PDA

View Full Version : Spike discussions



Pages : [1] 2

_Buffy_
19-10-10, 10:00 PM
Hi there !

Would you share which is your the most 5 favorites Spike`s quotes ? If you wanna you may choose more than 5. :xd

Mine :

1. / Spike to Buffy in " The Gift " / - ........I know you never like me , but you treat me like a man....

2. .....Out For A Walk...Beach....:D

3. Spike to HArmony ..." And I like syphilis more than you "......:lol:

4. Spike to Willow : I` ll give you a choice, I`ll kill you, no choice in that , but I may make you like me , or stay you dead.... - the whole scene in Wilow`s dorm was so fun . Well, at first wasn`t fun. It was violent and ugly, but when Spike can`t bite Willow , it was already fun...:xd

5. His speach in " Touched " . I know it is very popular and some kind classic, but it is one of my favorite and touched my heart , too. :hug:

sybil
20-10-10, 07:35 PM
Fun topic. I collected favorite quotes for most of the characters, but they really were about being a warning label to the whole of the Buffyverse. Examples include things like Angel saying, “I’ll be damned.” (sniff). Whistler’s many great speeches summarizing: “In the end, you're always by yourself. You're all you've got. That's the point.” Or Giles: “Buffy! Will you stop worrying about what may be and concentrate on what is!”

You don’t have to agree—I don’t—but they belong to the intent of the whole of the overview in Joss’s intention, perhaps.

When it comes to Spike, I found that Angelus was given all the poetry in his speech, Spike was the truthteller and he did it with humor and snark. Yet Spike’s last personal act in NFA was based on his introduction to the audience as the poet. To describe his heart is to understand the poetry of his ideal vision in the surprise of love and its beauty to change everything. It was originally given to Cecily, but he had to go through so many changes to become a man to understand the truth of the poem and even its subject. It is an ideal of love that may be viewed as the extreme in “knowing her before knowing her” and her name is Buffy.


1"My soul is wrapped in harsh repose,
midnight descends in raven-colored clothes,
but soft...behold!
A sunlight beam
cutting a swath of glimmering gleam.
My heart expands,
'tis grown a bulge in it,
inspired by your beauty...
effulgent."


2. We like to talk big. Vampires do. 'I'm going to destroy the world.' That's just tough guy talk. Strutting around with your friends over a pint of blood. The truth is, I like this world. You've got...dog racing, Manchester United. And you've got people. Billions of people walking around like Happy Meals with legs. It's all right here. But then someone comes along with a vision.
With a real... passion for destruction. Angel could pull it off. Goodbye, Picadilly. Farewell, Leicester Bloody Square. You know what I'm saying?

A world view and personal reveal e.g. on (bloody and mindless) competition as sport and, of course, that people are the fast food menu…ha!

3. A Slayer with family and friends. That sure as hell wasn't in
the brochure. ( This is Buffy’s secret power. Sure as hell—that does seem to be all fired true, forever, and there are many. Heaven? Not so much; and it sure doesn’t last)

4. Oh, please! If every vampire who said he was at the crucifixion was actually there, it would have been like Woodstock. ‘nuff said.


3 Angelus: Since when did *you* become so levelheaded?

Spike: Right about the time you became so pig-headed. (I love seeing so many levels in a single line. I won’t interrupt every quote this way, but as an example. It’s funny because Spike is stubborn; it reminds me of Angel squishing Mr. Gordo—Buffy’s stuffed toy, while the pig is another “death reference” a smart and clean animal believed to be a betrayer (cloven hoofed)—which Spike does to get Dru back) with teeth that are moon shaped (boar) in reference to Buffy, as a moon goddess, and also a worthy sacrifice to Hecate, the “death aspect” of the Goddess in the underworld and Queen of Witches.))

You have your way with him, (Giles, the “stuffed shirt.”) you'll never get to destroy the world. (Duplicitous, as Spike likes living in the world—something Angelus declared to the Master, but now Buffy has actually destroyed him and his world) And I don't fancy
spending the next month trying to get librarian out of the carpet. (As if Spike would ever clean up anything! Ha!) There are other ways. (He calls for Dru’s glamour—yes punny).


4 Spike: I'm really glad I came here, you know? I've been all
wrongheaded about this. Weeping, crawling, blaming everybody else.

I want Dru back, I've just gotta be the man I was, (stands proud) the man
she loved. I'm gonna do what I shoulda done in the first place: I'll
find her, wherever she is, tie her up, torture her until she likes me
again.

This is the job of darkness and how to heal and take action—what you have to do with the demons you love to torture yourself with. Seriously.


5 SPIKE: You're *not* friends. You'll never be friends.
You'll be in love till it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag,
and you'll hate each other till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be
friends. (points at his temple) Love isn't brains, children, it's
blood... (clasps his chest) blood screaming inside you to work its will.

So, if Spike is the truthteller, I guess he is a B/Aer, despite himself!



6 This is just so typical of Spike with any character, but here’s a piece of Angel and Spike that just makes them both shine.
ANGEL What are you doing here, Spike?
SPIKE Didn't get the memo? Hero of the people now.
ANGEL Oh, then go and annoy them.
SPIKE When I'm done. Heard one of the simples went for a stroll.
ANGEL And I'll get her back without your help.
SPIKE Goody for you, 'cause, uh, not offering it.
ANGEL Look, shouldn't you be out in the streets, you know, protecting the city from people like you?


HUGS!

_Buffy_
20-10-10, 09:43 PM
2. We like to talk big. Vampires do. 'I'm going to destroy the world.' That's just tough guy talk. Strutting around with your friends over a pint of blood. The truth is, I like this world. You've got...dog racing, Manchester United. And you've got people. Billions of people walking around like Happy Meals with legs. It's all right here. But then someone comes along with a vision.
With a real... passion for destruction. Angel could pull it off. Goodbye, Picadilly. Farewell, Leicester Bloody Square. You know what I'm saying?

A world view and personal reveal e.g. on (bloody and mindless) competition as sport and, of course, that people are the fast food menu…ha!


I want Dru back, I've just gotta be the man I was, (stands proud) the man
she loved. I'm gonna do what I shoulda done in the first place: I'll
find her, wherever she is, tie her up, torture her until she likes me
again.

This is the job of darkness and how to heal and take action—what you have to do with the demons you love to torture yourself with. Seriously.


5 SPIKE: You're *not* friends. You'll never be friends.
You'll be in love till it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag,
and you'll hate each other till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be
friends. (points at his temple) Love isn't brains, children, it's
blood... (clasps his chest) blood screaming inside you to work its will.

So, if Spike is the truthteller, I guess he is a B/Aer, despite himself!



6 This is just so typical of Spike with any character, but here’s a piece of Angel and Spike that just makes them both shine.
ANGEL What are you doing here, Spike?
SPIKE Didn't get the memo? Hero of the people now.
ANGEL Oh, then go and annoy them.
SPIKE When I'm done. Heard one of the simples went for a stroll.
ANGEL And I'll get her back without your help.
SPIKE Goody for you, 'cause, uh, not offering it.
ANGEL Look, shouldn't you be out in the streets, you know, protecting the city from people like you?


HUGS!


Yes I was forgot these. They were very good and funny, too. And his speach in " Lovers walk " ...You`re not friends, you never be friends... " was amazing:). IMO Buffy even didn`t realize how much truth has in it. But she knew she won`t fool Spike and may be this speech was the reason which makes Angel to live the town after few episodes. It was like Spike tells Buffy and Angel in their faces what is the truth, what is the real situations. It was a little like the Mayor`s speach , when he told them how his wife getting older in front of his eyes, and about their future together.:s

But the last conversation I`m not sure from which episode is ? Is it from " The girl in question " ? :s

sybil
22-10-10, 10:46 PM
Oh my. I can't count or type! Sorry for the gluttony!

I am not sure I follow how the mayor has anything to do with lying about the nature of the devotion and passion these two feel for each other, which Spike showed could not be rationalized. You can’t rationalize experience, only what it does to you. That is why they couldn’t put each other through that kind of pain to feed personal need. They loved each other and wanted more for the other than their own happiness.

The question you may consider with the element of time under scrutiny is if there is 1 such a thing as “forever love.” 2 what characteristics define a forever love

The problem of mortality and immortality (not just in a couple, whether B/A or B/S) is the “go to” conflict suggesting Buffy’s nature is at odds with itself. We are talking about 1. what is a constant, and 2. why must there be change, and 3. how is change the constant, that actually make it possible to survive, express potential, grow, and why death itself is “ a necessary flaw” for 1, 2 and 3. All things Spike described. Except “never say never,” which is something he has to learn for Spuffy to ever work.

HUGS!

Osiris no more
25-10-10, 12:04 AM
I would share :hug: . This might be a bit random, maybe I could find “better” ones if would seriously search for it, but these are the first five that came into my mind:

1) Season four, “Wild at Heart”: Spike: Watch your mouth, little girl. You should know better than to tempt the fates that way. 'Cause the big bad is back, and this time, it's... “Spike gets zapped by one of the Initiative-Soliders” :lol:

2) Season four, “Where the Wild Things Are”: Spike: I know I'm not the first choice for heroics ... and Buffy's tried to kill me more than once. And, I don't fancy a single one of you at all. But... actually, all that sounds pretty convincing. I wonder if Danger Mouse is on. “walks away” :lol:

3) Here I go with something already mentioned: Season five, “the Gift”: Spike: I know you'll never love me. I know that I'm a monster. But you treat me like a man, and that's... Get your stuff. I'll be here. I was still rather new on “Buffy” back then, and this impressed me end stayed in my mind.

4) Season five, “the Gift” (again): actually he didn’t say anything, so it’s not really a quote, but when Willow says “Could use some courage ...” and Spike offers her his flask, that was so funny.

5) Season seven, “Sleeper“: Spike offers himself to Buffy to be staked: “Do it fast, OK?”

_Buffy_
25-10-10, 11:45 AM
2) Season four, “Where the Wild Things Are”: Spike: I know I'm not the first choice for heroics ... and Buffy's tried to kill me more than once. And, I don't fancy a single one of you at all. But... actually, all that sounds pretty convincing. I wonder if Danger Mouse is on. “walks away” :lol:



Yes it was very funny. Thanks for remind me. :lol: But in the "Gift " ... I know you never love me, I know I`m monster, but you treat me like a men... " was a serious and it stayed in my mind too.

Osiris no more
25-10-10, 11:54 PM
was a serious and it stayed in my mind too.

I am aware that it was serious, as was the “Do it fast, OK?”. Sorry if me putting these along with the funnies was confusing ;) . Do you remember in “The Gift” that scene with the flask, I mean the bottle of alcohol? It’s a very brief scene.

_Buffy_
26-10-10, 07:39 AM
Of course, i remember. The gift is one of my favorite episodes. It was a scene without a words . And IMO Spike and Willow always have a easy understanding between them. Later in The gift Willow talk to Spike to go in the top of the tower only with her mind. And Do you remember in " Something blue " - she was the only one who give him a cookie to shut his mouth up . Even in " The hursh light of day " she try to comfort him, afer he can`t kill her , because of the chip.

Nikki
29-10-10, 11:14 AM
I've changed the title of this thread to 'Spike Discussions' so please no posting just 1/2 lines with quotes as that's not what this character discussion forum is for.

Heroine X
02-05-11, 01:33 AM
I liked Spike more on Angel than on Buffy simply because he wasn't with Buffy. :lol: Plus he was rather more interesting in AtS Season 5 after becoming stupid [no offense Spike fans] during BtVS S5 - S6. He was decent in Season 7, but I still hate Spuffy. I did like Spike in Seasons 2 - 4 where he was more interesting and rather cool. Think I'm insane if you want, but I'm just saying things as they are.

Reddygirl
02-05-11, 03:11 AM
Personally I don't think stupid people are interesting, but whatever floats your ship.

I was very disappointed at first with how Spike behaved on AtS season 5 but in retrospect it made total sense. Angel also acted like a twelve-year old most of the year whenever Spike was nearby.

Being around Angel made Spike feel insecure and for the first half of the season he regressed. But by the end, especially in NFA where he found the guts to publicly read his poetry, he was starting to feel comfortable with who he was and didn't have to constantly play at being brash and crude.

Don't get me wrong, Spike can be brash, he certainly is snarky but his sensitive side was on display only occasionaly and that was when he was with Fred, who brought out his protective nature.

ubi4soft
02-05-11, 03:15 AM
I liked Spike more on Angel than on Buffy simply because he wasn't with Buffy. :lol: Plus he was rather more interesting in AtS Season 5 after becoming stupid [no offense Spike fans] during BtVS S5 - S6. He was decent in Season 7, but I still hate Spuffy. I did like Spike in Seasons 2 - 4 where he was more interesting and rather cool. Think I'm insane if you want, but I'm just saying things as they are.
I like Spike in general. I like Spuffy more than any other relationships. Spike and Spuffy are the reasons I became a fan of the show(s).

_Buffy_
03-05-11, 09:37 PM
Look what I find in one Spike forum. This pic is real, IMO . I think it is when they were at S 4 . Wasn`t Buffy with this dress in " Restless" ?

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20800000/Spuffy-True-Love-Destiny-100-Real-x-spuffy-20809581-312-258.jpg (http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20800000/Spuffy-True-Love-Destiny-100-Real-x-spuffy-20809581-312-258.jpg)

TimeTravellingBunny
03-05-11, 10:46 PM
Look what I find in one Spike forum. This pic is real, IMO . I think it is when they were at S 4 . Wasn`t Buffy with this dress in " Restless" ?

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20800000/Spuffy-True-Love-Destiny-100-Real-x-spuffy-20809581-312-258.jpg (http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/20800000/Spuffy-True-Love-Destiny-100-Real-x-spuffy-20809581-312-258.jpg)
Just how white is his hair in that pic?! :blink:

ubi4soft
16-05-11, 07:01 PM
Some random dudes over at GeekFights (http://www.geekfights.net/), selected Best Whedon Character (see here (http://www.geekfights.net/2011/05/15/geek-fights-bonus-best-whedon-character-brackets/)the full bracket- 32 characters, see here the hilarious rejects (http://geekfights.tumblr.com/post/5449940984/hey-star-trek-gotchoo-favorite-joss-whedon) - loved Darla and Harmony's letters)

The podcast is long and here (http://www.geekfights.net/2011/05/16/geek-fights-episode-49-best-whedon-character/).

*Yep. Spike won.:) And made my day

cil_domney
17-05-11, 07:47 AM
Thanks ever for posting the GeekFights - I really enjoyed listening - wish they had better audio controls however.

ubi4soft
31-05-11, 08:33 AM
Today wishes are horses, courtesy of Jaime Bee: transcripts of James Marsters True Buff interviews

http://dontkillspike.livejournal.com/358366.html?


James Marsters – Debut performance

His debut performance?

