Why the Spike hate?

[Taake]

Also, in relation to Spuffy and Spike seeking out his soul because he loved Buffy, some fans see this as something horribly selfish and not positive at all. But didn't Willow try restoring Angel's soul in season 2 because she understood and respected how much Buffy loved Angel? And isn't it her love for Dawn that prompted Buffy to protect Dawn and even sacrifice herself for her, despite it being the more rational thing to just simply off the little brat? Just because these characters have a conscience, doesn't mean love can't be a powerful motivator - in fact, it should. And for a character WITHOUT a conscience, love is the only way to go.

I'd say this is something that irks some about Spike not because of the singular action alone but because of how it plays into the whole of his character development and current persona. Which is why one views it differently when someone like Willow, Angel, Buffy whomever does a similar thing because you're judging them based on a different background and current persona. Thus it's hard to compare one to the other because they don't start out from the same place.

It comes down to individual judgement due to circumstances and percieved motivations. (and clearly we see those motivations differently)

 

[WakingNightmare]

WakingNightmare, watch Angel in the first moments after he got his soul in "Becoming" and tell me he wasn't already crippled by remorse. And what twenty years? He left Darla for good in 1900. 1900-1898=2. Not 20. If you mean what Giles said in "Angel", there's no reason to trust a vague account in the Watchers' Diaries more than the flashbacks we got later on. He was cursed in 1898, decided he was done with Darla and with trying to be Angelus when he saved that baby in 1900 (and he never saw Darla again until 1997), and arrived in America in 1902. Unlike Spike, he didn't have an example of how an ensouled vampire could be good, nor did he have Buffy's support. Is it any wonder that he would turn to Darla first, when she was the only thing he knew that wasn't 150 years dead and gone?

Well he was cursed around 1897 (can't remember the exact year) and started fighting the good fight when he met Buffy, around 1997, but like you said what else was he to do? Don't really take anything I say about Angel seriously though. I'm in a place right now where I kind of hate him.

Spoiler

Jerk killed Giles😡

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The guilt a vampire feels after being ensouled is immobilizing, which is evident from the fact that Spike goes mad for several months in the school basement.

I didnt think that was guilt as much as it was the First; he could not have been that immobilized if he made it all the way from the cave, managed to find a few different clothing outfits, hung around till the school was built, went back and camped out in the basement. Guilt was not why he went mad, it was the First.

 

[The Unspoken]

I didnt think that was guilt as much as it was the First; he could not have been that immobilized if he made it all the way from the cave, managed to find a few different clothing outfits, hung around till the school was built, went back and camped out in the basement. Guilt was not why he went mad, it was the First.

His guilt was what The First used to drive him mad. I probably should've made that more clear in my first post.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

His guilt was what The First used to drive him mad. I probably should've made that more clear in my first post.

But the First played on everyone's guilt.. are you saying that just because Spike went made he felt more or greater guilt than Faith? Faith was just smart enough to know he/she/it was doing 'a heel thing' with her.

 

[The Unspoken]

But the First played on everyone's guilt.. are you saying that just because Spike went made he felt more or greater guilt than Faith? Faith was just smart enough to know he/she/it was doing 'a heel thing' with her.

I imagine Spike feels more guilt because he had killed thousands of victims rather than Faith's handful or so.

And I don't see why souled Spike SHOULDN'T feel any guilt. William the poet wasn't a sociopath as far as I could tell from those flashbacks.

And I didn't mean 'immobilizing guilt' in the literal sense. In 'Get it Done', it's suggested that making peace with his unsouled self makes Spike a better fighter.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I imagine Spike feels more guilt because he had killed thousands of victims rather than Faith's handful or so.

And I don't see why souled Spike SHOULDN'T feel any guilt. William the poet wasn't a sociopath as far as I could tell from those flashbacks.

No, he should.. not saying he shouldnt or didnt. But guilt isnt weighed by the amount of people you kill, otherwise Oppenheimer would have never left the basement.

I just think it was that he was 'ambushed' by the First whereas others knew what to expect. I dont think it spoke to the amount of guilt he had, or the fact as a 'newly ensouled' vampire he had more of it- he just spent centuries without any; I never saw it as being more.

 

[Flannen]

And I don't see why souled Spike SHOULDN'T feel any guilt. William the poet wasn't a sociopath as far as I could tell from those flashbacks.

