xander way wrong

wiccianslayer

Vampire Diva
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
619
Age
34
Location
england
how dare xander be such a hypocrite? in season one's episode the pack he tried to rape buffy how dare he keep bringing it up about spike doing it when he did the same thing (maybe worse because of the whole buffy spike desturctive relationship/season 6) and wdidn't face up to it spike did!! in my eyes that makes spike better then him. how could he be such a S.O.B when he did the same thing only worse compared with spike.

what are your opions on this? sorry if i'm ranting.
 
But it wasn't in Xander's nature to try and rape anybody - it was in the Hyena's animal urges.

The same could be said of Spike - he's a soulless demon after all - but what makes it significant is that it was an involuntary departure from how he would normally act in the instance of Xander, but it was Spike's nature, part of who he was as a demon.

Xander didn't view Spike as capable of change; soul or not this was the thing that tried to rape his best friend. Spike wasn't under some mystical influence when he did it, he was just being "himself". I think Xander was behaving quite naturally for someone in that circumstance.

That Spike faced up to what he did and sought to change for the better speaks volumes for his character - but it doesn't mean that Xander was in the wrong.
 
S
Spirit_Of_Fred
its not fair to judge him on that since it was mystical and all, and spike's situation was different, like you said
Maybe because Xander was under the influence of a hyena spirit at the time, and Spike was just evil.

And maybe because Xander tends to think that everything HE does is perfectly fine, but anyone else Buffy has a relationship with must be a jerk. Has anyone else noticed that every time Xander attacks Buffy for something, she's the one who ends up apologizing, and he never does? The closest he comes is when she apologizes for not telling him about Spike and he says "Maybe you would have if I hadn't given you so many reasons to think I'd be a jerk about it."

I've never really liked Xander, and that's one of the reasons.
 
It was okay for Xander when he was under the influence of the Hyena's but it's not alright for William, when he was under the influence of a demon [vampire], maybe it was because of his name, Spike.
From what we saw of William I can't honsetly see him trying to rape a girl.
 
Xander was not Xander. Spike was Spike. End of.

Of course, if you're talking about post-season6 Spike, he's a different entity. He's no more responsible for what soulless Spike did than Angel is for Angelus.

I love Xander. And most of the time, frankly, when he "attacks" Buffy (verbally, I mean) it's usually because she's acting like a beatch and needs someone to say it. Xander is often the only one willing to stand up to her and tell her when she's out of line.
 
Oh come on? Do you seriously expect Xander to react to Spike attempting to rape one of his best friends and say 'Oh well Buffy, he doesn't have a soul so, not his fault'. He's not a friend at all if he's willing to let it go so fast. I agree that he was an ass once he found out about Buffy sleeping with Spike, but no one reacts perfectly to everything. Xander rocks, so does Spike.. but they also have parts of their characters I don't like sometimes.. although I'm having trouble thinking of any when it comes to the current Spike 😛 ..Oh wait, he is kinda childish when he's bickering with Angel.
 
Xander was possesed, and he probably forgot about that, I mean, when the hyena spirit or w/e went out of his body, he pretended he couldn't remember anything. I mean, he didn't remember eating the pig, so maybe he didn't remember that...?

And with Spike, the phrase 'I'm paying, 'cause I hurt the girl' sound familiar, in 'Help' in pretty certain the attempted rape was what he was referring to, when he said that he hurt Buffy and he would pay.
 
how dare xander be such a hypocrite? in season one's episode the pack he tried to rape buffy how dare he keep bringing it up about spike doing it when he did the same thing (maybe worse because of the whole buffy spike desturctive relationship/season 6) and wdidn't face up to it spike did!! in my eyes that makes spike better then him. how could he be such a S.O.B when he did the same thing only worse compared with spike.

what are your opions on this? sorry if i'm ranting.

I agree with you. Bear with my. My opinion is LONG. I apologize in advance.



As a viewer, I feel very manipulated by the attempted rape scene in Seeing Red. The camera angles, the stark black/white contrast, Spike's stated intention and Buffy's pleas and newfound weakness all lead me to believe that the scene wants to play like a traditional attempted rape scene from the normal, non-Buffy universe that we all inhabit. I feel like we are supposed to see Spike's actions as horrible and unforgivable and also as confirmation of what Buffy has been saying all along: he really is still evil and he really doesn't love her. I have a huge problem with that scenario, and it bears the name of the man who walked into the bathroom to discover Buffy's bruised thigh: Xander Harris. I can't forget that Xander did essentially the same thing, never suffered any consequences for his actions, never even apologized, was forgiven without question, and never even for a moment lost his Scooby/White Hat status.

