"Why the Spike hate?" Continued

[StarSlayer]

Buffy THE VAMPIRE SLAYER... Spike, Angel.. vampires. If she was the vampire shagger there would be little problem.

Then why not kill Angelus in "Innocence" instead of kicking him in the balls? One can make the argument that Buffy also saw Angelus as an exception, maybe because she felt Angel could come back. See where I have issues with the argument Buffy can't see any vampire or demon as an exception? If Buffy could see Angelus as an exception for a while because she was holding onto Angel, then why can't she see an exception in Spike? She clearly did with both IMO.

Taaroko agrees: I don't agree with Buffy's decision to make use of Spike, and I especially don't agree with the times she let him get away pre-chip. But while her actions don't break any logic rules in the 'verse, insisting that Spike can change without a soul does.

And as I mentioned previously, Buffy didn't really believe Spike could change without a soul until she saw that he could by his actions "Intervention." She recognized his selfless actions that it moved her to kissing him and trusting him on a different level than before. That doesn't break any Buffyverse "rules" IMO. I didn't realize there was such a book. 😛

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Then why not kill Angelus in "Innocence" instead of kicking him in the balls? One can make the argument that Buffy also saw Angelus as an exception, maybe because she felt Angel could come back. See where I have issues with the argument Buffy can't see any vampire or demon as an exception? If Buffy could see Angelus as an exception for a while because she was holding onto Angel, then why can't she see an exception in Spike? She clearly did with both IMO.

Lighten up, Francis.. its called humor.

 

[Taaroko]

But if the chip is required to cultivate Spike into desiring a soul, and since there are no (more) chipped vampires in existence, it doesn't contradict the premise of the show at all.

By 'cultivate' I don't necessarily mean any psychological effect but rather the circumstances under which Spike would be prompted to seek out a soul. Like say...banging Buffy on a regular basis.

I completely agree that the chip was the essential thing that set off the chain of events that ultimately led him to seek his soul. That contradicts nothing. What *does* (very tired of repeating myself on this) is saying that at any point during that chain of events, his basic underlying nature truly changed for the better.

Then why not kill Angelus in "Innocence" instead of kicking him in the balls? One can make the argument that Buffy also saw Angelus as an exception, maybe because she felt Angel could come back. See where I have issues with the argument Buffy can't see any vampire or demon as an exception? If Buffy could see Angelus as an exception for a while because she was holding onto Angel, then why can't she see an exception in Spike? She clearly did with both IMO.

Angelus wasn't an exception either, nor did Buffy consider him to be one. She just couldn't bring herself to kill him, because he was wearing the face of the man she loved. Just like she couldn't kill vamp Willow, because she was wearing the face of her best friend. There are no exceptions to the *rule*, just Buffy's willingness to kill certain vampires under certain circumstances.

Edit:

And as I mentioned previously, Buffy didn't really believe Spike could change without a soul until she saw that he could by his actions "Intervention." She recognized his selfless actions that it moved her to kissing him and trusting him on a different level than before. That doesn't break any Buffyverse "rules" IMO. I didn't realize there was such a book.

What Buffy perceives to be selfless isn't necessarily selfless. She is subject to the natural human tendency to identify with human-looking creatures that aren't human, and all she can see is that he didn't sell Dawn out to Glory. That means far too much to her for her to want to look for a selfish motive underneath it. The reason he hurt her so badly with what he did in "Seeing Red" is that she allowed herself to believe he had changed for the better, when really, he was incapable of changing all along.

 

[StarSlayer]

Angelus wasn't an exception either, nor did Buffy consider him to be one. She just couldn't bring herself to kill him, because he was wearing the face of the man she loved. Just like she couldn't kill vamp Willow, because she was wearing the face of her best friend. There are no exceptions to the *rule*, just Buffy's willingness to kill certain vampires under certain circumstances.