He was a poet. Sociopathic enough for me 😛

I suppose that's how you see being re-ensouled as to how much William would influence souled Spike's personality? He obviously doesn't just return to being the fop that he was as a human. To what point does he return to that person? And so to what point can William drive souled Spike's feelings?

 

[zobothehobo]

Wow. Taaroko, I think the way you see Spike is all twisted. I don't want to untwist because I don't want to debate in this thread really... but wow. If I had that twisted kind of thinking, I'd hate Spike too. And I do think you don't understand him. The jerkiness... that's a defense mechanism. It's not serious. It's a defense mechanism because of what happened to William. A lot of Spike's behavior you described as despicable or distasteful goes back to William and the man he was.

---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------

Scobro agrees: But why is it twisted? Just because YOU dont see it that way? I saw it EXACTLY as she describe it.

Because I don't think that's the way it was intended to be seen. In interpreting any kind of art, I think it's important to keep in mind how the artist or artists wanted it to be seen. I'm pretty darn sure this was not the way Spike was supposed to be viewed. If it was, they would NEVER have made him save the world in Chosen. They wouldn't have ended Buffy with a character who was supposed to be this disgusting of a person saving the world. And Buffy's last word of the whole thing wouldn't have been "Spike."

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I am sorry Zobo.. but your response really irritated me. It made it sound as though I do not have the intellect to UNDERSTAND "that's a defense mechanism. It's not serious. It's a defense mechanism because of what happened to William. A lot of Spike's behavior you described as despicable or distasteful goes back to William and the man he was." Thats because it doesnt matter to me.. thats because he had centuries for his balls to drop and be a man and I hold his attitude against him; it implies that I am somehow not smart enough to read between the lines and see the 'hurt soul' he is.. no, I see it. I just dont CARE. Man up, stop being a spoiled little ... witch ... that cries whenever he doesnt get his way.

 

[The Unspoken]

He was a poet. Sociopathic enough for me 😛

I suppose that's how you see being re-ensouled as to how much William would influence souled Spike's personality? He obviously doesn't just return to being the fop that he was as a human. To what point does he return to that person? And so to what point can William drive souled Spike's feelings?

Well, William had a conscience for starters, so I imagine souled Spike has one (though judging from the replies not a lot of people think so). That's why I mentioned William.

Why else could The First, which presumably haunted him with apparitions of his victims, drive him mad? If he didn't feel any remorse over killing these people, seeing them wouldn't drive him mad.

 

[zobothehobo]

I am sorry Zobo.. but your response really irritated me. It made it sound as though I do not have the intellect to UNDERSTAND "that's a defense mechanism. It's not serious. It's a defense mechanism because of what happened to William. A lot of Spike's behavior you described as despicable or distasteful goes back to William and the man he was." Thats because it doesnt matter to me.. thats because he had centuries for his balls to drop and be a man and I hold his attitude against him; it implies that I am somehow not smart enough to read between the lines and see the 'hurt soul' he is.. no, I see it. I just dont CARE. Man up, stop being a spoiled little ... witch ... that cries whenever he doesnt get his way.

That's incredibly insensitive. I don't want to offend you... but this post made me feel like crying. And I didn't mean to make it seem you're not smart enough to understand him, I just meant you misunderstood. I'm smart enough to understand calculus... but I don't.

 

[Taaroko]

What's twisted about the way I see him? Is what I see not what happens in the show? I'm not making any of this up, nor am I being illogical in my interpretations of the events. If jerkiness is his defense mechanism, then he needs a new defense mechanism, because that one makes him come across as, big surprise, a jerk. And I don't care how the writers intended us to see him, because if they really meant to make him some wonderful admirable hero, they failed. I judge the story for itself, not the intentions of the writers.

 

[Kean]

Wow. Taaroko, I think the way you see Spike is all twisted. I don't want to untwist because I don't want to debate in this thread really... but wow. If I had that twisted kind of thinking, I'd hate Spike too. And I do think you don't understand him. The jerkiness... that's a defense mechanism. It's not serious. It's a defense mechanism because of what happened to William. A lot of Spike's behavior you described as despicable or distasteful goes back to William and the man he was.

I find that twisted remark incredibly rude and offensive. There is aboslutely no justification for you to attack her personally. She's entitled to her view. One I, and many others, happen to agree with.

You asked why people don't like Spike and Taaroko offered a well thought out, intelligent and genuine response. The fact that you disagree does not make it "twisted".