The Pack:
In this season 1 episode, which is essentially about cliques, Xander and a few other kids are possessed by the spirit of a hyena pack. It should be noted that the other kids who are possessed are the stereotypical cool rebels who view Xander as a geek. After the possession incident, the cool kids accept Xander into their clique. They walk around the school like they own the place, steal lunch money and lunch food, employ liberal use of intimidating body language, make fun of geeky kids and, well, laugh like a hyena pack. At first, the only unusual thing about this pack is that Xander is suddenly a part of it. That, and they sniff people a lot. Later, the pack's new animal instincts lead them to eat a few unconventional items: the school mascot (a live pig) and the principal. I think there is a person-on-the-street attack, as well, but that does not result in death. The Scoobies figure out what has happened and seek to find a magical antidote before anyone else gets hurt. In the end, the spell is broken and the bad sorcerer who casted the spell is shoved into the cage with his own hyena pack.

Xander is spared from involvement in the most heinous crime - cannibalism in the form of principal eating - because he is engaged elsewhere. He is attempting to rape long-time and unrequited crush, Buffy Summers. In the scene, Xander uses VERY intimidating body language to establish dominance. Without even touching her, he pins her up against the vending machines. He sniffs her repeatedly, informing her that he likes it when she's scared because the more afraid she is, the better she smells. He then bites her neck. At that, she shoves him to the ground and pins him. He grins, offers a snarky remark about knowing she wanted it, and then he turns the tables and pins her, at which point he attempts rape. We do not get to see how Buffy gets away. The next time we see Xander, he is unconscious. Buffy has, apparently, knocked him out and dragged him to the dog house (the cage used to contain their werewolf friend) for safe keeping. When it is all over, Xander pretends to have forgotten everything he did, referring to his actions as "embarrassing."



Seeing Red:
This episode is almost 6 complete seasons in, so a lot of back story churns under the surface. Buffy and Spike have been carrying on a torrid, violent, and secret affair. Buffy was using Spike and has broken up with him because, in her words, "I'm using you and it's killing me" and "I can't love you." She also tells him to move on. He has attempted to move on, having brought a trashy date to a wedding (Buffy told him "it hurts" and Spike ended up leaving) and having had a one night stand with Anya. For reasons that I cannot understand, everyone is very angry about the one-night stand. After Dawn confronts Spike - telling him that he should not have hurt Buffy like that (by sleeping with Anya) if he loved her - Spike goes to Buffy's house to apologize.

The attempted rape scene takes place when he finds her in the bathroom. They discuss the relationship. She admits that she has feelings for him, but maintains that she can't love him. He becomes desperate, saying something along the lines of (and I paraphrase): "when I was inside you, you felt it. You understood." The expression on his face is one of sadness and desperation. It is worth noting, too, that he remains in human face. Then, he tries to kiss Buffy. She is weakened or fatigued by an injury of some sort, and fights him off in rather pathetic fashion for a super strong slayer. The struggle takes them to the bathroom floor, where he rips open her robe. She says things like, "No!" and "Please don't do this!" Finally, she kicks him across the room. She wraps her robe around her and says, "Ask me again why I could never love you!" Realization and guilt pass across Spike's face and he hurries away. When we see Buffy again, Xander comes into the bathroom and figures out what happened. When we see Spike again, a tortured Spike wonders aloud to a friend why he did (and then why he didn't do it), and then he leaves town to make himself "the kind of man who would never...." We should also not forget that odd camera angles and copious amounts of black and white symbolism are used (the scene is in a stark white bathroom, Buffy wears a dingy white robe, and Spike wears black).



Analysis:
At first, it seemed to me that both were possessed when they tried to rape Buffy. When Xander gets his soul back, he is forgiven without a second thought just as Angel is forgiven for whatever his unsouled counterpart, Angelus, does. When Spike attempts to rape Buffy, it makes sense he should be forgiven just the same when he returns from getting his soul. I have a friend who argues that Xander is forgiven because his possession is both involuntary and temporary. Had Xander been his normal self, he would not have attempted to rape Buffy. Spike, by contrast, is always possessed by a demon and always lacks a human soul (or conscience). She argues that that means that he was in his normal state when he tried to rape Buffy. That's a good argument, but I don't think it's the whole story.

