the case with Angel, why come to Sunnydale, follow her, and help her out? 😉 I think one could argue he also wanted to become a better person for Buffy too. Same with Spike. One could argue he wanted to become a better person because of Buffy (especially after she died). Both uses of the words sound similar to me. 🙂

 

[Kana]

However, if that was the case with Angel, why come to Sunnydale, follow her, and help her out? 😉 I think one could argue he also wanted to become a better person for Buffy too. Same with Spike. One could argue he wanted to become a better person because of Buffy (especially after she died). Both uses of the words sound similar to me. 🙂

Oh I was only pointing out the difference in the journey. Spike wanted to be better for Buffy. Angel always wanted to be something more than himself whether he was evil or on the side of good.

Compare these:

SPIKE
I did this for you. The soul, the changes - it's what you wanted.

ANGEL
I wanna help her. (Whistler looks at him) I want... I wanna
become someone.

I've always thought that Buffy sparked up Angel's faith in humanity. It's not like he's never helped humans before, it's just that he lost faith in himself and in humanity and found it again when he saw the Slayer.

To me, Spike's just a different animal. I don't think he reflected on it that much (he said that of himself and evil) but it his love for Buffy was enough for him to become hero. The sort of man Buffy would deserve.

Angel just wanted to become a better person and Buffy was his shot, so to speak.

I'm really loathe to the whole selfish and selfless thing. It becomes problematic. I'd say it would make more sense that before Spike got a soul he was doing it out of personal loyalities, being considered as good or evil depending on who he loved and what they might expect, rather than for morality's sake in general. Hopefully this keeps the significance of the soul intact without making him seem selfish in his attempts to help the slayer.

---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

This may not seem to matter but this difference is relevent as to why I prefer Angel. I don't really relate to the idea of changing for someone else. This isn't me disparaging Spike because I do like him and find him intriguing, but I personally I cannot relate to changing my sense of morality to suite the person I love. I was even a bit blah, when he said what he said in Get It Done.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

ANGEL
I wanna help her. (Whistler looks at him) I want... I wanna
become someone.

I've always thought that Buffy sparked up Angel's faith in humanity. It's not like he's never helped humans before, it's just that he lost faith in himself and in humanity and found it again when he saw the Slayer.

Aww.. how romantic.. I felt a little tear well in the corner of my eye.. but just for an instant.

 

[StarSlayer]

Oh I was only pointing out the difference in the journey. Spike wanted to be better for Buffy. Angel always wanted to be something more than himself whether he was evil or on the side of good.

I definitely agree that the journeys were different. It's why I love them both. 🙂 I just think saying someone wants to change for someone else sounds similar to saying someone wants to change because of someone else. Or maybe there can be an over-lap, in that one can change for a person and also because of a person.

I'm really loathe to the whole selfish and selfless thing. It becomes problematic. I'd say it would make more sense that before Spike got a soul he was doing it out of personal loyalities, being considered as good or evil depending on who he loved and what they might expect, rather than for morality's sake in general. Hopefully this keeps the significance of the soul intact without making him seem selfish in his attempts to help the slayer.

For me, I think Spike is loyal to the people he loves, which I don't perceive as selfish. He loved Dru, he loved his mother, and he loved (loves 😉) Buffy. When it came to Buffy though, I think he just didn't know how he could show his love (even loyalty to fighting for the good side) because he's never fallen in love with a slayer, a person who represents all that is good, and he knew it was wrong. Yet, when he falls in love, he is afterall love's bitch. Maybe loyalty and love go hand-in-hand to some extent.

This may not seem to matter but this difference is relevent as to why I prefer Angel. I don't really relate to the idea of changing for someone else. This isn't me disparaging Spike because I do like him and find him intriguing, but I personally I cannot relate to changing my sense of morality to suite the person I love. I was even a bit blah, when he said what he said in Get It Done.

I get that. If you personally relate more toward another character, then you prefer that character over certain others. For me, when it comes to Spike, I love the idea of someone changing for someone else, specifically for the better. What can I say...I'm a sucker for redemption stories. 🙂

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

Doppelgang agrees: "This is Drusilla girl... the face of my salvation!

OMG! You just gave me an awesome idea for a meta (unless there's one already out there on the subject)! 😀

 

[Kana]

I definitely agree that the journeys were different. It's why I love them both. 🙂 I just think saying someone wants to change for someone else sounds similar to saying someone wants to change because of someone else. Or maybe there can be an over-lap, in that one can change for a person and also because of a person.

The reason I point out the difference is because it's important as to why I connect more to Angel. I've often changed through knowing someone but I've never changed for someone or changed because I wanted to be the sort of person someone deserves. There is a nobility in that, but I kept wondering "Spike, what do you want, what do you believe in?" I think Spike grew both at the end of Btvs and in Ats.