 

[Skanky Vamp]

YOU can think that all you want.. but others dont think that.. others do. There is no right or wrong; David Fury felt the same way. Did he not understand the character he wrote as well? Jane Epstein loved him. Is she any more right or wrong than David Fury or myself? You made the comment about art.. I think Monet is crap, and other love him. I think Dali is over-rated and others say he is the greatest thing. Is there a right or wrong? The thread was started as a means to understand why some dislike the character. Why would I ever bother posting in this thread again when I and many others 'misunderstand' the way you and many others see the character. This thread (for the most part) is not about debate, it's about cheerleading and flag waving. Let's go team Spike and all that. We will convert anyone regardless if they want to be or not.

And you did not offend me.. just irritated me.


@X.. I knew it was wrong.. I was just in a fluster and my office was being invaded and was trying to respond as quickly as I could! I was typing to an Epstein hence the..

 

[zobothehobo]

I didn't mean that as a personal attack! I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my saying it's a twisted view. But to me, it is. And like I said to Soboro, I think what makes it twisted is that that's not the way he was intended to be seen. I have a twisted view of Angel. And of Faith. It's not a personal attack. You're entitled to your opinions and your opinions aren't wrong for you but they can be right or wrong against how he was supposed to be seen. Does that make sense? I really wasn't trying to be mean or offensive.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my saying it's a twisted view. But to me, it is. And like I said to Soboro, I think what makes it twisted is that that's not the way he was intended to be seen. I have a twisted view of Angel. And of Faith. It's not a personal attack. You're entitled to your opinions and your opinions aren't wrong for you but they can be right or wrong against how he was supposed to be seen. Does that make sense? I really wasn't trying to be mean or offensive.

But who are YOU to say WE see it wrong.. maybe YOU see it wrong? To US it is YOU that has the twisted view. Honestly.. how do you know that is how he is supposed to be seen? Explain how you know this without a doubt.

That is the point we ALL are trying to make.. to say you see him this way is perfectly fine. To say we cannot see the character the way we see him, is wrong. Or that we somehow lack the character understanding, is wrong. We can debate about character traits and what they mean.. but to make a sweeping generalization after generalization when you ASKED why we 'hate' him.. you asked... we answered. Then we are told we are wrong. That is what offended people.

 

[zobothehobo]

This is a my reply to Kean's PM. It is a response to all of you.

I just don't think they would have made season 7 go the way he did with Spike having such a big role in averting the final apocalypse if they wanted him to be viewed as scum of the earth like Taaroko described.

You're entitled to your own opinion and if it's right for you then it's right for you... but it's not what was intended. And as I said I have twisted views of Angel and Faith by my definition. I can admit that. I know I see them way differently than the writers intended and I like my view of them. I mean it's a harsh view... but it's mine. My intention is not to tell you you have to change your opinion because it's wrong per-say... it's just not what was intended. As I said, I feel in interpreting any art you have to look at how the artist wanted it to be interpreted. I would say a fair statement from you is that the writers failed with their intentions for Spike in your eyes. It's fair for me to say the writers failed with their intentions of Angel and Faith in my eyes. Does this make sense?

Again, I'm sorry if anyone was offended by anything I said. I certainly didn't mean your opinions aren't valid. They are. They're just not what I think was intended and while I appreciate having these opinions that differ from the intent of the writers... it is important to me to think about the intent of the writers.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

viewed as scum of the earth

But why does seeing him that way make him the "scum of the earth" I used to like the character, then I used to tolerate him, then I hated him.. but never did I think he was the scum of the earth. He was a bad guy; sometimes he thought he was a good guy but he never was.. until the very last moment. Everyone had some really bad traits... well, except for Riley; he was perfect.

 

[StarSlayer]

What's twisted about the way I see him? Is what I see not what happens in the show? I'm not making any of this up, nor am I being illogical in my interpretations of the events. If jerkiness is his defense mechanism, then he needs a new defense mechanism, because that one makes him come across as, big surprise, a jerk. And I don't care how the writers intended us to see him, because if they really meant to make him some wonderful admirable hero, they failed. I judge the story for itself, not the intentions of the writers.

And some of us judge the story of Spike in a completely different way based on what we see in the show. It's just a matter of interpretation as I've said before. I could rebut a lot of what you posted based on how I see the story but the point of this thread wasn't to debate so I won't go there. 🙂 Yet, in all fairness, aren't all the men in the Buffyverse a jerk at some point or another? 😉
Posted via Mobile Device