First of all, possession is not complete. A vampire, for example, is half human host and half possessing demon. The human soul is rejected and replaced by the demon soul, but the human memories and personality remain. The demon soul removes the conscience and implants the urge to feed off humans and ratchets up the aggressive behavior. The hyena possession basically did the same thing. Xander's human soul was replaced with the hyena soul, his conscience was removed and, in its place, animal urges and aggressive behaviors were implanted. He retained his memories and personality. Xander retained his desire to be part of the "in" crowd, his appetite, and his crush on Buffy. The animal soul didn't change his motivations; it just took away his inhibitions and conscience so that he could act on those repressed urges. The same thing happened to Spike. After he became a vampire, he changed. He was a nerdy, wimpy, very bad poet who was scorned by women. As a vampire, he got in with the "in" crowd, gave in to reckless bravado, and got himself a few hot girls. What didn't change was his desire for love and romance: in his own words, he's always been "love's bitch." As a vampire, he can act on that physically, whereas in life his only outlet was in bad poetry. For both men, the possession was a half and half deal by which baser urges are brought to the forefront and rendered acceptable, not a complete transformation.

Secondly, it is not as though Buffy did not know what Spike's vampire nature was all about. She had dated a vampire before, had spent the last 5 or 6 years fighting all sorts of nasties, and told Spike many times during their relationship that he was "not a man," that he was "a thing," that he "couldn't love her," that he was "evil," etc. Buffy always knew what he was. She also knew he could hurt her. In Buffy's mind, Spike was an evil thing, incapable of having true feelings for her. He was a sex object, not a person. If she does not hold him capable of any right thought, feeling, or action, then how can she hold him accountable for wrong thought, feeling, or action? If you spend months and months telling someone that the only thing he is good for is sex and violence, then how can you blame that person as though he knew better when he acts out in a sexually violent way? The thought here seems inconsistent. If Spike is morally capable of resisting his baser urges, then it follows that he is morally capable of following higher urges. Buffy and co. maintain that Spike is not morally capable of following or even feeling higher urges, and so they must believe he is not morally capable of resisting baser ones. Buffy and co. can't have it both ways. If he is evil and incapable of being good, then he must be forgiven for doing bad on the grounds that if he can't help it, it's really not his fault.

Third, look at the men's reactions during and following each scene. Xander is aggressive, predatory, and happy. He bites. He grins. He makes nasty comments. Afterward, when his soul is returned, he is embarrassed, but he does not feel guilty. He takes no responsibility for his actions and is content to let the whole thing pass. By contrast, Spike is distraught and desperate. His actions are frenzied. He is aggressive, but he is not predatory or happy. He does not hit or bite or scratch or make any attempt to fight. He makes no nasty comments; in fact, he begs. Afterward, when Buffy kicks him away, he recognizes what he has done. Guilt passes clearly over his features. He is ashamed and conflicted. Most importantly, he takes responsibility for his actions. He leaves to seek a soul so that he would never again be the kind of man to do such a thing. He is not content to let it pass. He wants to rectify the situation as much as he can - and this is all while still possessed. Neither Spike nor Xander were right in what they did, but one hides behind his possession and the other takes responsibility for his actions even while still possessed.

Both possessions brought out aggressive tendencies which the possessed were not supposed to have the ability to repress and for which they are therefore not considered responsible, and yet one of the possessed takes responsibility and takes action to find a way to repress those urges in spite of his possession. To me, this says that Spike is more worthy of forgiveness than is Xander, and yet Xander's attempted rape was allowed to pass without any negative consequences. That's what bothers me about the whole thing. I know I'm supposed to be horrified and to hate Spike, but I can't. I just can't condemn Spike for something that the entire moral system of the show says is not his fault and for something that a previous character was forgiven for without having to express any guilt or take any responsibility for his actions. The Spike scene does not fit in with the rest of the show. It feels like a PSA announcement about date rape that was just shoved into a Buffy episode and not like an event that is held to the normal rules of the Buffy world. And that aspect of it - the inequality that is being applied to Spike's actions when compared to Xander's or to other characters' transgressions - actually makes Spike more sympathetic, not less.


I'm sorry to take up so much space!
 