But, do you get how contradictory that sounds though to some fans? "Buffy couldn't bring herself to kill Angelus because he was wearing the face of Angel, the man she loved." In other words, Buffy couldn't kill Angelus because she didn't see him as a threat. She still saw him as the man she loved. It wasn't until Angelus killed Jenny that Buffy realized what she had to do. The same thing can be argued with Spike, except he had a chip that prevented him from killing other humans. Buffy couldn't kill Spike because she didn't see him as a threat. As such, in both situations, Buffy was willing to make an exception under the circumstances.

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 PM ----------

What Buffy perceives to be selfless isn't necessarily selfless. She is subject to the natural human tendency to identify with human-looking creatures that aren't human, and all she can see is that he didn't sell Dawn out to Glory. That means far too much to her for her to want to look for a selfish motive underneath it.

So, Angel coming back to Sunnydale all those times can be perceived as selfish then? Since Buffy can perceive something as selfless although it isn't necessarily selfless? It's just natural human tendency to identify with human-looking creatures (since Angel technically is a vampire)? Yes, I know Spike didn't have a soul in "Intervention," which is why a lot of us keep mentioning the humanity aspect in Spike. That side of him wasn't selfish, which Buffy recognized in this scene.

The reason he hurt her so badly with what he did in "Seeing Red" is that she allowed herself to believe he had changed for the better, when really, he was incapable of changing all along.

And this goes back to the argument that Spike couldn't completely be good until he got his soul, which a lot of us were saying before. 🙂

 

[Taaroko]

But, do you get how contradictory that sounds though to some fans? "Buffy couldn't bring herself to kill Angelus because he was wearing the face of Angel, the man she loved." In other words, Buffy couldn't kill Angelus because she didn't see him as a threat. She still saw him as the man she loved. It wasn't until Angelus killed Jenny that Buffy realized what she had to do. The same thing can be argued with Spike, except he had a chip that prevented him from killing other humans. Buffy couldn't kill Spike because she didn't see him as a threat. As such, in both situations, Buffy was willing to make an exception under the circumstances.

Of course she still saw Angelus as a threat! What her head tells her and what her heart sees don't have to be the same, and certainly weren't. She knew all along that she would have to kill him and felt horrible for not doing it because of all the havoc she knew he was wreaking while she prolonged the inevitable. She knew all this perfectly well and still put it off because she couldn't bear the thought of killing the demon who wore Angel's face, of having to look into Angel's face as she killed that demon, and having see what appears to be Angel turn to dust by her hand. She didn't see Spike as a threat because of the chip, so she felt no need to kill him because he couldn't hurt anyone and she could make use of him. Buffy making an exception about killing a soulless vampire (or putting it off until later because of an emotional conflict) doesn't make that vampire anything otherwise than irredeemably evil, and I don't think any of the exceptions she made were justified.

So, Angel coming back to Sunnydale all those times can be perceived as selfish then? Since Buffy can perceive something as selfless although it isn't necessarily selfless? It's just natural human tendency to identify with human-looking creatures (since Angel technically is a vampire)? Yes, I know Spike didn't have a soul in "Intervention," which is why a lot of us keep mentioning the humanity aspect in Spike. That side of him wasn't selfish, which Buffy recognized in this scene.

You can perceive Angel's motives there as selfish if you want to, even though I would find that an extremely radical interpretation. He had a soul and therefore the ability to be selfless. Spike did not. You can't compare the two purely on the grounds that they're both vampires, because the *soul* is what matters in those cases, and only Angel had one.

And this goes back to the argument that Spike couldn't completely be good until he got his soul, which a lot of us were saying before.

Yes, it's rather difficult to be completely good when you're incapable of being good at all.

-

Edit: Also, in my previous post, what I meant to say was that Buffy is subject to the natural human tendency to identify with soulless human-looking creatures, despite their being soulless and not human, because if they look human, it can be hard not to think of them as human. I didn't think clarification was necessary. She can read selfless intent into Spike's actions that benefited her and Dawn without selfless intent actually being present.