My first scene was in the meat packing plant, when I go, “You were there? If every vampire who said he was at Woodstock was there, they would…” or whatever. I had come from stage, and on stage, when you make an entrance, you go to the framing device that you’re entering through, it’s usually a doorway, and you pause in the doorway, and everyone looks up, and then you just make a slight pause, and then you start speaking, and then you cross down stage. It’s a very powerful entrance. I didn’t realize I was on film, and they cut to you, you don’t have to pull focus; you don’t have to pause so all the eyes come to you; you don’t have to speak louder to pull focus; you don’t have to do any of that. So, it ended up being a very stagey, kind of, highly acted first scene and the accent really wasn’t there, and still when I watch “School Hard,” I get a little like, “oh.” (cringes) It got better, ‘cause right after that scene, Tony Head came to me and he goes, “You’ve got to get it right. I’ve gotta go back home, you prat,” right. He was a nice guy, but he was very specific. And he started helping me with the accent, so as the episode went on, I got better at it. But especially that first scene was, is, just embarrassing.For the rest go read the transcript and give some thanks to this lovely lady.

ubi4soft
04-07-11, 08:24 AM
I'm stupid because I really haven't noticed till now.

courtesy of thebuffster (http://thebuffster.tumblr.com/post/4643369013)

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljo1dgfJli1qgmt5yo1_500.jpg

Yes, the dialog mocks Angel and we kinda laugh at it when in fact pretty much told us that, if Spike doesn't know who he is he'll assume that he has a soul and, in fact, it foreshadows the moment when Spike will truly doubt his identity and will chose to go for his soul.

Did any of you saw that?

spuffy forever.
08-07-11, 12:07 AM
1. The speach in Touched, especially, "And I don't want to be this good looking and athletic. We all have bridges to bear"

2. The "You'll never be friends" speach he gives to Buffy and Angel.

3. "Last night was the best night of my life."

4. "It's nice to watch you be happy"

5. Out..for..a..walk.. bîtch.

There are probsbly some words that are wrong, I donæt have a perfect memory.

Reddygirl
08-07-11, 03:13 AM
ubi, back in the day Spuffies and Spike-centric fans definitely took that dialogue in TR as a sign that Spike was on some kind of redemption journey. We just had no idea what a dark turn it would take.

But, in retrospect everything that happened after TR makes perfect sense and I wouldn't change a thing, despite all the pain and turmoil it caused us fans.

zianna
08-07-11, 03:27 AM
ubi, back in the day Spuffies and Spike-centric fans definitely took that dialogue in TR as a sign that Spike was on some kind of redemption journey. We just had no idea what a dark turn it would take.

But, in retrospect everything that happened after TR makes perfect sense and I wouldn't change a thing, despite all the pain and turmoil it caused us fans.
Actually he was in a redemption journey. And all his dark relationship with Buffy and his AR is what has driven him to win the fight inside of him and get himself a soul. I really don't believe it would have worked differently unless he had really hurt Buffy. That was his turning point, in Intervention he said that he couldn't stand it hurting Buffy, so he didn't say anything about Dawn. And him actually hurting Buffy was the prime of his redemption journey.

Reddygirl
08-07-11, 03:55 AM
Zianna, I absolutely agree. Spike was on a redemption journey but it took a different path than was speculated about during the first half of season 6.

Many of us knew that the original version of Anthony Burgess's novel "A Clockwork Orange" had a 21st chapter that was edited out of the American version of the book (Kubrik based his film on book without the all-important final chapter) in which we find out that Alex actually ended up rejecting violence and became a stable itizen. Burgess's vision was much more optimistic than the movie's.

So, in 6 we were seriously thinking that Spike would be redeemed without a soul. But now I believe Joss was correct in showing that Spike could only reclaim a limited amount of his humanity without a soul.

ubi4soft
08-07-11, 04:59 AM
Spike was on a redemption journey but it took a different path than was speculated about during the first half of season 6."Redemption is something you have to fight for in a very personal, down-dirty way. Some of our characters lose that, some stray from that, and some regain it." Joss Whedon about BtVS & AtS - (May 13, 2004)

ubi4soft
17-07-11, 10:25 AM
I love reading old archives, I can find new-to-me stuff and how random viewers reacted at first on-air Buffy (I'll be extremely interested in reading Buffy's Cross and Stake archives if the owner will ever want to make them available, the lost for ever Buffyworld's forum archives, sigh..)

So, blast from the past (found transcribed here (http://www.baboards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=711))

Vampires Discuss The Upcoming 'Buffy,' 'Angel' Crossover
Tue, Oct 31, 2000 12:52 PM PDT
by Kate O'Hare

LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - "This was an interesting week and a half, man," says James Marsters of his latest episode as vampire Spike on the WB's "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer."

"God .. I don't know how to say ... I think anybody who's had a metamorphosis in their life is going to be very interested in this arc, anybody who feels that they've transformed in their life, trying to become themselves."

As "Buffy" fans know, Spike, a longtime recurring character who became a regular this season, is a bleached-blond British bad boy (Marsters, by the way, is a California native), with a long black coat, short black fingernails and an excess of attitude. He has killed two Slayers and fancies himself a bit of a legend, even if all his attempts at world (or even Sunnydale, CA) domination fail miserably. But as with all people (vampires having once been people), Spike had a mother, a childhood, another name (of which we know the first part, William, as in William the Bloody) and another life before being turned into a demonic creature.

That life, Spike's origins and adventures, and the myth of the Slayer's invincibility lie at the heart of a Nov. 14 crossover event on the WB, beginning with an episode called "Fool for Love" on "Buffy" at 8 p.m. ET, and finishing with "Darla" on its spin-off series, "Angel" at 9 p.m. ET.

Earlier this season, Darla (Julie Benz), the 400-year-old vampire who turned an Irish wastrel into the vampire now known as Angel (David Boreanaz) returned from the depths of hell to haunt her now reformed protégé's dreams and life, in both flashbacks and in the present. Also seen in flashback has been Drusilla (Juliet Landau), a mad clairvoyant turned into a vampire by Angel, who eventually wound up siring Spike and being his paramour (before dumping him for a demon).

All these characters come together in the crossover, with both episodes featuring flashbacks to Victorian England, Europe and China, as the foursome of Angel, Darla, Spike and Drusilla wreak havoc across continents. This is the journey that eventually led them to Buffy's (Sarah Michelle Gellar) home of Sunnydale, and later led Angel to Los Angeles and his own series.

"Her story is epic," says Benz of the mercurial, sexually charged Darla. "To play a character like that on television, you don't get that opportunity very often. I mean, she lived four centuries. They really explain a lot about who she was before she was made a vampire. When they finally nail it down and give you what it is, it's really quite amazing."

"It's been great to go back and fill in the backstory," says Landau. "We were in London in 1860; we were in Yorkshire in 1880; we were in a Gypsy village in 1890; and then we were in China in 1900. In the China section, we were in the Boxer Rebellion, so there were a hundred extras and oxen, it was so lush."

In a recent episode of "Angel," Darla talked about how cruel and remorseless Angel was before a Gypsy curse restored his soul and conscience, and how such a capacity for darkness cannot be taught, but is innate. In the "Buffy" universe, transformation into a vampire doesn't necessarily change a personality, it just brings out hidden aspects.

Fans know that Spike fell hard for Drusilla, and lately his vehement and vocal hatred of Buffy is beginning to shift into something very different.

"That was the most interesting thing about the character from the very beginning," says Marsters. "Whereas he was truly evil, he was also very much in love with the girl."

In life, then, was Spike, or William, the punk-rocker hardcase he is now? As it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth.

"I think that opens doors for things that are much more interesting," says Marsters.
"What was interesting was to try to find out what was exactly the same."

And what was that? "The passion, in the end" says Marsters.

"Just fire, fire that was misdirected for a long time, then got straightened out in a sick way by becoming a vampire. I'm still too close to it, it's hard to talk about it. But I started by dissing the man, 'I'm going to play sissy William now,' but I'm actually coming to love and respect him in my own way. The crew will be, 'Hey, there's poncy William,' and I'll be, 'Shut up!' " Marsters laughs at himself. "It's strange to talk about these things with a TV show."

One wonders what William would have been had he not become a vampire.

"Oh god, boy, there it is," says Marsters. "Yeah, what happens to a raisin in the sun? When you have great passion, if you don't find a way to channel that and turn it into something useful, it can eat you alive. For me, it was an episode of this guy discovering that he has a source of power, that he is a powerful person, but didn't know it yet. I think that's the metaphor that Joss (series creator Joss Whedon) was going for."

While both good and bad in the universes of "Buffy" and "Angel" may wear the coolest clothes and strike the sharpest poses, it's usually just a prelude to a pie in the face. These aren't Anne Rice's impossibly elegant bloodsuckers or a comic book's infallible heroes.

"No cool character really lasts very long on Buffy," says Marsters. "Joss is going for something much more human and much more real than something so overtly cool, which really doesn't exist in real life, it just exists on TV shows. What drives him is finding the foibles and the failings and the weaknesses and the things that make people so dear and wonderful and a little sad."

When asked last summer about whether he thought Spike's origins would ever be explored, Marsters said he hoped they would. But, having seen the flashbacks of Angel, in which Boreanaz sported a long wig and muttonchops, Marsters feared that a trip back in time might hold something similar in store for him.