Hyena Xander is simply Xander acting without the restraints of a conscience (or soul, in Whedon's universe), no different than Spike acting without those same restraints. If everyone, Buffy included, were willing to completely forgive/forget hyena boy's actions before the final credits rolled, Spike should have been given the same consideration. Spike has always been given the dirty end of the stick when it comes to his relationship with Buffy, whether the stick holder is Xander, Giles, or, to a less extent, Willow. Others may be forgiven whatever sins they may have committed, but never the one person who did more to prove himself and seek acceptance than anyone else in the series. Spike was tortured almost to the point of death not once, but twice to protect Buffy and her family, went against his nature, betrayed his own kind, rejected the woman he'd spent more than a century loving and protecting, oh, and let's not forget the ordeal of winning "that pesky soul" that almost destroyed his sanity. Despite all of his pain and trials, with the exception of Joyce, Dawn, and finally Buffy (and her only really in the second part of Season 7) he received not a single friendly word.

Remember that big speech Xander gave the Potentials about how Buffy has earned their unquestioning respect and trust "because she's earned it" just before the confrontation with Caleb? The perfect example of his hypocrisies to me was his later statement about "trying to see your point, but it must be a little to my left," when not only he, but all of Buffy's friends, betrayed her. One supporter at that moment might have resulted in a completely outcome to the confrontation. Where was Xander's trust and loyalty then? For that matter, where were the apologies later for doubting the person who had once more saved the day?

Certainly Xander harris wasn't the only hypocrite in the group, but he might have been the greatest.
 
It was okay for Xander when he was under the influence of the Hyena's but it's not alright for William, when he was under the influence of a demon [vampire], maybe it was because of his name, Spike.
From what we saw of William I can't honsetly see him trying to rape a girl.

But we are not talking about William, Buffy never knew William, she knew Spike and HE was the one who tried to rape her. Spike is a vampire, it is his nature to hurt and kill. The only reason he wasn't was because of the chip not because he was a good man. He was not a man and him trying to rape Buffy was a reminder to the audience who hd started to feel for him cuz of how Buffy treated him that HE IS EVIL.

Xander was not hyena so it wasn't in his true nature. William may not have been a rapist but William was dead and SPIKE was a vampire at the end of the day and being a rapist is part of that!!

Edit:

Hyena Xander is simply Xander acting without the restraints of a conscience (or soul, in Whedon's universe), no different than Spike acting without those same restraints. If everyone, Buffy included, were willing to completely forgive/forget hyena boy's actions before the final credits rolled, Spike should have been given the same consideration. Spike has always been given the dirty end of the stick when it comes to his relationship with Buffy, whether the stick holder is Xander, Giles, or, to a less extent, Willow. Others may be forgiven whatever sins they may have committed, but never the one person who did more to prove himself and seek acceptance than anyone else in the series. Spike was tortured almost to the point of death not once, but twice to protect Buffy and her family, went against his nature, betrayed his own kind, rejected the woman he'd spent more than a century loving and protecting, oh, and let's not forget the ordeal of winning "that pesky soul" that almost destroyed his sanity. Despite all of his pain and trials, with the exception of Joyce, Dawn, and finally Buffy (and her only really in the second part of Season 7) he received not a single friendly word.

Remember that big speech Xander gave the Potentials about how Buffy has earned their unquestioning respect and trust "because she's earned it" just before the confrontation with Caleb? The perfect example of his hypocrisies to me was his later statement about "trying to see your point, but it must be a little to my left," when not only he, but all of Buffy's friends, betrayed her. One supporter at that moment might have resulted in a completely outcome to the confrontation. Where was Xander's trust and loyalty then? For that matter, where were the apologies later for doubting the person who had once more saved the day?

Certainly Xander harris wasn't the only hypocrite in the group, but he might have been the greatest.

I completely agree that Xander is a hypocrite and the biggest one at that but he was possessed by the hyenas not soulless. Spike is a vampire and whether he acts like a man or not he is lives according to his baser instincts, but Xander is neither soulless nor a hyena so that is why he can attack Spike about his attempted rape of Buffy. Xander wasn't in control of his actions, Spike was.
 
But we are not talking about William, Buffy never knew William, she knew Spike and HE was the one who tried to rape her. Spike is a vampire, it is his nature to hurt and kill. The only reason he wasn't was because of the chip not because he was a good man. He was not a man and him trying to rape Buffy was a reminder to the audience who hd started to feel for him cuz of how Buffy treated him that HE IS EVIL.