 

[StarSlayer]

Of course she still saw Angelus as a threat! What her head tells her and what her heart sees don't have to be the same, and certainly weren't. She knew all along that she would have to kill him and felt horrible for not doing it because of all the havoc she knew he was wreaking while she prolonged the inevitable. She knew all this perfectly well and still put it off because she couldn't bear the thought of killing the demon who wore Angel's face, of having to look into Angel's face as she killed that demon, and having see what appears to be Angel turn to dust by her hand. She didn't see Spike as a threat because of the chip, so she felt no need to kill him because he couldn't hurt anyone and she could make use of him. Buffy making an exception about killing a soulless vampire (or putting it off until later because of an emotional conflict) doesn't make that vampire anything otherwise than irredeemably evil, and I don't think any of the exceptions she made were justified.

That's my point though. 🙂 It can be argued that Buffy saw Angelus as an exception for a while because she was putting it off when it came to killing him. So, why can't Buffy see Spike as an exception as well? Just because the "rule" says she can't? Since when does Buffy ever play by the rules, lol? Thus, when Buffy saw that Spike wanted to change and be good as evidenced by his actions in "Intervention," she saw him as an exception. That a soulless vampire could be good (but not completely because they have no soul). I think we need to agree to disagree here. 🙂

You can perceive Angel's motives there as selfish if you want to, even though I would find that an extremely radical interpretation. He had a soul and therefore the ability to be selfless. Spike did not. You can't compare the two purely on the grounds that they're both vampires, because the *soul* is what matters in those cases, and only Angel had one.

I don't see Angel's motives as selfish at all, lol. I was using that as an example as to how I see some of the flaws in the argument that if Buffy perceives something as selfless, it might not be necessarily selfless. And as I mentioned. I know Spike didn't have a soul in "Intervention," which is why many of us have been discussing the humanity aspect of Spike. That side of him wasn't selfish, and Buffy recognized it. We're gonna have to agree to disagree here because you can't convince me Spike's actions weren't selfish in this scene. 🙂

Yes, it's rather difficult to be completely good when you're incapable of being good at all.

Again, we'll agree to disagree. 🙂

 

[Taaroko]

That's my point though. 🙂 It can be argued that Buffy saw Angelus as an exception for a while because she was putting it off when it came to killing him. So, why can't Buffy see Spike as an exception as well? Just because the "rule" says she can't? Since when does Buffy ever play by the rules, lol? Thus, when Buffy saw that Spike wanted to change and be good as evidenced by his actions in "Intervention," she saw him as an exception. That soulless vampire could be good (but not completely because they have no soul).

Your point is entirely beside my point 😉, which is that all soulless vampires are always irredeemably evil, no matter what Buffy's reasons are for not slaying one of them.

I don't see Angel's motives as selfish at all, lol. I was using that as an example on how I see some of the flaws in the argument that if Buffy perceives something as selfless, it might not be necessarily selfless. And as I mentioned. I know Spike didn't have a soul in "Intervention," which is why many of us have been discussing the humanity aspect of Spike. That side of side wasn't selfish, and Buffy recognized it. We're gonna have to agree to disagree here because you can't convince me Spike's actions weren't selfish in this scene.

Buffy's perceptions are not infallible. She is a very open-hearted person, so it would be unlike her to attempt to read selfish motives into what Spike did.

 

[StarSlayer]

Edit: Also, in my previous post, what I meant to say was that Buffy is subject to the natural human tendency to identify with soulless human-looking creatures, despite their being soulless and not human, because if they look human, it can be hard not to think of them as human. I didn't think clarification was necessary. She can read selfless intent into Spike's actions that benefited her and Dawn without selfless intent actually being present.

That still doesn't make sense to me because Spike has shown being selfless in other incidents when Buffy wasn't around, as I mentioned in the other thread.

---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 PM ----------

Your point is entirely beside my point 😉, which is that all soulless vampires are always irredeemably evil, no matter what Buffy's reasons are for not slaying one of them.

And as I've stated, that's your opinion because I look at the show in an entirely different context. 🙂 I think that soulless vampires can have humanity in them (as I mentioned more so in the previous thread), which would allow them to want to change. IMO, it's not always so simple as "vampire=evil," especially when we see a vampire get a chip in his head that prevents him from being evil and ultimately, go through an identity crisis. We'll agree to disagree. 🙂

 

[Skanky Vamp]

it's not always so simple as "vampire=evil,"

No, there is the Twilight brand where it is vampire=emo, and the Sookie brand where it is vampire=horny.