"Ha!" he says. "I found out there's so much more to fear than muttonchops.

~~~

Thank you Joss for non mustache-William

Moscow Watcher
18-07-11, 09:02 PM
Thank you for bringing the article here, Ubi! it was a pleasure to go back in time and relive those days.


In the "Buffy" universe, transformation into a vampire doesn't necessarily change a personality, it just brings out hidden aspects.

Interesting take. To me, vampirization has something to do with overcompensation. Liam was a drunkard and a boor - Angelus became an artist and a ballet lover. William was a mama's boy - Spike became a punk and a rebel.


Thank you Joss for non mustache-William

Heeee!:D Indeed, muchas gracias to Joss!



Today I read an interesting essay Why Buffy Matters (http://www.hypable.com/column/why-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-matters/) by Selina Wilken


An excerpt:
Of course, the most important character in the show’s exploration of the Soul was Spike, who started doing good things without a soul to aid him – turning the argument that vampires were excused of guilt due to their lack of a soul completely on its head. Spike was Pinocchio without his Jiminy Cricket, if Pinocchio had a thirst for blood and sharp fangs. And in a way, Buffy became Spike’s Jiminy, because she was the reason he tried to be good. Selfish, perhaps, as he was doing it to make her like him, but good none the less. And when Buffy died in season 5, Spike stayed with the Scoobies and helped Dawn because he had promised Buffy that he would. This was something Spike could never receive a reward for, this was in no way a selfish act. So while I think it was a slight cop-out in his development when he got his soul back in season 6, in some ways it was like Pinocchio becoming a real boy. This was the reward, if you can call it that, for his moral transformation, for fighting against his instincts for something as pure as love – something which evidently transcended the boundaries of good vs. evil in the Buffyverse.

ubi4soft
18-08-11, 05:40 AM
Stupid Spike question of the day:

Is there any connection between "I'm drowning in footwear" and Shanshu (sans shoes) ? :s

Tennyoelf
18-08-11, 08:21 AM
lol, No I don't think there is a connection. Be funny (and awesome, imo) if there was.

In AtF Angel got the Shanshu thing, so I think the whole Shanshu is over with and we probably won't hear about it again.

ubi4soft
18-08-11, 06:16 PM
lol, No I don't think there is a connection. Be funny (and awesome, imo) if there was.

In AtF Angel got the Shanshu thing, so I think the whole Shanshu is over with and we probably won't hear about it again.
Yes, probably you're right, but if I'll just continue a little bit my stupid question to emphasize that Spike was kinda always wearing some sort of combat boots - therefore being sans shoes already.

*I'll stop now

sueworld
18-08-11, 06:43 PM
I always saw that comment to be a play on the word soul/sole and that Spike had a dream that was a metaphor about his own soul.

Nothing to do with any Shanshu though.

FaithRoxx
18-08-11, 08:28 PM
I always saw that comment to be a play on the word soul/sole and that Spike had a dream that was a metaphor about his own soul.

Nothing to do with any Shanshu though.

Ah, so tell me, what in the name of the Universe is Shanshu?

Tennyoelf
18-08-11, 10:56 PM
I always saw that comment to be a play on the word soul/sole and that Spike had a dream that was a metaphor about his own soul.


That's a really cool interpretation. I always thought that it was just a silly dream.

@FaithRoxx: It's from Angel the Series. It's a prophecy stating a vampire with a soul will become human after an apocalypse. Bunch of rubbish though, imo.

Shanshu always sounded Asian to me (and thus nothing to do with shoes), or Shan shu or Sha n shu (if you go by Japanese pronunciation, but both could be too). No real clue on what it means. I could try translating it in Japanese, because that's the closest second language I have under my belt, but it could be based on another Asian language altogether.

And I don't like Spike being a part of any sort of prophecy, I like him wild card ish/free will ish. If he becomes human, it'll be because he wishes it (just like he wished for a soul) or because of a freak accident.

Osiris1803
19-08-11, 05:56 PM
1. The speech in Touched.
2. "Out. For. A. Walk. Bitch."
3. "You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love 'til it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other 'til it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Real love isn't brains, children. It's blood. It's blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
4. "I know you'll never love me. I know that I'm a monster. But you treat me like a man."
5. "I would, but I'm paralyzed with not caring very much."

Spike definitely has the bulk of my favourite quotes from the whole series, and it's not just what he says, it's how he says it. He's direct to the point. Which is a quality that I've always loved.

Tennyoelf
20-08-11, 01:32 AM
1. The speech in Touched.
2. "Out. For. A. Walk. Bitch."
3. "You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love 'til it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other 'til it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Real love isn't brains, children. It's blood. It's blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
4. "I know you'll never love me. I know that I'm a monster. But you treat me like a man."
5. "I would, but I'm paralyzed with not caring very much."


Spike quotes, quotes of Spike! :heart:

You picked some of his best lines! And yeah, he does have great lines, but that is mostly due to his character being made of so much win. ^_~

Osiris1803
20-08-11, 01:41 AM
Spike quotes, quotes of Spike! :heart:

You picked some of his best lines! And yeah, he does have great lines, but that is mostly due to his character being made of so much win. ^_~

I know!!! He is by far the best character in the series, and im my opinion makes the whole show.

Tennyoelf
20-08-11, 05:38 AM
I know!!! He is by far the best character in the series, and in my opinion makes the whole show.

Spike is so so great, yeah. I think my love for the series and the show wouldn't be near as big without him. He is one my absolute favorite fictional characters in any media/story.

Osiris1803
20-08-11, 12:40 PM
Spike is so so great, yeah. I think my love for the series and the show wouldn't be near as big without him. He is one my absolute favorite fictional characters in any media/story.

Right there with you, infact, he probably is my all time favourite character of all time!

Tennyoelf
20-08-11, 09:36 PM
Right there with you, infact, he probably is my all time favourite character of all time!

Definitely of all time, that was the phrase I was missing!

So why do you like him?

I really adore him because he is a dork who tries and succeeds sometimes at being a bad ass, because he loves with his whole heart and that love can override the evil being a vampire has made him and because deep down he really is a good guy despite himself. I love him because he can't help himself with the way he feels, loves and lives, makes blunders but always moves forward and even if he doesn't always think he makes the best out of every situation (as far as he can).

Osiris1803
20-08-11, 10:00 PM
I dunno, I guess I just like a little bad in my man, I'm a sucker for it. Also, he is just hilarious. I like that he can be good, without a soul, unlike Angel. Love can bring out the good and bad and him. I feel sorry for him because he tries so hard to be what Buffy needs, but his lack of soul makes it ever so difficult for him.

Tennyoelf
20-08-11, 11:26 PM
I dunno, I guess I just like a little bad in my man, I'm a sucker for it. Also, he is just hilarious. I like that he can be good, without a soul, unlike Angel. Love can bring out the good and bad and him. I feel sorry for him because he tries so hard to be what Buffy needs, but his lack of soul makes it ever so difficult for him.

It's hard to place Spike, I know. I do feel for him too, especially when he was chipped and soulless, because he doesn't understand a lot of things yet he still tries.

A little bad is always good! :D

Osiris1803
20-08-11, 11:34 PM
For a vampire so old he always struck me as very naive, insightful at times, but still had a lot to learn.

Tennyoelf
21-08-11, 02:58 AM
For a vampire so old he always struck me as very naive, insightful at times, but still had a lot to learn.

I think Spike can be very smart when he wants to be, but he tends to focus on other things, sorta like he has a one track mind. But he is very human in the sense that he does have a lot to learn, mostly about himself though...but since he's not much for inner reflection, it'll take some time! lol

TimeTravellingBunny
21-08-11, 03:21 PM
For a vampire so old he always struck me as very naive, insightful at times, but still had a lot to learn.

Well in vampire terms, he's actually very young, just a little over 100 years.

Tennyoelf
21-08-11, 11:25 PM
Well in vampire terms, he's actually very young, just a little over 100 years.

I always thought it was rare for them to reach 100 though, because they either get staked or they kill each other off.

If that's not the case, than yeah, Spike's young in terms of being a vampire.

sueworld
24-10-11, 08:41 PM
"17 immortals who'll live forever whether they deserve to or not"

http://blastr.com/2011/10/17-immortals-who-live-for.php

And guess who was included....

http://blastr.com/assets_c/2011/10/spike-1-thumb-330x475-74115.jpg



James Marsters

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel
There are a lot of non-sparkly vampires we could've chosen—because, let's face it, we were never going to chose a sparkly one—but the reason we settled on Spike, even over his bloodsucking Buffyverse buddy, is the overriding tragedy of his life. Sure, Angel was a broody puppy because he couldn't be with his one true love, but at least he got to love her. Spike went from the depths of villainy to the heights of heroism without ever knowing the full happiness of reciprocated love. Also: His coat was better."

Nicely put I thought.

kamw30
24-10-11, 09:57 PM
Gotta love that quote!

ubi4soft
25-10-11, 07:56 AM
Short and straight to the point. I mean you really need to look at Spike's whole journey to be able to appreciate his evolution. That's why sometimes it saddens me when I see some fans saying they liked only the "evil" Spike. And judging by JM's answer here, it bothered him too.

James Marsters Australia Convention 2001 – Q&A – Transcript (http://press.civilizedjames.org/?p=267) (english)

Q: Hi. Spike’s really evil, but Spike’s really cool at he same time. How do you feel about portraying someone that makes evil cool?

JM: That’s a very good question and one that originally bothered me. Because he was not supposed to — the audience was not supposed to react to him that way. He was supposed to be a punk rock ******* that was gets killed by Angel as his first act of evil after sleeping with Buffy. But that didn’t happen- but what did happen though was that Joss was exploring more grey areas, he said so in an interview. And someone said once that good done by an evil hand is still good. And I think that we are all a combination of good and evil, and I think that we’re going to see Spike trying to become a better person. I don’t know, that’s a really good question. I’m hoping that I’m not making evil look cool. I hope that that’s not it. I hope what the audience responds to in Spike is his romance, is the fact that he will not be beaten, he will not let himself be beaten… that he’s funny. But I hope it’s not the evil that is floating the character. Same thing about smoking- they always ask me, ‘hey you want a cigarette in that scene’ and unless I’m forced to smoke I don’t want to — I don’t want to send the image out that smoking is cool.

HappyMealsWithLegs was kind enough to upload the video of that convention, starting here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4jCwNFYYS8)

Tennyoelf
26-10-11, 01:43 AM
I actually have a tendency not to like evil characters so the fact that I liked Spike early on surprised me. I only started to love and appreciate his character when he become a hero, and continued to be a hero even after no one acknowledged his acts of heroism (but that's OK, you know. Buffy believed in him and that was enough for him).

So I agree with you ubi, it really saddens me to see people saying that Spike was better when he was evil (cause, you know, evil isn't really cool. Being a rebel can be cool, you can still be a rebel without being evil). I think Spike's character was just given so much life by James Marsters that people clung to him and associated themselves with him in a really extreme way. When Spike was evil he seemingly had everything, he was the boss and had a pretty girl, ergo the fans felt better about themselves (by believing they were letting go and that they had everything).

TimeTravellingBunny
26-10-11, 02:01 AM
So I agree with you ubi, it really saddens me to see people saying that Spike was better when he was evil (cause, you know, evil isn't really cool. Being a rebel can be cool, you can still be a rebel without being evil). I think Spike's character was just given so much life by James Marsters that people clung to him and associated themselves with him in a really extreme way. When Spike was evil he seemingly had everything, he was the boss and had a pretty girl, ergo the fans felt better about themselves (by believing they were letting go and that they had everything).
Except when he happened to be temporarily in a wheelchair, and his rival took over as the boss and the pretty girl was cheating with him right in front of Spike's nose.

If you can lose "everything" so easily (just by getting a freaking injury), the maybe it wasn't worth that much in the first place.

Tennyoelf
26-10-11, 02:12 AM
Except when he happened to be temporarily in a wheelchair, and his rival took over as the boss and the pretty girl was cheating with him right in front of Spike's nose.

If you can lose "everything" so easily (just by getting a freaking injury), the maybe it wasn't worth that much in the first place.

I meant before the injury.

I think it's the first impression that stuck with most fans. We are introduced to Spike as evil so some will always think he is evil, no matter how much of hero he's become (or anti-hero that he has become, since he isn't really a straight up hero per say, just he's on the good guy's side doing good).

gregor
26-10-11, 05:28 PM
Honestly, the characteristics that were most notable about Spike right from the beginning were not really evil characteristics. First what you notice is his complete devotion to Drusilla, who is physically weak and mentally damaged. It's very sweet, and hardly an evil trait. If he's harsh with her even for a moment, he is instantly apologetic and contrite.

Then the way he approaches his contest with Buffy- it's not so much about 'doing evil' as it is a desire to go up against the best and prove himself. He throws down his weapon when Buffy asks him to even though she's stronger than he is, because he wants to know who is better. He doesn't want to mess with Buffy's head like Angelus does, and he really does seem to respect her as a fellow warrior.

The closest trait to 'evil' that I primarily associate with Spike is his love of violence- but even that is not that different from Faith, and sometimes Buffy herself. He loves to fight, but it still seems to be more about proving himself and feeling alive than actually wanting to do evil- he doesn't struggle with the switch to killing demons very much, so it clearly isn't the 'evil' that he's in it for.

I think Spike was always more human-like than evil (character trait-wise), and that's what people were drawn to. Otherwise they'd love Angelus more, because he WAS really evil. When people say they miss 'evil Spike,' I think they're really reacting more to some of the characterization changes that the writers made to integrate him as a regular. I personally didn't like the whole 'wacky neighbor' period with Spike because I didn't want to see him go from someone who really was a threat to someone who was presented as a bumbling idiot who couldn't do anything right. I didn't hate Spike's character then, because he was still really funny, but I didn't like them making him a comic relief character.

TimeTravellingBunny
26-10-11, 09:10 PM
Honestly, the characteristics that were most notable about Spike right from the beginning were not really evil characteristics. First what you notice is his complete devotion to Drusilla, who is physically weak and mentally damaged. It's very sweet, and hardly an evil trait. If he's harsh with her even for a moment, he is instantly apologetic and contrite.

Then the way he approaches his contest with Buffy- it's not so much about 'doing evil' as it is a desire to go up against the best and prove himself. He throws down his weapon when Buffy asks him to even though she's stronger than he is, because he wants to know who is better. He doesn't want to mess with Buffy's head like Angelus does, and he really does seem to respect her as a fellow warrior.

The closest trait to 'evil' that I primarily associate with Spike is his love of violence- but even that is not that different from Faith, and sometimes Buffy herself. He loves to fight, but it still seems to be more about proving himself and feeling alive than actually wanting to do evil- he doesn't struggle with the switch to killing demons very much, so it clearly isn't the 'evil' that he's in it for.

Not really. Neither Buffy nor Faith enjoyed snapping anyone's neck just for the sake of it (killing the 'no-veal' guy had nothing to do with either fight or even blood), and I don't remember even Faith at her evilest in season 3 was impatient with the Mayor to start eating people because she was bored and it would be fun (as Spike was impatient for the Judge to get on with burning people in Innocence). And I don't see how enjoying killing people for the sake of it is a sign of being good. He wasn't enjoying killing demons because he wanted to do good but because they were the only people he could kill with his own hands.

I agree that the traits that people found appealing about Spike weren't related to evil (his rebellious attitude, his devotion and love for Dru, his sense of humor, his fighting spirit) - but there is no way round the fact that he was evil, very much so. It just wasn't all that he was, he wasn't one-dimensional.

gregor
26-10-11, 10:08 PM
And I don't see how enjoying killing people for the sake of it is a sign of being good.

That's not what I said, what I said was that the love of violence was the main way that Spike appeared to actually be evil, but it was SOMEWHAT tempered by the fact that his ends weren't necessarily "to do evil" as much as "to do violence." I'm not saying that his love of violence makes him good, far from it. Just that it's bad in a different way than being evil is bad.

It may be that I'm getting hung up on the word "evil." I don't think everything that's bad is necessarily evil- Spike was bad, but I guess I didn't think of him as being evil (traits- a vampire is probably to be considered evil in a de facto sense) in the same way that I would see the Master, or Glory, or even Angelus as being evil. Could just be a personal reaction to the semantics, though.

sueworld
28-10-11, 06:42 PM
Found this online which I though was rather fun. :D

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltqtuy6nNI1qeozqjo1_500.jpg

Tennyoelf
29-10-11, 04:35 AM
Go Blade, go!

I saw that on Tumblr. It's funny that Spike is the "one to be slayed" but he was never slain. Thanks for sharing Sue.

gregor
29-10-11, 04:37 AM
And I like that Spike's the one that ends up on the list instead of Angel, even though Angel had his own spin-off!

Stoney
29-10-11, 09:28 PM
I've changed the title of this thread to 'Spike Discussions' so please no posting just 1/2 lines with quotes as that's not what this character discussion forum is for.

What was this thread originally then? There is a Spike thread already - http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17642. Being new(ish) to the forum I am unsure how it works with multiple threads, I just lose track. :s

ubi4soft
01-11-11, 05:35 AM
Stoney This is how it started.

Hi there !

Would you share which is your the most 5 favorites Spike`s quotes ? If you wanna you may choose more than 5. :xd

~~~
One of the things that upset me in the show was Riley bullying and hitting Spike with a plastic stake. I found out recently that, oh shock, Joss and ME people started spreading rumors at the time that
"Word has it that James Marsters has received an offer he cannot refuse - a very big part in an upcoming M Night Shimalyan movie, and it would have been crazy to turn that down. Allegedly Joss was unhappy, but has written him out in episode ten."
And

This rumor may not be true! This is from the newsgroup:

Victor Creed wrote:

> Spike is staying for the long haul. This Spike thing is actually a
> Mutant Enemy attempt to smokescreen Blucas' leaving.
>
> The rumor of Blucas leaving was supposed to be a REALLY well kept
> secret. Someone leaked it, Joss was pissed.
>
> M. Night Shymalan has not projects being worked on right now. He's
> focusing on marketing Unbreakable. And even if he WAS, he would be in
> the active filming of it for quite some time. That means James would
> not have to leave for several months. However the Spike rumor says
> they've already filmed his last episode and he's already gone.
>
> THIS IS NOT TRUE.
>
> Say bye bye to Riley because he's going. This Spike rumor came from
> ONE person. It just seems like several people because everyone's
> repeating what they saw here and in the Watcher's Coucil.
>
> SPIKE IS HERE TO STAY>
>
> -Sabretooth
And

Spike Update 28/10/00

Since the original story, two further pieces of news have come to light. Firstly, E!Online's Wanda had this to say about the rumours:

"I'm 99 percent sure they're false. I have no idea why he told me he couldn't comment about his contract when I asked, because my sources assure me he's in for the long haul."

Seeking clarification from my original source in light of this, I was told:

"Well, I'm not sure that James is leaving permanently anymore. But he is going to be staked."

Please note that before anyone e-mails me for more info (as a lot of people did) , this is ALL I know. Any developments will appear on this page.

Sources - E!Online & anonymous
Well, lets say I'm more understanding :) But dear Joss couldn't you stake someone else? This is a clear behind the scene impacting the canon.

Stoney
01-11-11, 01:52 PM
Stoney This is how it started.

Thanks Ubi. I was meaning in the sense that the administrator changed the title of the thread to one that matches an existing thread (there is a general Spike character discussion thread already opened by Sky a while ago). I wondered if the original point of this thread was to discuss something specific that was obvious by the title before it was changed. I am not trying to confuse everyone else, I am just confused myself. :)

TimeTravellingBunny
03-11-11, 01:10 AM
An old (2002) SFX mini-article I saw today (thanks to cily domney on Buffytube), it really made me laugh - what if Spike hadn't been into punk but another type of contemporary music?

Alternative (Rock) Spikes (http://www.sfx.co.uk/2002/06/25/sfx-issue-92/)

TimeTravellingBunny
28-11-11, 02:54 PM
I've just found this very humorous old (2003) article about fandom attitudes to Spike: An Educated Fangirl's Guide to Spike wars (http://selenak.livejournal.com/37161.html) by Selena. :D

Here's also a funny article by a Spike fan about the difference between Canon!Spike and the very idealized Fic!Spike. http://botias.livejournal.com/81803.html

Jojo
07-12-11, 02:49 AM
Interesting take. To me, vampirization has something to do with overcompensation. Liam was a drunkard and a boor - Angelus became an artist and a ballet lover. William was a mama's boy - Spike became a punk and a rebel.