Xander was not hyena so it wasn't in his true nature. William may not have been a rapist but William was dead and SPIKE was a vampire at the end of the day and being a rapist is part of that!!

Edit:



I completely agree that Xander is a hypocrite and the biggest one at that but he was possessed by the hyenas not soulless. Spike is a vampire and whether he acts like a man or not he is lives according to his baser instincts, but Xander is neither soulless nor a hyena so that is why he can attack Spike about his attempted rape of Buffy. Xander wasn't in control of his actions, Spike was.

Was Spike in control of his actions?

I'm repeating with a few extra points thrown in, but...

Both possessions (the hyena possession and the whatever demon creates a vampire possession) brought out aggressive tendencies which the possessed were not supposed to have the ability to repress and for which they are therefore not considered responsible. Angel, for example, is not considered by the group responsible for actions that he takes as Angelus. And yet one of the possessed people in this little world takes responsibility and takes action to find a way to repress those urges in spite of his possession. That would be Spike. I don't know how he does it, but he takes control AFTER the attempted rape and goes and gets his soul. Spike took responsibility for his actions even though no one expects Angel to take responsibility for Angelus' actions or Xander to take responsibility for Hyena boy's actions.

To me, this says that Spike is more worthy of forgiveness than is Xander (or Angelus), and yet Xander's attempted rape was allowed to pass without any negative consequences. That's what bothers me about the whole thing. I know I'm supposed to be horrified and to hate Spike, but I can't. I just can't condemn Spike for something that the entire moral system of the show says is not his fault and for something that a previous character was forgiven for without having to express any guilt or take any responsibility for his actions. The Spike scene does not fit in with the rest of the show. It feels like a PSA announcement about date rape that was just shoved into a Buffy episode and not like an event that is held to the normal rules of the Buffy world. And that aspect of it - the inequality that is being applied to Spike's actions when compared to Xander's or to other characters' transgressions - actually makes Spike more sympathetic, not less.
 
I think a lot of this can be chalked up to plot necessity. If Xander had been treated as a rapist, he would not have been around--or at least not much trusted--for a huge chunk of the series, and the writers needed him. They also needed a reason for Spike to decide to get his soul back, and him realizing what a horrible person NOT having a soul makes him--such a horrible person that he would attempt serious sexual violence against the person he loves--causes that necessary catalyst that sends him to find his soul, to become the person he thinks Buffy deserves. I have always found Spike to be more sensitive and more--dare I say--human than other vampires such as Angelus or Drusilla. He kept his sensitive, poetic, "tender" nature even when the demon took over. So he has reactions--like the horror after realizing what he's done--that no other vampire likely would. No wonder he doesn't fit in with the other vampires; even without a soul he's too human for them.
 
W
wiccianslayer
i completely agree with what your saying
I think a lot of this can be chalked up to plot necessity. If Xander had been treated as a rapist, he would not have been around--or at least not much trusted--for a huge chunk of the series, and the writers needed him. They also needed a reason for Spike to decide to get his soul back, and him realizing what a horrible person NOT having a soul makes him--such a horrible person that he would attempt serious sexual violence against the person he loves--causes that necessary catalyst that sends him to find his soul, to become the person he thinks Buffy deserves. I have always found Spike to be more sensitive and more--dare I say--human than other vampires such as Angelus or Drusilla. He kept his sensitive, poetic, "tender" nature even when the demon took over. So he has reactions--like the horror after realizing what he's done--that no other vampire likely would. No wonder he doesn't fit in with the other vampires; even without a soul he's too human for them.


I think your on to something, the judge said it all the way back in season two when he was supposed to be the 'Big Bad'...'You stink of humanity'...and your right Spike never fit in,not as a human, not as a vamp and not even as a scoobie

Edit:

Was Spike in control of his actions?

I'm repeating with a few extra points thrown in, but...

Both possessions (the hyena possession and the whatever demon creates a vampire possession) brought out aggressive tendencies which the possessed were not supposed to have the ability to repress and for which they are therefore not considered responsible. Angel, for example, is not considered by the group responsible for actions that he takes as Angelus. And yet one of the possessed people in this little world takes responsibility and takes action to find a way to repress those urges in spite of his possession. That would be Spike. I don't know how he does it, but he takes control AFTER the attempted rape and goes and gets his soul. Spike took responsibility for his actions even though no one expects Angel to take responsibility for Angelus' actions or Xander to take responsibility for Hyena boy's actions.