 

[Taaroko]

That still doesn't make sense to me because Spike has shown being selfless in other incidents when Buffy wasn't around, as I mentioned in the other thread.

But it is not impossible to read selfish motives into his actions at those points, as I and others have shown by the examples we offered in earlier posts.

And as I've stated, that's your opinion because I look at the show in an entirely different context. I think that soulless vampires can have humanity in them (as I mentioned more so in the previous thread), which would allow them to want to change. IMO, it's not always so simple as "vampire=evil," especially when we see a vampire get a chip in his head that prevents him from being evil and ultimately, go through an identity crisis. We'll agree to disagree.

Pretty much looks like the only option at this point. (And actually, the duration of this argument and the tenacity demonstrated by both sides just reminded me of a Pirates of the Caribbean quote. "So what now, Jack Sparrow? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle 'til Judgement Day and trumpets sound?" *snicker*) Cheers, it's been fun. 😉

No, there is the Twilight brand where it is vampire=emo, and the Sookie brand where it is vampire=horny.

Quiet, you! 😛

 

[StarSlayer]

But it is not impossible to read selfish motives into his actions at those points, as I and others have shown by the examples we offered in earlier posts.

And some of us don't think Spike's actions were motivated by pure selfishness because we see him in an entirely different perspective. Agree to disagree. 🙂

Pretty much looks like the only option at this point. (And actually, the duration of this argument and the tenacity demonstrated by both sides just reminded me of a Pirates of the Caribbean quote. "So what now, Jack Sparrow? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle 'til Judgement Day and trumpets sound?" *snicker*) Cheers, it's been fun. 😉

"Or you could surrender." 😉 It's been fun too. 🙂

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

Taaroko agrees: Dangit, I knew I should have nabbed Jack's comeback in my post.

I didn't earn my "Back-Stepper of the year" award by throwing in the towel 😉 😀 but I know when people can't be swayed. 😉

 

[Taaroko]

In the aftermath of the debate, I feel I should clarify my position on Spike, because I probably seem like the biggest Spike-hater in the fandom to everyone by now, and I'm really not.

He amuses me most of the time in seasons two through four, and his and Dru's introductory scene in "School Hard" is one of the coolest moments in the show. He severely creeps me out and/or annoys me in most of season five. He disturbs (but not in an oddly awesome and entertaining way, like Angelus and Drusilla do almost continuously) and infuriates me in season six. He leaves me pretty much ambivalent in season seven, except when he's taunting Wood (which makes me angry) or draping himself over large crosses (which I find majorly weird, so, sorry to everyone who finds it poignant or whatever). And he irritates me for most of Angel season five--except in "Hellbound" (which is an awesome episode), in scenes like the end conversation of "Damage" (when he actually manages to impress me quite a lot), when he's working with Angel and the rest to do whatever he can to save Fred, and a few other times that I can't remember at the moment but know definitely happened.

Also, I pretty much adore every scene in which he and Drusilla are onscreen together, and I think he's totally hot (I'm talking about a full-on Angel-worthy swoon moment from the girl who is normally fairly immune to the oft-praised good looks of James Marsters) in the flashbacks to the '70s when he has his hair all tousled instead of slicked back in that ridiculous Ramen Noodles look he normally sports.

So, am I a Spike fan? Not by a long shot. Do I hate him? No. He's not Kennedy.

 

[prophecygrrl]

That still doesn't make sense to me because Spike has shown being selfless in other incidents when Buffy wasn't around, as I mentioned in the other thread.

---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 PM ----------



And as I've stated, that's your opinion because I look at the show in an entirely different context. 🙂 I think that soulless vampires can have humanity in them (as I mentioned more so in the previous thread), which would allow them to want to change. IMO, it's not always so simple as "vampire=evil," especially when we see a vampire get a chip in his head that prevents him from being evil and ultimately, go through an identity crisis. We'll agree to disagree. 🙂

gah I can't rep you for some reason, but like this is how I feel about some parts of this debate too. Gray areas and different contexts ftw! 😀

In the aftermath of the debate, I feel I should clarify my position on Spike, because I probably seem like the biggest Spike-hater in the fandom to everyone by now, and I'm really not.