Yeah, It seemed to me that Liam, who came from a family with only one servant, was the ultimate social climber as a vampire (and who could blame him!). While Spike, who came from a pretty wealthy background (cost a lot to have a private carriage) was the ultimate social devolver. But Dru's background was working class c*ckney (Cor!) and I think in part he wanted to be like her, and in part he resented like hell the ponces who had made wimpy poet Will miserable. While Darla came from the lowest of the low, and groomed her boy to want the best.

Moscow Watcher
30-01-12, 05:13 PM
Little Spike essay

Monday Man: Spike by Emmie Mears
http://emmiemears.com/2012/01/23/monday-man-spike/

An excerpt:

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such a spectacular character development or transformation occur on television. (And Joss Whedon agrees with me — at least that Spike is the best-developed character of the show — so there.) [...] What I love about Spike is that he is a demon in a man-suit at first — it takes time and several seasons for the demon to choose to be a man with a demon within.

emmiemears
30-01-12, 06:41 PM
@Moscow Watcher, thanks for the link to my blog! :)

Moscow Watcher
30-01-12, 06:57 PM
@Moscow Watcher, thanks for the link to my blog! :)

Welcome to the board and to the thread! Hope you'll enjoy here.

I discovered your blog semi-accidentally, browsing the links by hashtag #Buffy on Twitter. It's so rewarding to discover that people still are so inspired by Buffy that they write essays about the characters.

emmiemears
02-02-12, 05:36 AM
Thank you! I'm really glad so many people enjoyed the essay -- I am working my way through the main characters of Buffy and Angel on my blog. Today was Cordy's day, heh. That was a fun one to write.

I've loved Buffy for years, and I still watch the show all the way through about once a year. Got my husband hooked -- we're watching Angel right now, and I'm steeling myself for season four...mostly by telling myself if I get through season four, I get to see Spike again. :D

TimeTravellingBunny
04-02-12, 08:32 PM
An interview with James Marsters - he talks about playing Spike, among other things, http://bcove.me/8mcxa77t

I love what he says about Sid Vicious and Johnny Rotten.

TimeTravellingBunny
29-02-12, 12:49 AM
Someone on Tamblr recently posted this 'buffyconfession':


I always loved Spike in the first three or four seasons more than the later ones. In the beginning, he took shit from no one, then he started following Buffy around like a pet. I admit, he was noble and maybe he did love Buffy, but he was better off as a badass vampire than an unappreciated side-kick. I’m glad he was able to redeem himself a bit in season five of Angel.
I love how this poster complains about Spike being an 'unappreciated side-kick' but that goes to say how he 'redeemed himself' by being Angel's unappreciated sidekick. LOL

It's just one of the many times I've seen this complaint about Spike's supposed "badass decay" and that he was so great and cool and 'badass' until he fell in love with Buffy. And it irks all the time, because it doesn't make sense, unless killing people = badass, and being good = pathetic.

The reason why I'm posting is to link this brilliant post by Temporarily Obsessive (http://temporarilyobsessive.tumblr.com/post/18444840425/can-we-just-talk-about-the-good-evil-double) that sums up my thoughts on the matter:



Can we just talk about the good/evil double standard for a minute? Because I see it with Spike all the time, and it irritates me so much I can’t describe.

Spike is, essentially, William. We’ve gotten that confirmation multiple times, we see that Spike isn’t that different from his human alter ego. He’s ruled by love/lust/infatuation, puts his emotions first, and gets really dumb about them. And add the vampire to the mix, and he’s all those things and conscienceless, which means that his love for Drusilla is best expressed to her by being a wild, remorseless monster. Which he enjoys very much, too! Spike loves mayhem, he loves fighting and beating things up, and it’s partly malicious and partly just glee in being uncontrolled.

But anyway. Spike? All about love. This is the guy who’s so awful at being the bad guy that on one occasion, he actually gives up on a room packed with humans and the slayer herself because of Drusilla. This is the guy who goes back to Dru after she presumably spends the months he’s in a wheelchair having sex with the guy tormenting him, the one who makes a deal with his worst enemy, perversely, to win her back, the one who comes back again after she cheats on him with a Chaos Demon. But somehow, that’s acceptable and badass because he’s killing people while he’s following around a woman who treats him pretty poorly.

BUT. When he falls in love with, of all toxic, dangerous people, Buffy Summers, suddenly he’s a weak woobie because “how dare he follow her around like a puppy?” Because apparently, it isn’t badass when he’s having rough sex with the slayer because he’s also there for her (and a bit emotionally abusive, but that’s another matter). It isn’t badass when he loves her or helps her fight evil or withstands torture for her. It isn’t badass when he basically gives the middle finger to his very nature out of guilt.

Nope, because he’s being a good guy. Apparently, torturing Dru to get her back is much more palatable than working with Buffy in S7 to make a difference. Apparently, it’s much more awesome for him to try to kill a terrified girl from a couple of centuries back than to be thrown off a tower trying to protect another terrified girl. Apparently, fighting with the slayer and running off when he gets hit over the head by her mother is more impressive than going up in flames to save the world.

Because being evil because of a woman is sexy and being good because of another one is just pathetic. Didn’t you know?

_Buffy_
29-02-12, 06:06 PM
Little Spike essay

Monday Man: Spike by Emmie Mears
http://emmiemears.com/2012/01/23/monday-man-spike/

An excerpt:


Moscow , may you find some interesting Buffy fics, please ? After "Embers " by Coalitiongirl I didn`t read any interesting Spike fics lately.:(

Reddygirl
16-03-12, 03:33 AM
Janas posted something from Kairos about whether or not Joss always intended for Spike to get his soul back, as opposed to being tricked with the resouling, and that any writers' insistence that the plan all along was for Spike to get his soul is a retcon.

First I'll say that ME knew that the spoiler people had complete scripts, not just vague descriptions of the epis. JM was never told anything and the last page of the script for Grave, the one where Spike gets his soul back, was not included in the normal scripts.

Marti has spilled a little something before Chosen aired. When asked by an interviewer about Spuffy shippers and Spike fans being upset about what was happening in 6 she replied (I'm paraphrasing here) "We're going somewhere they will like".

We spoiled people knew something Big was going to happen in the cave and speculation was rampant and most Spike/Spuffy fans were pretty sure it was going to be positive.

The main thing to remember is that the writers were confirming Spike wanted to get his soul back really soon after Grave aired. It's not as if months went by before the issue was addressed. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the day after or sometime during the week of Grave's airing that two of the writers (maybe Fury and Jane?) cleared up the matter in an interview. Now it's possible that between the short time that the script for Grave was written and the night it ran that Joss changed his mind re Spike's quest always being to get back his soul and that he and the other writers have lied ever since, but I doubt it.

ME said they wanted to mislead fans so that we'd be surprised: it was a classic plot twist that imo was so over the top that I knew something was afoot.

But even though I believe ME (especially Fury, who isn't one to lie)in the end I'm not sure why people get so fixated on what the original intent was. Even if Joss decided soon after Grave went public that Spike wanted his soul back it's still canon. What does it matter if Joss *had* changed his original direction because he believed Spike's wanting his soul back made a better story?

zianna
16-03-12, 05:14 AM
This is not the thread to talk about it but I wanna say it. I love Angel, I absolutely adore him. I've been following the story for years and years now. And what annoys me so much is that there isn't actually any true Angel fan left who follows the comics and is part of the online fandom. They have just given it up. Heck, I don't even talk about Angel myself, many of my posts in this forum were about defending Spike who I didn't even like at all most of the years.

The only "Angel fans" left are the lalalaland Bangels that whatever happens in the story only means and its only purpose is to finally bring together forever Angel and Buffy. Everything that happens is due to that. Go to the Bangel forum and read all their theories every time. Every time something happens the theories that they start to talk about is Buffy and Angel, nothing else.With the latest being that Whistler is behind everything and kidnapped her body to steal the Bangel baby. Buffy losing an arm in the upcoming issue? The theory is that Angel will save her with the Mohrah blood. Buffy getting knocked up at the party? The theory is that Angel secretly took the plane to SF, f@#ed her and went back to London. Angel wants to resurrect Giles with the Mohrah blood? He will get the blood but he will have to choose between saving Buffy's life or resurrecting Giles and he will choose Buffy and live happily ever after. Willow took the broken scythe and disappeared? Buffy is the one with the broken scythe in A&F #11 and the creators lie when they say that neither Angel nor Faith or Buffy will appear in each other's books. Buffy is a robot? Then for sure the real Buffy is in A&F #11.

And now my questions. Me, as an Angel fan, where can I find a fan that loves the character that I can discuss with him seriously?

And the second and most important question, they don't basically know Angel's character, how do you expect them and their reviews to give a right and dispassionate judgment of Spike's character who is basically the major obstacle to the lalaland Bangel fantasy?

Moscow Watcher
16-03-12, 04:36 PM
Moscow , may you find some interesting Buffy fics, please ? After "Embers " by Coalitiongirl I didn`t read any interesting Spike fics lately.:(

Hey, _Buffy_, I'm so sorry I didn't reply earlier! My country was in turmoil, we were protesting against Putin's rigged elections (and we lost...) and I didn't have time to participate in the fandom.

So I saw your post only now - and I found some links for you. Better late than never!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Team Slayer by brutti_ma_buoni
http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?user=brutti_ma_buoni&keyword=Team%20Slayer&filter=all
PG-13. WIP, 15 chapters (ficlets) so far. Alternate season 5. Set-up: Spike didn't return to Sunnydale in season 4. Buffy and friends didn't get to find out about the Initiative except via Riley and Professor Walsh. They took it at face value, and, in the end, Scooby gang was destroyed. Now Buffy slays in Cleveland, alone, until she meets Spike. Together, they have to stop The Initiative.

My Elizabeth by thepuddinhead
http://thepuddinhead.livejournal.com/tag/my%20elizabeth
http://www.dark-solace.org/elysian/viewstory.php?sid=3309&warning=NC-17
NC-17. WIP, 22 chapters so far. Sequel to "Yours, William" (in that story, Buffy decided to stay with William in 1880). In the new installment they come aboard the ship that makes its way to the New World. According to the writer, "it will be darker than “Yours,” and feature vampires, demons and slayers. There will be blood."
Usually, by the time the writer finishes the first story, she usually runs out of obstacles to overcome and leaves the characters in a safe place. There is no need for a sequel, technically. But Thepuddinhead decided to follow in Joss' footsteps and after wrapping up all the storylines in "Yours, William" she started her new story the way Joss starts a new season - creating a new problem, new Big Bad, new settings. Meanwhile the characters got fleshed and developed, while the universe she created became truly fascinating.

Influence of Demons by gabrielleabelle
http://gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com/39696.html
http://www.bloodshedverse.com/stories.php?go=chapters&no=10485
NC-17. Completed, 71,000 words. Goes AU after S5's Checkpoint. Five years ago, Buffy and Spike fell into a portal to a dimension ruled by demons. Finally, reunited, their goal is to get back home. However, the years in this dimension have changed them. Spike's long isolation keeps him distant, and Buffy's enforced life at a brothel has caused her to forget the Slayer she used to be. Somehow, they'll have to find themselves again to defeat a powerful enemy and make it home.

Dust by knifeedgefic
http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?user=knifeedgefic&keyword=DUST&filter=all
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6958651/1/DUST
http://www.bloodshedverse.com/stories.php?go=chapters&no=12728
PG so far, NC-17 later. WIP, 31 chapters. Alternate season 4. Buffy wakes in a Sunnydale that went utterly wrong... Everybody's asleep; the phones are dead; and there is no way out of the town. Buffy's only hope is a certain vampire who managed to stay awake and who was persistent enough to wake her up. Intriguing premise, genre storytelling par excellence, witty dialogues, funny insights into Buffy's and Spike's minds, overall creepy atmosphere -- the story's vitality and finesse make "Dust" one of the most exciting and gripping stories of the year.

sueworld
16-03-12, 06:16 PM
And now my questions. Me, as an Angel fan, where can I find a fan that loves the character that I can discuss with him seriously?

Well I still love dear old Angel, and I'm not into Bangel in the slightest. :lol: I find it weird that particular forum profess their love for a character that half the time want to be just Buffy's handbag' and not much else.

Angel like Spike has many, many faults but that doesn't put me off the grumpy old sod in the slightest. :lol:


Hey, _Buffy_, I'm so sorry I didn't reply earlier! My country was in turmoil, we were protesting against Putin's rigged elections (and we lost...) and I didn't have time to participate in the fandom.


I saw all that in the news. I'm so sorry that you're stuck with the bugger for another term. :(

It seems corrupt governments are all the rage at the moment because I have to say I'm not that impressed with the vile bunch of buggers that are busy trying to ruin the UK at the moment. :(

By the way I adore this artwork I saw on Tumblr the other day by Adam Huges...

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz504xQB8j1rpoyalo1_500.jpg

Moscow Watcher
16-03-12, 09:58 PM
Zianna
Me, as an Angel fan, where can I find a fan that loves the character that I can discuss with him seriously?

I like the Angel I saw on BtVS.
I love, love, love the Angel I saw on AtS.
I don't know what to think about the Angel I saw in season 8. Rationally I understand that it's canon and I should accept it as canon, but I instinctively resist it ("this weird two-dimensional character can't be Angel").

But, apparently, all the current discussions boil down to Angel's behavior in comics, and I'm afraid I can't contribute anything positive.


Sueworld
I saw all that in the news. I'm so sorry that you're stuck with the bugger for another term.

It seems corrupt governments are all the rage at the moment because I have to say I'm not that impressed with the vile bunch of buggers that are busy trying to ruin the UK at the moment.

"Our" corruption is more epic than "your" corruption! :down:I know it's hardly a consolation, but, in Buffyverse terms, you've got vampires and we've got zompires.

And - thank you for posting that pic. It's awesome.

Xane
18-03-12, 05:44 PM
I just discovered this thread exists, and I think I might enjoy it more than the comics one!

Anyway, sorry Moscow about your troubles, scary stuff.

I wanted to share this fic I read that actually made me happy! And it's based on the comic! It's a little fill in the blank from issue one of Season 9, ignoring the rest. I loved it.

http://gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com/139191.html

sueworld
09-04-12, 01:06 PM
Very intersting little peice by rahirah on lj about Spikes character development as seen in the comics over here..

http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html?style=mine

Stoney
09-04-12, 01:25 PM
Very intersting little peice by rahirah on lj about Spikes character development as seen in the comics over here..

http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html?style=mine

Thanks for that sueworld, really interesting and covers a lot of what I have thought about Spike pre and post soul gain. The link into his Lynch era is interesting as his character development, particularly as I am currently considering getting these. I pretty much agree with the points made, the only issue I feel is missing is that Spike did feel that the soul would help him to be more of a man over the demon within in controlling, or maybe morally informing, his choices so that something like the AR didn't happen again. But yes, the fact that Spike chose to get his soul does, in itself, prove that he could do good without the soul, it just provides him with a little more strength but doesn't make him inherently 'good'.