To me, this says that Spike is more worthy of forgiveness than is Xander (or Angelus), and yet Xander's attempted rape was allowed to pass without any negative consequences. That's what bothers me about the whole thing. I know I'm supposed to be horrified and to hate Spike, but I can't. I just can't condemn Spike for something that the entire moral system of the show says is not his fault and for something that a previous character was forgiven for without having to express any guilt or take any responsibility for his actions. The Spike scene does not fit in with the rest of the show. It feels like a PSA announcement about date rape that was just shoved into a Buffy episode and not like an event that is held to the normal rules of the Buffy world. And that aspect of it - the inequality that is being applied to Spike's actions when compared to Xander's or to other characters' transgressions - actually makes Spike more sympathetic, not less.

Ok I agree and disagree on a couple of things...

Spike isn't possessed by a demon, he is a demon. Thats a big difference. The only person who didn't really hold Angel resposible for Angelus did was Buffy and to a lesser extent Willow. Angel got the same treatment form Xander as Spike got. He doesn't see the distinction between demon and soul, although he has no problem with Anya, who probably killed more people than Angelus and Spike combined. There is not doubt he is a hypocrite.

I think the thing thats causing the problem here is that everyone expected more from Spike, they saw him as a good man. 'Seeing Red' reminded us that he wasn't. He was a demon, hats off to him for trying to better himself but HE was the one that attacked Buffy, in xander's case it was the hyena.

And what you said about the scene not fitting into Buffy, I totally 100% agree. Throughout Buffy we were shown a strong, resourceful, independant woman who not only took care of herself but those around her and suddenly we see her as weak and helpless. The Buffy that we knew would have staked Spike for what he did. She at least would have kicked the sh!te out of him, she just would not have been overpowered like that and she certainly would not have needed a man to come and save her. This wasn't the first time this has happend on the show. In 'Beauty and Beasts' Buffy is saved by Angel. Pete was strong but we had seen Buffy beat down bigger bads than him without breaking a sweat. It sends a mixed message to the viewer, the whole premise of the show was to show the Blonde kicking back. I find it a little disturbing that on both occasions when the show tried to say something about violence against women both times Buffy was made a victim and had to be saved.
 
Xander can be a hypocrite, but in this situation, he wasn't. Xander was possessed by an animal, Spike was Spike. If Xander would have tried to rape Buffy, he would have done it in BB&B when Buffy was under the spell and was throwing herself at him, but he didn't.
 
Yeah it's an interesting one.

I think I'll look at this first the various forms of the metaphysics presented on the show.

Possessed or not possessed?

I think the term is actually used in the episode The Pack if I'm not mistaken. Now the term would normally mean that the spirit takes control of the body while the original host has no control over what the host does.

Like it's been said, it's possible that hyena was working off the memories of Xander and acting upon them (seen as perhaps it needs some form of rationality to act upon) or that Xander was influenced by the spirit and acted without the constraints of a conscience.

The aspect of whether Xander is or isn't responsible may rely on many factors but one of them is his sense of identity. Cordy seemed to know she didn't murder Lilah, did Xander have this clarity and if not does it still mean it was him who committed these acts?

Vampirism

As I've mentioned elsewhere, vampirism and personal identity is a difficult issue. The main crux of the matter is reliant on the definition of the soul. However without a consistent classification it makes our job difficult, however we can examine different possibilities by looking at different classifications of the soul.

Theory 1

This assumes the standard theory that when a person is turned they essentially die. The demon takes over their body and the soul (being the immaterial part of you: the 'meness' if you will) and the demon takes your memories but it isn't you. This is the theory Giles presents us with at the beginning of the show. Most likely this is what he learned in the Watcher's Council.

This definition of the soul is also supported in Shells when dealing with Fred.

Implications for Spike

This means that soulledSpike isn't responsible for the AR but soulless Spike is. This is purely in terms of "Whodunnit?"

This also means that soulledSpike isn't responsible for getting his soul back either as the soul is him! This would mean his claims of superiority over Angel in that respect would be false because neither vamp earned their soul back.

Theory 2

This the other theory that vampires have a continued consciousness (not just the illusion of one through memories) and the spirit remains but the conscience is gone. And they are spurred on by the demonic bloodlust.