For me, I think Spike is loyal to the people he loves, which I don't perceive as selfish. He loved Dru, he loved his mother, and he loved (loves 😉) Buffy. When it came to Buffy though, I think he just didn't know how he could show his love (even loyalty to fighting for the good side) because he's never fallen in love with a slayer, a person who represents all that is good, and he knew it was wrong. Yet, when he falls in love, he is afterall love's bitch. Maybe loyalty and love go hand-in-hand to some extent.

Absolutely, this is one of Spike's strong points. The problem with selfishness and selflessness is something I've often talked about both in real life and in the Verse. What I saw in Intervention is about as selfless as one can get.

I get that. If you personally relate more toward another character, then you prefer that character over certain others. For me, when it comes to Spike, I love the idea of someone changing for someone else, specifically for the better. What can I say...I'm a sucker for redemption stories. 🙂

It's about the journey itself. Even if you argued that Spike is a better person, fine. I still connect with Angel more. It's how he struggles and how he contemplates his fighting philosophies. It may also be because he's an innie (introvert), I also relate to that as well.

 

[StarSlayer]

The reason I point out the difference is because it's important as to why I connect more to Angel. I've often changed through knowing someone but I've never changed for someone or changed because I wanted to be the sort of person someone deserves. There is a nobility in that, but I kept wondering "Spike, what do you want, what do you believe in?" I think Spike grew both at the end of Btvs and in Ats.

I get that too. 🙂 For me, I do know people who have wanted to change and did change for the better, even for a particular person. They wanted to be the person another deserves simply because they loved them and wanted to make the other person happy. Sometimes, I think when you love someone and want to be with them, you want them to deserve the best. As such, you become willing to want to make changes (even in yourself) in order to make the other person happy and accepting. So, that's one of the reasons why I never get the selfishness argument here. I've also asked those questions too about Spike, specifically in s5 and s6, since he too was asking himself those questions. Did he genuinely love Buffy? Did he really want to change? Is he pure evil or is there a man inside struggling to fight the demon? And I agree that Spike grew both at the end of BtVS (maybe even earlier in BtVS) and in AtS.

Absolutely, this is one of Spike's strong points. The problem with selfishness and selflessness is something I've often talked about both in real life and in the Verse. What I saw in Intervention is about as selfless as one can get.

Agreed. 🙂

It's about the journey itself. Even if you argued that Spike is a better person, fine. I still connect with Angel more. It's how he struggles and how he contemplates his fighting philosophies. It may also be because he's an innie (introvert), I also relate to that as well.

And that's totally understandable. 🙂 I honestly think Angel isn't better than Spike, or that Spike isn't better Angel (but the fangirl in me likes Spike a bit more, lol). I love both their journeys.

 

[Miss Kitty]

The reason I point out the difference is because it's important as to why I connect more to Angel. I've often changed through knowing someone but I've never changed for someone or changed because I wanted to be the sort of person someone deserves. There is a nobility in that, but I kept wondering "Spike, what do you want, what do you believe in?" I think Spike grew both at the end of Btvs and in Ats.

I think there's an important distinction which has to be made. I don't think that it was what you meant here, but as we are talking about Spike's changes, I want to take this opportunity for pointing out this 🙂 : Spike didn't wanted changing who he is (I mean, he remains Spike, with his sarcasm, his same ways of being...) but he wanted to change his *nature*. He didn't change who he is but *what* he is. He's constantly struggling with his nature. He's in rebellion against the vampire in him.

But he didn't adapt his personality to Buffy or everyone else. He remains *Spike* : frank, sarcastic, rebel... What he tried to change, it's the evil inside him.

So yep, Spike changed for Buffy (it was one of his most importants motivations) but what he changed was his nature, not his personality. He's Spike and he remains Spike. I just wanted to point out this.

And on another hand, I think that we all change for one reason. We all evolve because of our experiences, our meetings, the persons who are a part of our life at some point... It's always connected to the environment and people around us. If one of this person makes you want to be better, I find it really great. And even more when we know that it comes from a soulless vampire. When you don't have a soul, a total conscience of what makes something good or bad, the only thing in which you can believe is the person you love. At this point, it was normal that his love for Buffy was his motive for changing. He can't believe in anything as long as he doesn't have all the arms which makes a man a human. BUT, in the case of Spike, he has something in which he can believe : his love for a woman. That's why he follows this way.
Season 7 puts Spike in another perspective, because at this point, after recovering his soul, he has a complete ability for really chosing and believing in something by himself. It was maybe too soon in season 7 because the context was complicated and the recovery of his soul was recent, but at this point, he was able to make choices by himself. And it continues in ATS.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

But he didn't adapt his personality to Buffy or everyone else. He remains *Spike* : frank, sarcastic, rebel... What he tried to change, it's the evil inside him.