The soul/soulless angle is an interesting reoccurring theme in BtVS, Angel/Angelus is the obvious comparison to Spike/Spikelus but the S6 story arc including The Trio is also there to mirror and compare to Spike's arc, Warren shows no fear/remorse etc for his rape/power plays. Monsters have souls too.

zianna
09-04-12, 01:38 PM
Very intersting little peice by rahirah on lj about Spikes character development as seen in the comics over here..

http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html?style=mine

I don't want to get into an argument in sb's lj, but what the author of that essay hasn't realized is that if we canonize Lynch's view on Spike and that he was good even without a soul, that turns Buffy into a murderer killing creatures which were just born and raised from their coffins without giving them a 2nd chance to prove themselves.

Stoney
09-04-12, 01:55 PM
I don't want to get into an argument in sb's lj, but what the author of that essay hasn't realized is that if we canonize Lynch's view on Spike and that he was good even without a soul, that turns Buffy into a murderer killing creatures which were just born and raised from their coffins without giving them a 2nd chance to prove themselves.

That issue is already there. I believe the point is that by choosing the soul without being cursed with it he has done good soulless. That is there in Joss' story. I always take the point with Spike that he is, to some degree, supposed to be a special snowflake to have taken that path but you could of course argue that every vamp has the right to take that option. It doesn't work that way though and Spike only got that opportunity because of the chip.

TimeTravellingBunny
09-04-12, 01:56 PM
Very intersting little peice by rahirah on lj about Spikes character development as seen in the comics over here..

http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html?style=mine
My replies here (http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html?thread=13698255&style=mine#t13698255) and here (http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html?thread=13698511&style=mine#t13698511).

zianna
09-04-12, 02:06 PM
That issue is already there. I believe the point is that by choosing the soul without being cursed with it he has done good soulless. That is there in Joss' story. I always take the point with Spike that he is, to some degree, supposed to be a special snowflake to have taken that path but you could of course argue that every vamp has the right to take that option. It doesn't work that way though and Spike only got that opportunity because of the chip.

No, what soulless Spike understood is that he needed a soul in order to be able to choose to be good. He understood that the right thing was to get a soul, because without a soul no matter how hard he tried, he could never be good.

On the other hand, Lynch's view on Spike tells us that soulless Spike was already good without a soul. Lynch's view on Spike tells us that Spike doesn't need a soul to be good, because when he was soulless he chose to have a soul, so that proves that he was good before the soul.

And Lynch's view on Spike makes Buffy a mass murderer.

Stoney
09-04-12, 02:10 PM
My replies here (http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html?thread=13698255&style=mine#t13698255) and


Spike can do good without his soul and does though, the choice to gain one proves that but I agree that he sees the soul as a necessity to be the man rather than the monster. Everything he textually says about gaining the soul, his reasoning makes this clear so if Lynch is saying Spike doesn't think it makes a difference for him that is clearly tripe.


here (http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html?thread=13698511&style=mine#t13698511).

Everything I have heard about Lynch's representation of Spike's relationship with Angel leads me to believe that I wouldn't agree with him. Anything that plays a pov that Spike idolises Angel doesn't work for me.

The thing I liked about the posting sueworld linked to was the idea I was left with that Spike can have come to a point of self realisation of worth through losing his soul again. That he could think to himself that he could carry on, trying to do good without the soul but he fought for it to be a better man and chooses to have it back again. That he sees himself clearly finally as someone who has value which is reflected in the choices he makes so he is an equal to Buffy/anyone but, to be that person his choice would always have to actually be to have the soul rather than not. If he decided not he wouldn't be the equal he is, this is what makes the soul necessary. As I said this was my issue with what the author put, Spike knows he needs to make this choice, if Lynch is suggesting otherwise he is missing the point.

Stoney
09-04-12, 02:25 PM
No, what soulless Spike understood is that he needed a soul in order to be able to choose to be good. He understood that the right thing was to get a soul, because without a soul no matter how hard he tried, he could never be good.

On the other hand, Lynch's view on Spike tells us that soulless Spike was already good without a soul. Lynch's view on Spike tells us that Spike doesn't need a soul to be good, because when he was soulless he chose to have a soul, so that proves that he was good before the soul.

And Lynch's view on Spike makes Buffy a mass murderer.

But how can you reconcile Spike choosing to help the Scoobies after Buffy dies, surely that was being 'good'. When he chooses to fight for his soul, how is that action in and of itself not intrinsically 'good'? Whether this makes Buffy's duty questionable is an entire side topic.

Were Warren's actions not 'evil' just because he had a soul?

zianna
09-04-12, 02:32 PM
Spike can do good without his soul and does though, the choice to gain one proves that but I agree that he sees the soul as a necessity to be the man rather than the monster. Everything he textually says about gaining the soul, his reasoning makes this clear so if Lynch is saying Spike doesn't think it makes a difference for him that is clearly tripe.

It's one thing to be able to do good and another thing to be good. I am sure that the prisons are full of people who can do good if they want to, but they are not good people. And some of them will never be good and whenever they have the chance they'll be evil and hurt others. But still, if they want, I'm sure they can still do good.

That's the difference. Angelus killed the beast in S4, that was a good thing to do. The evil thing would be to let the beast live. That doesn't make him good though. Spike joined forces with Buffy to stop Angel in S2, that was a good thing to do, that doesn't mean that he was good.

According to Lynch, Spike was able to do good without a soul so that proves that he was good even before the soul and that he can be good without it. That's the difference between day and night.


But how can you reconcile Spike choosing to help the Scoobies after Buffy dies, surely that was being 'good'.
In S06E01, when Spike sees the demons, for a moment he gets lost and starts laughing and believes that it would be fun. Souled Spike would never have that reaction, to make you understand. When Dawn talks, that brings him back to Earth and he remembers his promise to Buffy and decides to protect Dawn. He chose to do a good thing, he wasn't good himself. Do you understand the difference?

Stoney
09-04-12, 03:09 PM
It's one thing to be able to do good and another thing to be good.

In S06E01, when Spike sees the demons, for a moment he gets lost and starts laughing and believes that it would be fun. Souled Spike would never have that reaction, to make you understand. When Dawn talks, that brings him back to Earth and he remembers his promise to Buffy and decides to protect Dawn. He chose to do a good thing, he wasn't good himself. Do you understand the difference?

I see the distinction you are making but it feels too simplistic. If a vampire chooses to do good actions over evil ones then how can they be seen as simply evil still and not contain a merit of good within themselves? As Warren decided to use the device to take away Katrina's free will so he could rape her, as he chooses to shoot Buffy, he has a soul so by this principle he is good anyway?! A soul does not make someone good, it helps to guide their actions. Why is it not our actions that determine good vs evil. Good people fall on occasions, they aren't 'good' 100% of the time. Things are rarely straight cut. :confused3:

I think the difference here may be where the boundaries are of what is encompassed within the terms 'good' and 'evil' in reference to people and that very few people would ever be purely one or the other. I think that Spikelus did good actions and showed that he was capable of being a good person but he knew that he needed a soul to be able to strengthen his resolve and aid his moral compass on determining where the decisions should go. Spike needed the soul to be the kind of man who would not have lost control and committed the AR, for him the soul would have helped here. For Warren it made no difference.

TimeTravellingBunny
09-04-12, 03:23 PM
I see the distinction you are making but it feels too simplistic. If a vampire chooses to do good actions over evil ones then how can they be seen as simply evil still and not contain a merit of good within themselves? As Warren decided to use the device to take away Katrina's free will so he could rape her, as he chooses to shoot Buffy, he has a soul so by this principle he is good anyway.
No. I don't understand why people keep using this strawman argument: "If beings without souls are incapable of being good, that means that souled beings are inherently good". No, it doesn't and nowhere does this conclusion come from that premise, any more than a fact that a disabled person who can't walk can't win the New York City marathon is a proof that anyone with functioning legs is able to win it. And no matter how much admiration we may feel for disabled athletes competing and winning the special Olympics, exactly because they have to train extra hard, that doesn't mean that they aren't handicapped in their chances to compete with the non-disabled people. Or that they shouldn't want to get an operation and be able to walk, if it's possible, which would put them on equal footing with the non-disabled athletes and allow them to compete with them.

Warren had a moral compass, he just chose to ignore it, which in some ways makes him much worse and less redeemable than soulless monsters. But Spike had to fight to get this moral compass - and he deserved better than to be compared just to other monsters, whether demonic or human ones, or to be judged by those standards.

Stoney
09-04-12, 03:37 PM
No. I don't understand why people keep using this strawman argument: "If beings without souls are incapable of being good, that means that souled beings are inherently good". No, it doesn't and nowhere does this conclusion come from that premise, any more than a fact that a disabled person who can't walk can't win the New York City marathon is a proof that anyone with functioning legs is able to win it. And no matter how much admiration we may feel for disabled athletes competing and winning the special Olympics, exactly because they have to train extra hard, that doesn't mean that they aren't handicapped in their chances to compete with the non-disabled people. Or that they shouldn't want to get an operation and be able to walk, if it's possible, which would put them on equal footing with the non-disabled athletes and allow them to compete with them.

Warren had a moral compass, he just chose to ignore it, which in some ways makes him much worse and less redeemable than soulless monsters. But Spike had to fight to get this moral compass - and he deserved better than to be compared just to other monsters, whether demonic or human ones, or to be judged by those standards.

There was a question mark and exclamation mark missing at the end of my sentence which I will rectify/edit. I don't think Warren is good just because he has a soul the same way that I don't think Spike is evil just because he doesn't have one, that was my point of comparison. I think a soul provides the person with a different level of consideration to their choices, a moral compass but I don't agree with what I felt zianna was saying that Spike could only commit good actions but have no trace of good within him just because he didn't have a soul, I don't think it is cut and dry like that because that would make Warren inherently good. I think Spike's decision to go and fight for his soul shows he has good already in him.

TimeTravellingBunny
09-04-12, 04:23 PM
There was a question mark and exclamation mark missing at the end of my sentence which I will rectify/edit. I don't think Warren is good just because he has a soul the same way that I don't think Spike is evil just because he doesn't have one, that was my point of comparison. I think a soul provides the person with a different level of consideration to their choices, a moral compass but I don't agree with what I felt zianna was saying that Spike could only commit good actions but have no trace of good within him just because he didn't have a soul, I don't think it is cut and dry like that because that would make Warren inherently good.
But that's the point - it wouldn't. Like I tried to explain in my previous post, if someone thinks that a person can't be good without a soul - that doesn't mean that someone with a soul is necessarily good. It just means that someone with a soul is incapable of being good, while someone with a soul might be good or might be evil.

Stoney
09-04-12, 06:29 PM
But that's the point - it wouldn't. Like I tried to explain in my previous post, if someone thinks that a person can't be good without a soul - that doesn't mean that someone with a soul is necessarily good. It just means that someone with a soul is incapable of being good, while someone with a soul might be good or might be evil.

:confused3: It is like trying to think a tongue twister over and over as fast as possible whilst thoroughly drunk.


Humans can be good or bad with their shiny souls all intact.
Humans can be evil or good in their actions but this doesn't mean they are evil/good full stop and are incapable of deviating from that course or changing briefly/temporarily.
Vamps are seen as evil demons in the verse.
Spike had an opportunity to go against his nature due to the constraints that the chip forced on him combined with his love for Buffy.
Spike is capable of choosing to do good things soulless.
Spike is capable of being 'good' without a soul.
Spike wants to fight for his soul so that he has greater ability to see the line of good/evil when making his choices.
Spike sees having a soul as putting him more in touch with his humanity though he remains a vampire (monster).
Spike views his soul as something that he chose to fight for, something that shows his will to be the best person he can be.
Spike believes that he can do good without his soul but he is less likely to make mistakes and get it wrong if he has his soul intact.
Spike realises that the moment he chooses to not bother getting his soul back he would be making the wrong choice.
The fact that Spike realises the significance of his soul and chooses to fight for it shows that he is, to a degree, capable of goodness.
A soul simply provides conscience and a moral compass for any creature with one.


Whilst accepting they are simplified, are any of these statements thoroughly up for contention?

Addressing zianna's concern, where does this leave the issue of what Buffy does in dusting vamps who have no chance to reform?

mulliganstew
10-04-12, 02:35 AM
This is a great topic! Spike has some hilarious one-liners and quotes. Here are some of my favourites:

1. Spike to Buffy in Becoming Part 2: “Dru bagged a slayer? She never told me. Hey good for her! Though not from your perspective I s’pose...”

2. Spike in Xander’s dream, while he’s playing on the swings, in Restless: “Giles here is gonna teach me to be a Watcher. Says I got the stuff.” (just adorable haha)

3. Spike to Buffy and Angel in Lovers Walk: “You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love til it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other til it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Real love isn't brains, children. It's blood. It's blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.” – ahhh amazing. So true.

4. Spike to Giles in Tabula Rasa: "*Randy* Giles? Why not just call me Horny Giles or Desperate-For-A-Shag Giles? I knew there was a reason I hated you."

5. Spike to Giles in The Yoko Factor: "You know, for someone who's got "Watcher" on his résumé, you might wanna cast an eye to the front door every now and again."

_Buffy_
10-04-12, 09:46 AM
:confused3: It is like trying to think a tongue twister over and over as fast as possible whilst thoroughly drunk.


Humans can be good or bad with their shiny souls all intact.
Humans can be evil or good in their actions but this doesn't mean they are evil/good full stop and are incapable of deviating from that course or changing briefly/temporarily.
Vamps are seen as evil demons in the verse.
Spike had an opportunity to go against his nature due to the constraints that the chip forced on him combined with his love for Buffy.
Spike is capable of choosing to do good things soulless.
Spike is capable of being 'good' without a soul.
Spike wants to fight for his soul so that he has greater ability to see the line of good/evil when making his choices.
Spike sees having a soul as putting him more in touch with his humanity though he remains a vampire (monster).
Spike views his soul as something that he chose to fight for, something that shows his will to be the best person he can be.
Spike believes that he can do good without his soul but he is less likely to make mistakes and get it wrong if he has his soul intact.
Spike realises that the moment he chooses to not bother getting his soul back he would be making the wrong choice.
The fact that Spike realises the significance of his soul and chooses to fight for it shows that he is, to a degree, capable of goodness.
A soul simply provides conscience and a moral compass for any creature with one.

Whilst accepting they are simplified, are any of these statements thoroughly up for contention?

Addressing zianna's concern, where does this leave the issue of what Buffy does in dusting vamps who have no chance to reform?