Implications for Spike

This would mean that soulledSpike is the one who committed the AR, however he did not have a conscience at the time. Judging him still becomes a little difficult because it's questionable whether we can blame him for not following a faculty (a conscience) he does not have?

This leaves us with the muddy waters of defining the conscience. Spike certainly isn't amoral or ignorant of the human concept of morality. In his soulless state he certainly isn't presented as the AngelBeast we see in Pylea, who acts purely on instinct. He knows what generally what humans would consider right and what they would consider wrong. We know that Spike can act against his so called nature and even Angel says that vampires can control themselves. If we normalize (lol yeah, I know) vampires behaviour then Spike can perhaps be judged by a different standard as he lacks the same inner faculties as humans do. This may be true of all vampires and so by calling them evil, we are saying that they in a way in which most humans would find repugnant...

Have to go soon and may edit this soon but the question is, is Spike's guilt about concepts of right and wrong or hurting the woman he loved? We know that Spike has felt small pangs of guilt for snapping at Dru, so is this the same thing but on a larger scale? Does this bring us any closer to defining this missing conscience?
 
Yeah it's an interesting one.

I think I'll look at this first the various forms of the metaphysics presented on the show.

Possessed or not possessed?

I think the term is actually used in the episode The Pack if I'm not mistaken. Now the term would normally mean that the spirit takes control of the body while the original host has no control over what the host does.

Like it's been said, it's possible that hyena was working off the memories of Xander and acting upon them (seen as perhaps it needs some form of rationality to act upon) or that Xander was influenced by the spirit and acted without the constraints of a conscience.

The aspect of whether Xander is or isn't responsible may rely on many factors but one of them is his sense of identity. Cordy seemed to know she didn't murder Lilah, did Xander have this clarity and if not does it still mean it was him who committed these acts?

Vampirism

As I've mentioned elsewhere, vampirism and personal identity is a difficult issue. The main crux of the matter is reliant on the definition of the soul. However without a consistent classification it makes our job difficult, however we can examine different possibilities by looking at different classifications of the soul.

Theory 1

This assumes the standard theory that when a person is turned they essentially die. The demon takes over their body and the soul (being the immaterial part of you: the 'meness' if you will) and the demon takes your memories but it isn't you. This is the theory Giles presents us with at the beginning of the show. Most likely this is what he learned in the Watcher's Council.

This definition of the soul is also supported in Shells when dealing with Fred.

Implications for Spike

This means that soulledSpike isn't responsible for the AR but soulless Spike is. This is purely in terms of "Whodunnit?"

This also means that soulledSpike isn't responsible for getting his soul back either as the soul is him! This would mean his claims of superiority over Angel in that respect would be false because neither vamp earned their soul back.

Theory 2

This the other theory that vampires have a continued consciousness (not just the illusion of one through memories) and the spirit remains but the conscience is gone. And they are spurred on by the demonic bloodlust.

Implications for Spike

This would mean that soulledSpike is the one who committed the AR, however he did not have a conscience at the time. Judging him still becomes a little difficult because it's questionable whether we can blame him for not following a faculty (a conscience) he does not have?

This leaves us with the muddy waters of defining the conscience. Spike certainly isn't amoral or ignorant of the human concept of morality. In his soulless state he certainly isn't presented as the AngelBeast we see in Pylea, who acts purely on instinct. He knows what generally what humans would consider right and what they would consider wrong. We know that Spike can act against his so called nature and even Angel says that vampires can control themselves. If we normalize (lol yeah, I know) vampires behaviour then Spike can perhaps be judged by a different standard as he lacks the same inner faculties as humans do. This may be true of all vampires and so by calling them evil, we are saying that they in a way in which most humans would find repugnant...

Have to go soon and may edit this soon but the question is, is Spike's guilt about concepts of right and wrong or hurting the woman he loved? We know that Spike has felt small pangs of guilt for snapping at Dru, so is this the same thing but on a larger scale? Does this bring us any closer to defining this missing conscience?

Excellent, interesting insights!

I would like to continue this line of thought as far as theory #2 goes. Near the end, you ask whether Spike's guilt is about concepts of right and wrong or about hurting a loved one.