Aftermath of the debate? Tsk tsk, the debate is never over, lol! 😛 😛

Taaroko, I think I'd understand your argument about soulless Spike never having the capacity to be good if I also understood your definition of 'selfish'. I'm kinda confused at the moment about that. I think a lot of Spike's soulless 'good' deeds (not telling Glory about Dawn for Buffy, fighting alongside the Scoobies against Glory once sh*t hits the fan in Season 5, taking care of Dawn after Buffy dies, etc.) can be interpreted as 'selfish' because of his love for Buffy, but I also think what we consider "selfishness" and "goodness" intersects in those instances. Everything anyone does can be considered selfish to a degree, but my personal definition on evil, condemnable selfishness is acting purely on self-interest. I don't see Spike doing that in most of the situations where, to me, he *did* show capacity for goodness.

Let's take Intervention, for example. A lot of people have been saying it was selfish because they believe he was only doing it for Buffy's love, but I think we forget that he took that beating while facing the very real possibility that he wouldn't survive at all. Being willing to die to protect something, to me, is an example of goodness. Maybe not *pure* selflessness because he did it out of love (and isn't all romantic love kinda selfish?), but at the same time, I think the fact that he cares enough about Buffy and Dawn (I see it as love, maybe you don't, but can we agree that the guy cares? 😛) to be willing to sacrifice himself like that requires some capacity for goodness. It shows consideration outside of his own self-interests. So. Selfish to a degree, I guess it could be argued, but does that invalidate the goodness of it too?

i'm kinda ramble-y, sorry.

 

[StarSlayer]

In the aftermath of the debate, I feel I should clarify my position on Spike, because I probably seem like the biggest Spike-hater in the fandom to everyone by now, and I'm really not.

You sure fooled me, lol! 😉 And it's not just you or the other thread. I've been defending Spike a lot recently because I (and some others) have different perspectives on things. And when we simply offer different perspectives, some people take issue with it, most likely because they disagree and that's fine. But, the feeling I get sometimes is that when some people argue against Spike, it comes across as making the people who like him awful people or wrong for even liking him, and that's when my blood boils, lol. We just have a different viewpoint, which isn't right or wrong (although for any dedicated fan, it is the right way, lol). It's just our way of viewing the character. 🙂 Of course you can say that with any character, but I've noticed Spike seems to get the bad end of the deal.

Also, I pretty much adore every scene in which he and Drusilla are onscreen together, and I think he's totally hot (I'm talking about a full-on Angel-worthy swoon moment from the girl who is normally fairly immune to the oft-praised good looks of James Marsters) in the flashbacks to the '70s when he has his hair all tousled instead of slicked back in that ridiculous Ramen Noodles look he normally sports.

Hey, I adore his "ramen noodle" hair, lol! 😀 Yummy! 😉 And I love Spike and Drusilla too. I just love Spuffy more 😉 😀

So, am I a Spike fan? Not by a long shot. Do I hate him? No. He's not Kennedy.

Or Riley, whom I hate, lol 😀

 

[zobothehobo]

Prophecygrrl, if I wasn't trying to not use any rep until 3 AM I would rep the hell out of that last post! THANKS so much for saying it!!!!!

 

[Tome]

Taaroko you do realize that any action can be seen as selfish the way you talk about this situation with Spike? Spike didn't even bring it up to Buffy. He took a beating to help them, and even if it was somehow to get in Buffy's good graces(which I really doubt), who cares? Even humans ARE selfish. We care about ourselves first and foremost. And to be honest, it isn't such a bad thing, as long as it doesn't hurt the people around us. Now if people wanna hate Spike because of this, they can, but personally I don't get it.

I didn't read everything in these two threads, but I've seen people bring Angel into this... Using your line of thought, I could also say he was selfish in multiple situations while he had a soul. As for Angelus, you can't bring him into it since him and Angel were two VERY different characters. Unlike Spike, who was pretty much the same with or without a soul.