But Spike was the result of the vampire; Spike never set out to be more like William, to be more human, except season seven if you want to call it that. So I thought he liked the

him as he no longer had to be the little sniveling human that he was.

 

[StarSlayer]

But Spike was the result of the vampire; Spike never set out to be more like William, to be more human, except season seven if you want to call it that. So I thought he liked the

him as he no longer had to be the little sniveling human that he was.

I think this then goes into what happened to Spike after he was sired. When he was sired, one could argue that William was still there. He wanted to be with his mother and still take care of her. He was even called just William by Angelus for a while, as seen in "Destiny." To be more evil and more like a vampire, he learned from Angelus and even Drusilla.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

To be more evil and more like a vampire, he learned from Angelus and even Drusilla.

I disagree with that. I think it was more human nature than anything else. (but really this is where season 7 screwed the whole thing up, with him making his mother) its just like those old cartoons of the scrawny kid at the beach that always gets sand kicked in his face then comes back with muscles and does the same. It had nothing to do with being around Angelus or Dru, other than he had competition with Angelus so he upped his game. For the first time in his life he had power and a means to avenge himself against all those who would oppress him.

 

[StarSlayer]

It had nothing to do with being around Angelus or Dru, other than he had competition with Angelus so he upped his game. For the first time in his life he had power and a means to avenge himself against all those who would oppress him.

I definitely think the feeling of power and a means to "avenge" himself against others also played a factor in Spike becoming who he was. He mentioned that in FFL. I just also think there were other factors. For instance, I get this feeling when Spike talks about how much blood he can drink from a girl before she dies in "Never Leave Me" that someone taught him to do it. When he says, "Cause it's not worth it if they don't cry," he sounds like he's reciting something someone use to say to him. Considering Spike only wanted to kill for the rush of violence and not for the art, it actually makes sense to me that someone (I'm assuming Angelus) taught him how to really damage a person. That's the feeling I get though. Also, Spike says in "Destiny" that Drusilla sired him, but Angelus made him a monster. So, I do think learning from Angelus is another factor into who Spike became.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------

Scobro agrees: I shant comment further as the whole angel siring/not siring is one of the reasons I do not like latter seasons. its shoddy, crap writing. I get very upset when things do not connect and this siring aspect really gets me all grrarghy

Ok, then. 🙂 To each their own.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Honestly, GRR!! I said I would not comment, how hard would have been to written that Angel did sire Spike, as was said he did.. and because of Angels father issues and Spikes mother issues Spike ran off with Dru. That would also explain the competitiveness of the Spike/Angel dynamic. Father & son. Son always trying to prove and show up father. I just.. its those little things.. where all of a sudden its this and we changed our mind, its that. Thats why I say Spike could not be the shanshuy guy in the last season on Angel. I just want the beginning of the story to match the end and vice versa and get really peeved when they dont.. and this time I really will not comment anymore!

 

[LadyLavinia]

True goodness is the soul's domain alone, which means that if something soulless is changing for the better (or feeling any kind of genuine love), it's like he's sprouting bits of soul through sheer force of will, or something equally absurd. So I can't believe Spike is ever really sincere in any of your examples, Miss Kitty, or that he doesn't have some other (less noble) driving motivation behind his actions, because, to me, for his motives to be pure is just not possible.

"True goodness is the soul's domain alone"? No one is purely good - not in their actions or feelings. Humans are incapable of being purely good. However, they are good at pretending to be. So why should Spike be pure in his intentions, when none of the other characters are capable of being pure? Even Buffy's reasons for fighting vampires and other demons are motivated by self-interest, interest in those she personally care about, self-preservation or the belief that she has no choice.

 

[Taaroko]

"True goodness is the soul's domain alone"? No one is purely good - not in their actions or feelings. Humans are incapable of being purely good. However, they are good at pretending to be. So why should Spike be pure in his intentions, when none of the other characters are capable of being pure? Even Buffy's reasons for fighting vampires and other demons are motivated by self-interest, interest in those she personally care about, self-preservation or the belief that she has no choice.

I didn't say soulful beings can only be good, I said only soulful beings can be good. There's a huge difference. Human beings aren't perfect, but they *can* be good. Because they have souls. That's what I meant when I said true goodness is the soul's domain alone--not that having a soul automatically makes you good, but that all of your inherent goodness is housed within your soul, as opposed to somewhere else in your being (like your mind or your body). Creatures with souls therefore have the CAPACITY to be either good OR selfish/evil/whatever, while creatures without souls can only be the latter. When the soul is absent, so is every facet of humanity that is inherently good. Which is why I do not at all subscribe to the idea that Spike could either retain part of William's inherent goodness after being turned or develop any inherent goodness while still without soulless. The way I see it, the only change in Spike was that he became the subject of inescapable behavioral conditioning and was forced to adapt accordingly.