I would argue that the human conscience does not function as an either/or sort of deal. Rather, I think conceptual morality and let's call it social morality work in tandem. This is why a person who kills for the right reasons might harbor guilt for killing the wrong person. Wesley felt this when he thought he killed his father to save Fred's life. For most of us, interpersonal relationships often add or subtract degrees of rightness or wrongness to or from actions that might stand as absolutes on a purely conceptual scale. After all, when we argue that something is "more wrong" or "less wrong" depending on circumstance, we usually argue based on how the action will affect the lives of others or of those involved.

Socially, human beings interact on a variety of levels, each of which depend upon varying degrees of bonding or loyalty. Picture, if you will, a pyramid. At the bottom, most basic level, we are bonded to or loyal to our species. In general, a sense of kinship or commonality urges almost every member of the species to consider it wrong to kill or harm fellow humans. This does not apply to other creatures, as humans regard nearly all other creatures as food or in light of whatever other benefits that creature can provide. After that, we tend to segment ourselves into large cultural groups united by common values, customs, language, dress, political system, etc. People are more loyal to the latter group than to the former, and so killing other humans for the good of the large cultural group or even for the good of others in one's large cultural group is very often deemed acceptable. Usually, we call this war. Within those large cultural groups, smaller, more isolated communities form. The people in these communities (usually cities) depend upon one another economically and also share even more specific cultural similarities. There's a gray area here for things like work, clubs, and common interests. And then we get to one's outer and inner circles of family and friends. We get to situations like Wesley's. Killing to protect another is, by and large, permitted by human society. It is often even viewed as heroic. Finally, at the top of the "pyramid," so to speak, and of the most importance to any one human is his or her own life. Killing in self-defense is permitted, as well. Personal sacrifice is viewed as extraordinarily good and heroic precisely because it goes against all of our self-preservative instinct. These different levels all come into play when one makes a moral decision.

Conceptual mortality depends on moral absolutes that serve as guidelines. By and large, these absolutes exist for the stability of a society. Most cultures value human life, property, peace, etc. To act in a manner that undermines those values is often considered "wrong," while to act in a manner that supports and reinforces those values is often considered "right." A moral system depending solely on absolutes would not work, though, because that fails to take into consideration the complexity of human society. Social morality provides the necessary wiggle room. It's what allows for various shades of gray. It's what allows us to say, "Yes, he was wrong, BUT...." It, as much as conceptual morality, is part of the glue that holds society together. Can you imagine living in a society in which we were not permitted to protect ourselves or our loved ones? Can you imagine living in a society in which the law was an inflexible, rational absolute that left no room for human emotion or connection? That society would crumble fast.

So... how does this all relate to Spike? You asked whether Spike was acting out of conceptual morality or social morality when he got his soul. I think both were in play. But, as is the case with almost any human, I think the interpersonal connections that he had with others was the motivating factor.

And that sort of shoots Theory #1, the Watcher Council's theory, out of the water, doesn't it? If a vampire can moralize on so human a level, then there must still be something of the human in there.
 
I don't really think Xander can be blamed. Even tho after the fact he remembered everything, it wasn't in his control. But he never did appologize either. Even tho it wasn't his fault. You think you would take Buffy aside and reassure her that it wasn't you who was responsible. Maybe that's the real reason he wanted to pretend he didn't remember anything. Maybe he didn't want to have that chat with Buffy about it.
 
I don't really think Xander can be blamed. Even tho after the fact he remembered everything, it wasn't in his control. But he never did appologize either. Even tho it wasn't his fault. You think you would take Buffy aside and reassure her that it wasn't you who was responsible. Maybe that's the real reason he wanted to pretend he didn't remember anything. Maybe he didn't want to have that chat with Buffy about it.

I definitely think he wanted to avoid that unpleasant conversation. I can't blame him for that, really. I mean, it must be mortifying to get all de-possessed and then realize what you tried to do. I feel sorry for Wesley when he tried to kill Fred under similar circumstances in "Billy." Wes said that he felt it was a part of him - a primal, repressed part of him - but a part of him, nonetheless, that Billy brought out and that led to Wes' attempted murder of Fred. I think the same sort of thing happened to Xander. I think the hyena possession brought out something very primal in Xander, but I think Xander was still in there somewhere, and that's why he was too embarrassed to talk about it (just like Wesley was ashamed to show his face at work).
 
Not only tho was it a primal part of Xander coming out. But we know just how much Xander wanted Buffy. So add primal to his true 'wants' and there you go. Bad boy Xander.
 
Back
Top Bottom