I agree :). I only want to add that The Soul just helps to understand, to figure the point , to figure the sense, the meaning of the essence of the concept to be good , or to be bad . If I remember right, Spike and Angel had this kind of conversation of the conept of the soul somewhere in S 5 ATS. Before the soul they can`t understand completely the meaning of their actions. And also Spike said to Buffy that he figure a lot of things after the soul in episode Never leave me .

Stoney
10-04-12, 11:08 AM
I agree :). I only want to add that The Soul just helps to understand, to figure the point , to figure the sense, the meaning of the essence of the concept to be good , or to be bad . If I remember right, Spike and Angel had this kind of conversation of the conept of the soul somewhere in S 5 ATS. Before the soul they can`t understand completely the meaning of their actions. And also Spike said to Buffy that he figure a lot of things after the soul in episode Never leave me .

Oooo, I might try and dig around for the Spike/Angel conversation that would be interesting, I don't remember it, it has been a couple of years since I saw it and I've only watched it once. Although their brotherly bickering and the underplay of Spuffy would lead me to not necessarily expect Spike to be completely up front with Angel.

Moscow Watcher
10-04-12, 12:45 PM
I just want to add a link to another interesting discussion regarding Spike:

Lynch Pin: Season 9 and The Importance of Choice in the Spike Miniseries by Rahirah
http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html
Veteran redemptionista's take on soul, choice and Brian Lynch's Spike mini.

TimeTravellingBunny
10-04-12, 03:11 PM
I just want to add a link to another interesting discussion regarding Spike:

Lynch Pin: Season 9 and The Importance of Choice in the Spike Miniseries by Rahirah
http://rahirah.livejournal.com/546767.html
Veteran redemptionista's take on soul, choice and Brian Lynch's Spike mini.It's already been linked by sueworld and we've been discussing it since yesterday - see the discussion on the last and this page.


:confused3: It is like trying to think a tongue twister over and over as fast as possible whilst thoroughly drunk.


Humans can be good or bad with their shiny souls all intact.
Humans can be evil or good in their actions but this doesn't mean they are evil/good full stop and are incapable of deviating from that course or changing briefly/temporarily.
Vamps are seen as evil demons in the verse.
Spike had an opportunity to go against his nature due to the constraints that the chip forced on him combined with his love for Buffy.
Spike is capable of choosing to do good things soulless.
Spike is capable of being 'good' without a soul.
Spike wants to fight for his soul so that he has greater ability to see the line of good/evil when making his choices.
Spike sees having a soul as putting him more in touch with his humanity though he remains a vampire (monster).
Spike views his soul as something that he chose to fight for, something that shows his will to be the best person he can be.
Spike believes that he can do good without his soul but he is less likely to make mistakes and get it wrong if he has his soul intact.
Spike realises that the moment he chooses to not bother getting his soul back he would be making the wrong choice.
The fact that Spike realises the significance of his soul and chooses to fight for it shows that he is, to a degree, capable of goodness.
A soul simply provides conscience and a moral compass for any creature with one.


Whilst accepting they are simplified, are any of these statements thoroughly up for contention?
I would more or less agree with all of them. But I'm not sure why the confused smiley - none of this means that people with souls are good; just that they have a chance to be (or a much bigger chance) whereas soulless Spike was handicapped in that area. But this, if anything, makes evil people with souls all the worse (IMO) since they had a much better chance and choose to do evil, and it makes Spike's feat all the more admirable.

Some I'm not sure if I agree or not - or that I partially agree on:


Humans can be evil or good in their actions but this doesn't mean they are evil/good full stop and are incapable of deviating from that course or changing briefly/temporarily.

Spike is capable of being 'good' without a soul.
It depends on how we defend "good" and "evil" in people. I don't think that people can be easily categorized and there are always shades of grey, however... Some humans really deserve to be called evil, IMO. Not 100% evil - nobody is - not muhahaha evil, but some people really are horrible and irredeemable (IMO). And some people really deserve to be called good - which doesn't mean that they don't have flaws or that they are perfectly good. Let's say that it's a matter of balance, we all have good and evil in us, but in some people the scales are tipped strongly in one direction. Others are somewhere in between. It's a sliding scale rather than two categories of people.


Addressing zianna's concern, where does this leave the issue of what Buffy does in dusting vamps who have no chance to reform?
That's a complicated issue we have discussed before. I think that, basically, if vampires really weren't intrinsically predominantly evil and could be good with just some behavior modification such as the chip, then the Initiative had it more right than the Slayers. Spike is the proof that redemption for soulless vampires is not impossible; it is, however, still extremely improbable, and a lot of things had to fall into place, combined with some exceptional traits of his character, for Spike to turn out the way he did. It would have been virtually impossible for Buffy to do the same with all or majority of vampires - and in the meantime, they are a constant danger and they are killing, raping and torturing people, siring some and just eating and disposing of many others. Buffy is the law in the supernatural world and her primary duty is to protect humanity. As to the idea of Buffy as a mass murderer killing the newly sired vamps, aside from rare and atypical moments like Into the Woods, she's pretty much always killing vampires who are in the attack mode. She doesn't go after the vamps that are sitting in Willy's bar and try to stay away from her. The newly sired 'baby' vampires who rise from their graves are never shown to be confused and wondering "What is this? What has happened to me? Please help me" or acting friendly. They are aggressive and violent from the word go, or they are immediately into the idea of being evil, like Holden.

The only exception I can think of is Holtz's daughter, so the complaint above matters a lot more for Holtz than it does for Buffy. He believed that vampires are absolutely irredeemable and that he had to kill his daughter, even though she wasn't showing any violent or evil tendencies and didn't even try to defend herself or attack him when he was taking her out in the sun. You wonder how he would have felt if he had lived long enough to learn about Spike's story...

ubi4soft
10-04-12, 08:31 PM
Hot from the currently ongoing I am Joss Whedon - AMA on reedit (http://www.reddit.com/user/IAMAJossWhedon) (link goes to Joss' answers)


Hi Joss,
It’s truly an honor to have this opportunity to speak with you. Have been a fan for a long, long time. You might like to know that it was a mutual love for your work that brought my fiancée and me together. We even have matching Buffy tattoos.
Of course we’re both looking forward to Cabin, Much Ado, Avengers, Doc H 2, Goners (somedayish, right? RIGHT?!?), and of course Serenity 2: Weekend at Badger’s.
That being said, my questions to you are these:

- Which of your characters was your absolute favorite to write? Why?
- Conversely, which of your characters was the most difficult for you to write?
- When are we going to see Wil Wheaton in a Joss Whedon project? Joss and Wil. It just feels right… kind of natural. Maybe even a little bit sexy in a way that I’m not comfortable discussing here.

Thanks for the AMA. It’s great to have you here. We wish you all the success in the world with your upcoming projects. As always, we’ll be here, belly up to the bar and waiting for another ice cold mug of Jossy goodness.
Cheers!


[–]IAMAJossWhedon[S] 48 points 4 minutes ago (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/s2uh1/i_am_joss_whedon_ama/c4ao2um?context=3)

Favorite characters? Jeez. Spike, Andrew, Illyria, River, Captain Hammer, Loki, the Cheese Man... hell, I love them all, or I wouldn't write them. But I tend to the left of center.
The hardest was always Angel. How to make a decent, handsome, stalwart hero interesting -- tough. Angelus, on the other hand...

sueworld
18-04-12, 10:19 PM
Had to drop this link to some wonderful Spike cartoons.

Hell I'd watch a show based on this. :lol:

http://thesanityclause.tumblr.com/post/21335808067/welp

http://thesanityclause.tumblr.com/post/21311887477/okay-it-turns-out-i-dont-know-how-to-draw-spike

Stoney
19-04-12, 01:36 AM
Had to drop this link to some wonderful Spike cartoons.

Hell I'd watch a show based on this. :lol:

http://thesanityclause.tumblr.com/post/21335808067/welp

http://thesanityclause.tumblr.com/post/21311887477/okay-it-turns-out-i-dont-know-how-to-draw-spike

That artwork is really impressive but it does make Spike look like a scratty drug dealer or creepy perv!!

sueworld
19-04-12, 03:13 PM
Oh I dunno. It's her style I think. I love how much life she's brought to this. She's a natural animator imo.

sueworld
21-04-12, 11:19 AM
Another nice artwork from this very talented gal. This time of Spike and Dru.

http://thesanityclause.tumblr.com/post/21471399740/how-i-spend-my-friday-evenings-gotta-get-this

sueworld
29-04-12, 06:51 PM
Seems like she just can't leave his character alone. Aww, so, so cute..

http://thesanityclause.tumblr.com/post/22000427861/livestream-finished-lots-of-super-cool-people

Stoney
29-04-12, 10:21 PM
Seems like she just can't leave his character alone. Aww, so, so cute..

http://thesanityclause.tumblr.com/post/22000427861/livestream-finished-lots-of-super-cool-people

I really do love her style but where are his luscious lips? Spike is a fascinating combination of sharp and soft and I think she is a little too far on the sharp side, though the kitten helps!!

sueworld
28-05-12, 09:48 AM
Very interesting essay from long time fan Shaowkat67 on lj entitled "Shipping Spike: the ups and downs of shipping a controversial character in online fandoms"

http://shadowkat67.livejournal.com/811091.html

Jack Shaftoe
28-05-12, 08:03 PM
Not going to respond to the more subjective parts of that essay but why do people keep denying the obvious?


And it certainly wasn't just about Buffy and Spike, there were various subplots. And people who have done Buffy by the numbers, literally counting the number of times Spike appears, number of lines, etc vs other characters such as Xander, noted there really is no difference from S4 and S4 and S6 and S7. And Xander, Buffy and Willow have more lines and mentions.

Number of lines?!? Please, most of Xander, Anya and Dawn's lines in S6-7 have nothing with the main plots of the episodes, they are as Willow once put it "mostly filler". And Willow is basically a footnote in most of S7. For me the real benchmark is the fact that I have personally never seen anyone who is a big fan of S6-7 and isn't also a big fan of Spike. But I have seen many, many fans say they never liked Willow, Xander, Angel or Giles but still they love S1-3 nevertheless. I am sure that fans who love S6-7 but aren't too fond of Spike must exist but they seem to be very few in number.

sueworld
28-05-12, 08:28 PM
but why do people keep denying the obvious?

Oh I dunno, I'm guessing maybe because A) they can, and B) Because they don't happen to share your point of view?

Artea
28-05-12, 08:52 PM
Very interesting essay from long time fan Shaowkat67 on lj entitled "Shipping Spike: the ups and downs of shipping a controversial character in online fandoms"

http://shadowkat67.livejournal.com/811091.htmlMy advice to that person would be that shipping a controversial character is much easier if you don't write essays making all sorts of generalizations about people, including basically calling them morons for supposedly being unable to handle moral ambiguity.


Oh I dunno, I'm guessing maybe because A) they can, and B) Because they don't happen to share your point of view?What part of 'counting numbers' don't you get? That person was trying to prove a fact, not argue a point of view.

sueworld
28-05-12, 08:58 PM
What part of 'counting numbers' don't you get? That person was trying to prove a fact, not argue a point of view.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind. :)

KingofCretins
28-05-12, 09:02 PM
My advice to that person would be that shipping a controversial character is much easier if you don't write essays making all sorts of generalizations about people, including basically calling them morons for supposedly being unable to handle moral ambiguity.

As advice goes, it has a "don't lock people in a coalbin" sort of clarity to it. I actually just find it hard to imagine that there's much 'down' to shipping Spuffy in online fandoms. Is there much 'down' to being a Yankees fan?

sueworld
28-05-12, 09:05 PM
Well shows how little you know about the history of Spike fandom then imo. :)

Jack Shaftoe
28-05-12, 09:12 PM
Well, parts of said fandom keep playing the victim card to this very day. I always want to ask them if they have ever shipped another Buffyverse couple and if yes, can they say with a straight face that said couple had it easier than Spuffy.


Oh I dunno, I'm guessing maybe because A) they can, and B) Because they don't happen to share your point of view?

Gee, you think? Do you find the "evidence" about Spike not really having such a central role in S6-7 convincing or you are just being contrary for the fun of it? :)

KingofCretins
28-05-12, 09:13 PM
Well shows how little you know about the history of Spike fandom then imo. :)

Psssh. Liking Spike or Spuffy fan in an online Buffy community is about as much of an underdog role as being a Manchester United fan (in case any American sports metaphors would be wasted). Maybe it was a hardscrabble life back when online Buffy fandom was like alt.tv.buffy?

sueworld
28-05-12, 09:15 PM
Sorry you have no idea imo. You really don't, but then how can you be considering you're not even a fan let alone a hard core one?

KingofCretins
28-05-12, 09:19 PM
Sorry you have no idea imo. You really don't, but then how can you be considering you're not even a fan let alone a hard core one?

I like Spike quite a bit. I unambiguously like him better than Angel and have since about mid-Season 7/4, and would probably say he's top 5 or maybe my Sixth Man off the bench in terms of favorite characters. I know that's never successfully penetrated because, as far as I can tell, you are one of the ones for whom there is no distinction whatsoever between liking Spike, and shipping Spuffy (i.e. if one doesn't ship Spuffy they must hate Spike). But I don't think I would even need to like the show all that much to know that Spike fans and Spuffy fans are pretty much the alpha dogs in every online community in which they participate.

To stick with 'footie' as a metaphor, it's like if the Germans or Italians put on the airs of being the long-suffering Scots in World Cup.

Jack Shaftoe
28-05-12, 09:28 PM
Sorry you have no idea imo. You really don't, but then how can you be considering you're not even a fan let alone a hard core one?

Well, would you mind explaining it then, I am genuinely curious. Yes, really, no trolling. I wasn't a fan back when the show was airing so I have no idea how things unfolded in fandom back then.

sueworld
28-05-12, 09:44 PM
Oh god, I haven't got time for that hon. Just read the flaming essay on there as that says it all imo.

Stoney
28-05-12, 11:55 PM
I wasn't around when the TV shows aired either. I don't mind coming up against people that don't like Spike/Spuffy much and have articulated arguments about the plot points/characterisation they dislike. I don't mind having conversations about the contrivance of him being allowed to remain unstaked once he was chipped or that Buffy was being careless when he had the trigger etc etc. But I don't like conversations about the vicious ways vengeful justice(!?) should have been reaped upon him. That is the only thing that has surprised me coming into fandom, that people can take a dislike of a character to such extremes and it is OK because he was a 'murdering soulless creature'. It just seems unpleasant and unnecessary to me.

sueworld
29-05-12, 04:14 AM
Oh this is nothing compared to what used to go down in the old days when the fandom was having it's 'first flush' so to speak.

Old fandom wounds run deep sadly.

sueworld
29-05-12, 11:09 AM
And talking of fandom, here's another essay from lj, this time on the subject of not only Spike but JM.