 

[prophecygrrl]

For me with the "rules of the Buffyverse" thing, I actually agree that no soulless vampire can ever be truly 'good' without a soul. That's pretty well established in canon, especially for Spike. But I don't think that necessarily means they are incapable of loving or doing good things from time to time. (And for me, those time to time instances meant a lot, though I can see why others might not get it like that.)

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Hi guys!

I agree with a lot that has been said recently in this thread about selfishness, and how it is a very human characteristic--thereby something that can easily be achieved with a soul.
I believe that Spike acts seflessly on quite a few occasions, while soulless, which in my opinion speaks volumes about his character, and the true humanity he was able to retain after becoming a vampire.

For me, the BOTTOM LINE for Spike is quite simple. ******
Spike, the Soulless Vampire, heroically sought out a soul, enduring unthinkable torture to do so. He did one of the Buffyverse's ultimate "good" "heroic" deeds, as far as I'm concerned, and he made the decision to do it, WITHOUT A SOUL.

 

[Taaroko]

Okay, where did this idea come from that creatures with souls can't be selfish? I never said that. I'm pretty sure I said the opposite: creatures without souls can't be selfless. Just because humans (and other souled creatures) *can* be selfless doesn't mean they always are. It doesn't even mean they usually are. It's up to each of them individually to choose, and a lot of the time, they're gonna choose to be selfish. There are many ways in which selfishness can manifest positively through actions that are constructive and/or that benefit others. The whole point is that with humans and other souled creatures, there is actually a choice. But *all* soulless vampires are *always* irredeemably evil at their core. Their motives cannot be trusted, even if they do something good. I mean, even Angelus did something that was definitely good--he killed the Beast, but nobody tries to assign pure motives to him, because that would be ridiculous.

And, to me, on top of the whole "soulless can't be selfless" thing, the idea that, in the very same episode that he spends half of his screentime shagging a robot, Spike could turn around and actually do something with pure, selfless motives, is completely hilarious.

 

[prophecygrrl]

Okay, where did this idea come from that creatures with souls can't be selfish? I never said that. I'm pretty sure I said the opposite: creatures without souls can't be selfless. Just because humans (and other souled creatures) *can* be selfless doesn't mean they always are. It doesn't even mean they usually are. It's up to each of them individually to choose, and a lot of the time, they're gonna choose to be selfish. There are many ways in which selfishness can manifest positively through actions that are constructive and/or that benefit others. The whole point is that with humans and other souled creatures, there is actually a choice. But *all* soulless vampires are *always* irredeemably evil at their core. Their motives cannot be trusted, even if they do something good. I mean, even Angelus did something that was definitely good--he killed the Beast, but nobody tries to assign pure motives to him, because that would be ridiculous.

And, to me, on top of the whole "soulless can't be selfless" thing, the idea that, in the very same episode that he spends half of his screentime shagging a robot, Spike could turn around and actually do something with pure, selfless motives, is completely hilarious.

Personally, I was responding to this statement and similar ideas relating to this in reference to soulless vampires:

Yes, it's rather difficult to be completely good when you're incapable of being good at all.

Selfish motives can be found at the root of everything he does, even if the effect benefits someone besides him. Everything he does to "prove himself" to Buffy is not done selflessly, but out of the erroneous expectation that he should and will receive a reward for it--which would include anything from not getting staked, to being allowed to be (sort of) included in the group, to Buffy admitting having feelings that he's so convinced are really there.

Fortunately, once he has a soul, this is no longer a problem, because that's what having a soul means. His selfish motivations can finally be replaced with pure ones. Not that they all are, because the ability of soulful beings to be selfless does not diminish their ability to be selfish.

Selflessness/selfishness was used as a marker of goodness in that debate. That's what I understood from your posts, at least. 😕 I personally wasn't arguing that humans can't be selfish, or even that selfishness is a human trait. (Well, it is, but that's not really relevant here) I was trying to say that I agree this selfishness exists in a lot of Spike's actions, but that it doesn't necessarily negate other intentions/motives.

You don't really think Angelus killing the Beast is a reasonable comparison, do you? 😉