'A Perfect Storm'

http://slaymesoftly.livejournal.com/515739.html

TimeTravellingBunny
31-05-12, 03:27 AM
Very interesting essay from long time fan Shaowkat67 on lj entitled "Shipping Spike: the ups and downs of shipping a controversial character in online fandoms"

http://shadowkat67.livejournal.com/811091.html

She clearly doesn't know what "shipping" means. You can't "ship" a character. You can only ship two (or more) characters with each other.

sueworld
02-06-12, 04:48 PM
She clearly doesn't know what "shipping" means. You can't "ship" a character. You can only ship two (or more) characters with each other.

Well they use that term on Whedonesque and in that context too.

Just had to post this gif I found on Tumblr. Lord he never looked so good imo. :D

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4x7c0RTKP1r2ptbgo1_500.gif

Stoney
02-06-12, 04:56 PM
Hmmmmmm, shame it won't freeze frame, mmmmm.

TimeTravellingBunny
02-06-12, 05:22 PM
Well they use that term on Whedonesque and in that context too.

Really? Do you have an example?

If they do, then they don't know what it means, either. Shadowkat seems to think that it means the same as "stan". And one of the commentators seems to be equally confused because she/he says "I ship Buffy". Who with?

Stoney
02-06-12, 05:25 PM
I assumed 'ship' was purely shorthand for 'relationship' which would imply two parties but I could read it in context as a replacement for 'love' without thinking too much of it in this alternative use.

sueworld
02-06-12, 05:25 PM
Go to Whedonesques rules page. It spells it out there.

Also Carol who own the site often used to jump on Spike fans and accuse them of breaking the rules with shipper talk even if it was only about Spike on his own.

Yes, weird I know.

TimeTravellingBunny
03-06-12, 02:06 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_%28fandom%29


Shipping, derived from the word relationship, is the belief that two fictional characters, typically from the same series, are in an intimate relationship, have romantic feelings that could potentially lead to a relationship, or have another form of less intimate relationship, which may involve platonic friendship, or even violence. It is considered a general term for fans' emotional involvement with the ongoing development of romance in a work of fiction. Though technically applicable to any such involvement, it refers chiefly to various related social dynamics observable on the Internet, and is seldom used outside of that context.


"Ship" and its derivatives in this context have since then come to be in wide and versatile use. "Shipping" refers to the whole phenomenon; a "ship" is the concept of a fictional couple; to "ship" a couple means to have an affinity for it in one way or another; a "shipper" is somebody significantly involved with such an affinity, and so forth.


Go to Whedonesques rules page. It spells it out there.

Also Carol who own the site often used to jump on Spike fans and accuse them of breaking the rules with shipper talk even if it was only about Spike on his own.

Yes, weird I know.

'Shipping' is not allowed on Whedonesque. (What is shipping?) Any post or comment that is aggressively focused on any particular 'ship' or any particular actor and/or actively supports fan factions and feuds is subject to deletion. Its author will receive a warning, or, in case of severe or repeated transgressions, will face a time out and/or will ultimately be banned from this site. Usernames that reflect your shipping-preference are not allowed.
What does that have to do with the meaning of the word "ship"? I'm pretty sure that they don't consider it shipping if someone says "Oh my god, Sarah Michelle Gellar was great in The Body" or "James Marsters was so great in this scene" or if they talk about Spike or Buffy or Angel as characters. But I can see that they might consider it shipper talk if someone starts one of those "Spike is better than Angel"/"Angel is better than Spike" debates, or at least it would fall under supporting a feud.

Stoney
03-06-12, 04:09 PM
To say something like I ship Spike to mean I like Spike and support the character in any and all situations/character interactions/romances above other characters makes a kind of sense to me. It is simply a way of expressing a strong preference. Granted it is an expansion and warping of the original phrase, definitely, but I think it is what most people would read into that statement.

TimeTravellingBunny
03-06-12, 04:17 PM
To say something like I ship Spike to mean I like Spike and support the character in any and all situations/character interactions/romances above other characters makes a kind of sense to me. It is simply a way of expressing a strong preference. Granted it is an expansion and warping of the original phrase, definitely, but I think it is what most people would read into that statement.
It doesn't make sense to me, because liking a character does not, at least to me, imply that you like every relationship they have. It's often the exact opposite - fans are often strongly opposed to a ship because they feel it's bad for their favorite character.

For instance, if you like Buffy, it doesn't mean you'll ship Buffy/Parker - it's probably all the more reason to anti-ship it. There are very few Buffy fans who would equally support her being in a relationship with Angel, Spike, Riley or Xander. On my part, Spike was always one of my favorite BtVS characters (though it really grew into character LOVE in season 5, the same time I started adoring the show in a way I hadn't before), but Buffy/Spike is the only one of Spike's romantic relationships I ever shipped, except for the short period the first time I watched season 2, between School Hard and the second part of the season when Angelus comes back, when I went from shipping Spike/Drusilla to anti-shipping them passionately.

Stoney
03-06-12, 04:22 PM
It doesn't make sense to me, because liking a character does not, at least to me, imply that you like every relationship they have. It's often the exact opposite - fans are often strongly opposed to a ship because they feel it's bad for their favorite character.

For instance, if you like Buffy, it doesn't mean you'll ship Buffy/Parker - it's probably all the more reason to anti-ship it. There are very few Buffy fans who would equally support her being in a relationship with Angel, Spike, Riley or Xander. On my part, Spike was always one of my favorite BtVS characters (though it really grew into character LOVE in season 5, the same time I started adoring the show in a way I hadn't before), but Buffy/Spike is the only one of Spike's romantic relationships I ever shipped, except for the short period the first time I watched season 2, between School Hard and the second part of the season when Angelus comes back, when I went from shipping Spike/Drusilla to anti-shipping them passionately.

True I suppose, I'm entirely with you on Spike's other relationships. I was just trying to understand the context of using it on an individual character like that.

KingofCretins
03-06-12, 04:49 PM
In my experience, Spike and Angel are the only characters that one is usually presumed to hate on the sole evidence of not liking a relationship they are involved in. Oddly, it doesn't apply to Buffy, just them. But honestly the next time I see someone accused of Xander hate for not liking X/C or X/A, or Willow hate for not liking W/T or W/K, will be the first.

TimeTravellingBunny
03-06-12, 05:06 PM
In my experience, Spike and Angel are the only characters that one is usually presumed to hate on the sole evidence of not liking a relationship they are involved in. Oddly, it doesn't apply to Buffy, just them. But honestly the next time I see someone accused of Xander hate for not liking X/C or X/A, or Willow hate for not liking W/T or W/K, will be the first.
True - and there's more: Buffy is the only character that fans can hate and still consider themselves a shipper of one of the ships involving her. It's baffling to me that this is possible for any character, but the BtVS fandom proves otherwise. It all comes from the same thing: the idea that Buffy as the heroine and lead character of the verse (even though Angel had his own show) is a trophy to be won by one's favorite character.

Sosa lola
04-06-12, 10:49 AM
Buffy is the only character that fans can hate and still consider themselves a shipper of one of the ships involving her.

I've seen a few Spander fans who ship Spike with Xander, but hate Xander. I do think it's weird. Personally, I can't read a fic in which my fave is shipped with a character I hate, let alone writing a fic about such a ship. Those few Spander shippers state that they love fanon Xander more than canon Xander - fanon Xander is a mellowed version of Xander who's a total woobie. I'm sorry, but I'm in love with the real thing. That guy you're writing about isn't my favorite character.

I've seen the same problem in some Spike fics as well.

Veiriti
04-06-12, 11:08 AM
Personally, I can't read a fic in which my fave is shipped with a character I hate
So do I. I don't ship Spander, I never did! It's so hard for me to imagine that - Spike with someone like... uh... Xander... I've tried to read a Spander fan fic once, because I love to read fan fics with Spike, but I do hate Xander as hell, so I've stooped! :)
And I don't hate Angel, I just dislike his relationship with Buffy. Angel is one of my favorite characters and I ship him with Spike and I love to read Spangel fan fics. After Spuffy I'm a Spangel shipper. ;)

Stoney
04-06-12, 11:42 AM
I'm not pro any slash Spike ships at all, I'm pretty firmly anti personally. I suspect the thing you are describing Sosa happens because there are limited slash options if people want to fanfic a slash story with Spike. Angel is the other most obvious. But both have to take Spike into an unbelievable ship for me. But anyway, yeah, I don't get people being pro a ship when it is a character they dislike. Like TTB said, you can see how it happens when the disliked character is the lead but otherwise it makes little to no sense to me.

Sosa lola
04-06-12, 12:18 PM
I suspect the thing you are describing Sosa happens because there are limited slash options if people want to fanfic a slash story with Spike.

Oh, there are million Xander/Spike fics with different themes and varieties, so I've been happy and satisfied for years. For a while, even now I guess, I'm addicted to Xander/Giles, but there are far less fics than Spander. :( I'm actually starting to lose interest in Slash, which I understand seeing as I've been reading Slash fics since 2001 :lol:

I'm more into Gen and Friendship fics, which sadly, there aren't many of those out there. :(

sueworld
04-06-12, 12:27 PM
I'm not pro any slash Spike ships at all, I'm pretty firmly anti personally. I suspect the thing you are describing Sosa happens because there are limited slash options if people want to fanfic a slash story with Spike.

Err, surely you jest. Spike gets slashed with more characters then anyone in the verse I believe. Is it any wonder he's been called the 'little black dress' of the Buffverse fanfic, because he fits so well with any character he's paired with.

For example my fav slash pairings is

Spike/Angel

Spike/Wes

Spike/Giles

Spike/Xander

To name just a few. :)

And you're really anti slash? Blimey. For example I don't really read het, nolonger my cup of tea really, but I'd never say I'm anti it.

But then 'horses for courses' and all that.

Sosa lola
04-06-12, 01:08 PM
For example I don't really read het.

I dislike het as well. I did enjoy a lot of Spuffy and Xander Het Fics, but I don't usually seek them out. I like de men. :D I even read Xander/Snyder fics. :err: The three that I found anyway. :lol:

I find myself more into friendship fics lately. I remember collecting Spander friendship fics a long time ago. They're in my LJ I need to find them.

Stoney
04-06-12, 01:53 PM
Err, surely you jest. Spike gets slashed with more characters then anyone in the verse I believe. Is it any wonder he's been called the 'little black dress' of the Buffverse fanfic, because he fits so well with any character he's paired with.

I didn't say he wasn't/couldn't be put in many different ships, i just said Xander and Angel were the most obvious ones.


And you're really anti slash? Blimey. For example I don't really read het, nolonger my cup of tea really, but I'd never say I'm anti it.

But then 'horses for courses' and all that.

For Spike, yes I am personally. You can have the most gorgeous designer little black dress in the world but it still looks awful if you put someone it doesn't suit in it. Each to their own as you say.

sueworld
04-06-12, 01:56 PM
You can have the most gorgeous designer little black dress in the world but it still looks awful if you put someone it doesn't suit in it.

Oh yes, I've read many a het fic thats come across that way to me too. :)

Maybe you've just had the misfortune to read the wrong slash writers?

Veiriti
04-06-12, 02:17 PM
I read mostly Spuffy, Spangel (+ threesome) and fanged 4 fan fics, and my other favorite slash pairings besides Spike/Angel are Spike/Wesley and Spike/Lindsey.
Oh, and I love some Spike/Illyria fan fics as well.

Stoney
04-06-12, 02:41 PM
Maybe you've just had the misfortune to read the wrong slash writers?

Just definitely not my thing.

TimeTravellingBunny
04-06-12, 02:57 PM
I don't read much of fanfic, but when I do, I'm really picky - it's usually something that fills in the blanks of things that did happen in canon, or postulates what might happen; sometimes I'll read an AU fic, but only if it keeps the characters IC and doesn't go completely off the rails in terms of what is possible, character-wise. I have zero interest in reading fics about unlikely pairings, which includes most slash and a lot of the het with non-canon pairings.

But even within the above parameters, I find myself disliking quite a few fics if they turn out to be OOC and/or use characters as mouthpieces for the author. A lot of Spuffy season 6 fics, for instance, feature a Spike who's been totally whitewashed and portrayed pretty much as a perfect boyfriend. There was a funny comparison between Canon Spike and Fanon Spike a while ago by botias on LJ, and while a bit exaggerated in some points, it's mostly true that those two characters are quite different. I also started to read a long post-Chosen Spuffy fic that made me roll my eyes more and more and finally stopped reading, since it was basically pages and pages of Buffy and everyone else (except Xander and Angel) extolling how awesome Spike is, Buffy blaming herself for not having realized years ago the Awesomeness of Spike, and various barbs against Xander and Angel and how much they suck. :rolleyes:

Stoney
04-06-12, 03:03 PM
I don't read much of fanfic, but when I do, I'm really picky - it's usually something that fills in the blanks of things that did happen in canon, or postulates what might happen; sometimes I'll read an AU fic, but only if it keeps the characters IC and doesn't go completely off the rails in terms of what is possible, character-wise. I have zero interest in reading fics about unlikely pairings, which includes most slash and a lot of the het with non-canon pairings.

But even within the above parameters, I find myself disliking quite a few fics if they turn out to be OOC and/or to use characters as mouthpieces for the author. A lot of Spuffy season 6 fics, for instance, feature a Spike who's been totally whitewashed and portrayed pretty much as a perfect boyfriend. There was a funny comparison between Canon Spike and Fanon Spike a while ago by botias on LJ, and while a bit exaggerated in some points, it's mostly true that those two characters are quite different. I've also started to read a long post-Chosen Spuffy fic that made me roll my eyes more and more and finally stop reading, since it was basically pages and pages of Buffy and everyone else (except Xander and Angel) extolling how awesome Spike is, Buffy blaming herself for not having realized years ago the Awesomeness of Spike, and various barbs against Xander and Angel and how much they suck. :rolleyes:

That pretty much mirrors my thoughts. I don't like unlikely pairings or a diluted Spike, which he is if he is simply presented as perfect. Well he is perfect, but with his imperfections, you know what I mean. :D

sueworld
04-06-12, 03:44 PM
I don't read much of fanfic, but when I do, I'm really picky - it's usually something that fills in the blanks of things that did happen in canon, or postulates what might happen; sometimes I'll read an AU fic, but only if it keeps the characters IC and doesn't go completely off the rails in terms of what is possible, character-wise. I have zero interest in reading fics about unlikely pairings, which includes most slash and a lot of the het with non-canon pairings.

But even within the above parameters, I find myself disliking quite a few fics if they turn out to be OOC and/or use characters as mouthpieces for the author. A lot of Spuffy season 6 fics, for instance, feature a Spike who's been totally whitewashed and portrayed pretty much as a perfect boyfriend. There was a funny comparison between Canon Spike and Fanon Spike a while ago by botias on LJ, and while a bit exaggerated in some points, it's mostly true that those two characters are quite different. I also started to read a long post-Chosen Spuffy fic that made me roll my eyes more and more and finally stopped reading, since it was basically pages and pages of Buffy and everyone else (except Xander and Angel) extolling how awesome Spike is, Buffy blaming herself for not having realized years ago the Awesomeness of Spike, and various barbs against Xander and Angel and how much they suck. :rolleyes:


All I can say is maybe you're reading the wrong authors then, because with my hand on my heart can I say that I've read far better and more true to the feel of the show fanfic then the complete, and utter load of old toss those awful comics have ever come up with.

KingofCretins
04-06-12, 05:39 PM
I both write and consume fanfic, so I don't exclude either the fic I make or like, but 90% plus of all fic is completely unfit to even discuss side by side with the real deal, and about 90% of the rest is barely as good as, and about 90% of that is still in no way 'better than'. I'd say the odds of one's prevailing fic experience being better than canon are as the E-Trade baby says, are the same as being mauled by a polar bear and a regular bear on the same day.

And the reason is simple -- all fic is ultimately a species of wish fulfillment, and the best is simply the stuff that's only apparent wish is to be mistaken for the pro work. But it is all about the way the author thinks things ought to be, or at least would be under such circumstances.

And the more outlandish the wish, the worse the fic usually gets.

sueworld
04-06-12, 05:47 PM
I both write and consume fanfic, so I don't exclude either the fic I make or like, but 90% plus of all fic is completely unfit to even discuss side by side with the real deal, and about 90% of the rest is barely as good as, and about 90% of that is still in no way 'better than'. I'd say the odds of one's prevailing fic experience being better than canon are as the E-Trade baby says, are the same as being mauled by a polar bear and a regular bear on the same da

In your opinion. There, fixed that for you. :)


And the reason is simple -- all fic is ultimately a species of wish fulfillment, and the best is simply the stuff that's only apparent wish is to be mistaken for the pro work. But it is all about the way the author thinks things ought to be, or at least would be under such circumstances.

Once again I have to say maybe you're reading the wrong authors. But then tastes vary don't they.

But christ, I've never seen any fanfic with such bloody stupid concepts and ideas as those in the comics. I really haven't.

Stoney
04-06-12, 06:25 PM
All I can say is maybe you're reading the wrong authors then, because with my hand on my heart can I say that I've read far better and more true to the feel of the show fanfic then the complete, and utter load of old toss those awful comics have ever come up with.

Personally speaking, Buffy having a false pregnancy because Andrew has hijacked her body and placed her mind in a robot is less fanciful than Spander etc. You never know Joss might go there but I'd be baffled.


I both write and consume fanfic, so I don't exclude either the fic I make or like, but 90% plus of all fic is completely unfit to even discuss side by side with the real deal, and about 90% of the rest is barely as good as, and about 90% of that is still in no way 'better than'. I'd say the odds of one's prevailing fic experience being better than canon are as the E-Trade baby says, are the same as being mauled by a polar bear and a regular bear on the same day.

And the more outlandish the wish, the worse the fic usually gets.

Exactly.

sueworld
04-06-12, 06:40 PM
Personally speaking, Buffy having a false pregnancy because Andrew has hijacked her body and placed her mind in a robot is less fanciful than Spander etc. You never know Joss might go there but I'd be baffled.

Thing is it's about setting up a strong enough reason for them to get together. To world build and create a story that will draw you in so completely that you'd believe that such a thing could work.

Imo the comics were an essay in lazy writing. With massive jumps in logic and massive plot holes. I was astounded at how poorly written they really were.

Jack Shaftoe
04-06-12, 10:01 PM
But even within the above parameters, I find myself disliking quite a few fics if they turn out to be OOC and/or use characters as mouthpieces for the author.

Yes, the comics have really dodged that bullet, right? Oh, wait.


Personally speaking, Buffy having a false pregnancy because Andrew has hijacked her body and placed her mind in a robot is less fanciful than Spander etc. You never know Joss might go there but I'd be baffled.

The thing is, with fanfiction you generally know what you are getting into. If you don't want to read Spander you just don't. There is plenty of other fics to choose from. With canon there is only one source of it and when it gets silly you either keep on reading or abandon the franchise altogether. So Joss should be held to a much higher standard than your average fanfiction writer who writes for an audience that shares their particular ship or a kink or worship of a particular character.

Personally I can list plenty of fics I consider to be better than the comics (or S6-7 for that matter). It's not so much about the plotting as it is about fanfic writers giving me the impression that they love the characters and want to portray them properly. Obviously, it takes a lot of effort to find the right stories among the mass of badly written porn or badly written something else but it can be very rewarding especially if you want to see secondary characters being given more depth and more chances to shine.

To make a long story short, the comics give me the impression that they are mostly about plot twists and giving Joss a chance to score some points on the political front. The best fanfiction, on the other hand, is very much character driven and I am a very character-oriented fan. I would have probably accepted the bizarre twists in the comics far more easily if the characterization wasn't almost equally bad.

Tennyoelf
04-06-12, 10:54 PM
Well, on a side bar, writing fanfiction allows me to grow to appreciate characters that normally I would not, but yes, fanfic is great because they focus on what you want, either ship wise or character wise.

TimeTravellingBunny
04-06-12, 11:05 PM
Yes, the comics have really dodged that bullet, right? Oh, wait.
Yes, in fact. Unless Gage really meant Faith's ramblings about Angel to be his message to the readers (though he claimed he didn't on Twitter).


It's not so much about the plotting as it is about fanfic writers giving me the impression that they love the characters and want to portray them properly. Obviously, it takes a lot of effort to find the right stories among the mass of badly written porn or badly written something else but it can be very rewarding especially if you want to see secondary characters being given more depth and more chances to shine.

To make a long story short, the comics give me the impression that they are mostly about plot twists and giving Joss a chance to score some points on the political front. The best fanfiction, on the other hand, is very much character driven and I am a very character-oriented fan. I would have probably accepted the bizarre twists in the comics far more easily if the characterization wasn't almost equally bad.
Yeah, they love their versions of the characters, who often have very little to do with the canon characters, and they want to portray them "properly" - which usually means either 1) that they want to, but lack the skill to do that, or 2) they think that portraying the characters properly means portraying the characters as they see them and "correcting the writers' mistakes" (because, obviously, they know those characters so much better than the people who created them in the first place).

This reminds me of selena's Educated Fangirl's Guide to Spike Wars (http://www.fangedfour.com/fangs/resources/educatedfangirlguide.htm) - "The writers should all be erased from the face of the earth and the fanfic authors should be put in charge."

Of course, there are exceptions, really great fanfics, but they are a minority, and as a rule, those aren't the fanfics that try to "correct" canon.

Tennyoelf
04-06-12, 11:10 PM
Well I have read some great fanfic that tries to portray characters as they saw them on the show and do a decent job of it.

I stear clear of fanfics that make any character way too OOC, but of course the characters will be slightly different than the show, even the writers on the show portrayed the characters differently. New writers always bring something to the character, but that isn't a bad thing really. As long as they try to keep them in character, it's OK.

Jack Shaftoe
04-06-12, 11:49 PM
Yes, in fact.

Spoliers for the comics:

So the abortion storyline wasn't there a case of Joss speaking from his soap-box? Could have fooled me. Random new character all but bursting into song about Spike's love for Buffy (in a very fanfic-y fashion, I might add) isn't a case of using characters as mouthpieces for the author?


Yeah, they love their versions of the characters, who often have very little to do with the canon characters, and they want to portray them "properly" - which usually means either 1) that they want to, but lack the skill to do that, or 2) they think that portraying the characters properly means portraying the characters as they see them and "correcting the writers' mistakes" (because, obviously, they know those characters so much better than the people who created them in the first place).

Well, duh. Of course most authors would fail, I already mentioned that. And correcting the writers' mistake is only bad if one doesn't think the writers made mistake in the first place. If you do - why not read a fanfic about someone trying to correct said mistake? Could well be much worse than canon but who knows, sometimes it's better. I would much rather read a fanfic where the characters seem in character to me even if they are quite different than the current canon version of themselves than canon where everyone seems OOC to me. Because really, I couldn't care less if Joss really thinks everyone is in character or just couldn't be bothered to try any harder. If the characters feel off, they feel off. And no, him being the creator doesn't make his view of the characters inherently right, that's part of the beauty of art. Death of the author and all that jazz. :)


Of course, there are exceptions, really great fanfics, but they are a minority, and as a rule, those aren't the fanfics that try to "correct" canon.

You might think differently if all your favourite ships had been ruthlessly sunk. How does write a long Giles/Jenny fic for instance without correcting canon or going for AU? Sometimes correcting canon is a necessity. And sometimes canon just sucks, so I don't see anything wrong with correcting it anyway.

TimeTravellingBunny
05-06-12, 12:28 AM
Spoliers for the comics:

So the abortion storyline wasn't there a case of Joss speaking from his soap-box?
That's not what you said earlier. Buffy didn't speak as anyone's mouthpiece. If she had a big political speech, then maybe yes it would be. But she certainly didn't, she was talking about herself and her problems and why she didn't feel she should have a child.


Could have fooled me. Random new character all but bursting into song about Spike's love for Buffy (in a very fanfic-y fashion, I might add) isn't a case of using characters as mouthpieces for the author?
That was clumsy writing for sure. It's not the same as the mouthpiece, though - maybe if random new characters started talking about them being perfect for each other or something. We were just supposed to think that RNCs have noticed Spike's feelings for Buffy and are for some reason so interested in talking about it.

I'm referring to those fanfics where a bunch of characters are talking about how awesome a character is, or how much some other character sucks, depending on the author's preferences. There are lots of times when it's as subtle that it comes close to Buffybot's "Angel is lame, his hair stands straight-up and he's bloody stupid."



You might think differently if all your favourite ships had been ruthlessly sunk. How does write a long Giles/Jenny fic for instance without correcting canon or going for AU? Sometimes correcting canon is a necessity. And sometimes canon just sucks, so I don't see anything wrong with correcting it anyway.
AU is something else, I said that AU fanfics are one of those I can be interested in and like, as long as characters are IC and the author isn't just coming up with random shit - AU is a nice storytelling device that also works well when used in canon. It's a great idea to explore how things could have been different if certain events went differently.

What annoys me is when the authors are blatantly implying "this storyline in canon sucks because the characters would never do that, and I know that because I understand the characters so much better than the writers who created them, so now I'm going to show you what should have happened."

sueworld
05-06-12, 11:09 AM
I would much rather read a fanfic where the characters seem in character to me even if they are quite different than the current canon version of themselves than canon where everyone seems OOC to me. Because really, I couldn't care less if Joss really thinks everyone is in character or just couldn't be bothered to try any harder. If the characters feel off, they feel off. And no, him being the creator doesn't make his view of the characters inherently right, that's part of the beauty of art. Death of the author and all that jazz.

Yeah, well said. Difference is those working on the comics are being paid to produce this stuff, unlike fanfic writers, and yes, although there is a fair bit of fanfic dross out there, there is also some extremely well written stuff. Stories that come across as more adult, and more compelling and in character then anything I've seen in season 8 (*shudders at the hideous train wreck that was) and so far in season 9.

But then as I've said before tastes do vary. If someone's into sentient universes and star ****ing then season 8 was the place for them. :lol:

Xane
18-06-12, 02:39 PM
Personally speaking, Buffy having a false pregnancy because Andrew has hijacked her body and placed her mind in a robot is less fanciful than Spander etc. You never know Joss might go there but I'd be baffled.


I'm not a Spander fan at all but every once in a while I stumble across a fic that is so well written, true to character, and makes Spander work that I can totally get sucked in and buy it hook line and sinker. It's all in the writing. Hell I got sucked into an epic Spike/Riley fic that not only made me buy it, but made me love Riley and cry like a baby in numerous places. Trust me, loving Riley is not my default position. Spike/Faith, Spike/Anya, etc. Great writing can make me love almost any plot, almost any pairing, the comics have not yet achieved this.

Everything Jack Shaftoe says here:

The thing is, with fanfiction you generally know what you are getting into. If you don't want to read Spander you just don't. There is plenty of other fics to choose from. With canon there is only one source of it and when it gets silly you either keep on reading or abandon the franchise altogether. So Joss should be held to a much higher standard than your average fanfiction writer who writes for an audience that shares their particular ship or a kink or worship of a particular character.

Personally I can list plenty of fics I consider to be better than the comics (or S6-7 for that matter). It's not so much about the plotting as it is about fanfic writers giving me the impression that they love the characters and want to portray them properly. Obviously, it takes a lot of effort to find the right stories among the mass of badly written porn or badly written something else but it can be very rewarding especially if you want to see secondary characters being given more depth and more chances to shine.

To make a long story short, the comics give me the impression that they are mostly about plot twists and giving Joss a chance to score some points on the political front. The best fanfiction, on the other hand, is very much character driven and I am a very character-oriented fan. I would have probably accepted the bizarre twists in the comics far more easily if the characterization wasn't almost equally bad.

Stoney
18-06-12, 03:00 PM
I'm not a Spander fan at all but every once in a while I stumble across a fic that is so well written, true to character, and makes Spander work that I can totally get sucked in and buy it hook line and sinker. It's all in the writing. Hell I got sucked into an epic Spike/Riley fic that not only made me buy it, but made me love Riley and cry like a baby in numerous places. Trust me, loving Riley is not my default position. Spike/Faith, Spike/Anya, etc. Great writing can make me love almost any plot, almost any pairing, the comics have not yet achieved this.

I'm sorry but I can't see how any writing could be good enough that would have me buy into Spander (or many, many other ships). I just don't agree that any combination can be made realistic. But there is fanfiction for those that do want to see it, so fair enough.


Everything Jack Shaftoe says here: The thing is, with fanfiction you generally know what you are getting into. If you don't want to read Spander you just don't. There is plenty of other fics to choose from...

Completely.

sueworld
18-06-12, 03:02 PM
I'm not a Spander fan at all but every once in a while I stumble across a fic that is so well written, true to character, and makes Spander work that I can totally get sucked in and buy it hook line and sinker.

Oh god I know what you mean. Have you ever read a Spander fic called 'Sockpuppet'? I balled my eyes out after reading that.

Xane
18-06-12, 03:08 PM
I'm not sure. Since I always stumble on Spander by accident I tend not to remember the titles.

sueworld
18-06-12, 04:14 PM
It's this one over here. It's a good few years since I read It last, so I may be over egging how good I found it, but I remember being knocked out by the whole tone of the piece.

http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?user=shadowscast&keyword=Sock+Puppet&filter=all

Also I recomened Shapinglights fic Vampire Winter where she takes on the difficult task of writing Spike/Angel/Buffy in events after Not Fade Away, and does a good job of it imo. Very touching.

http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?user=shapinglight&keyword=Vampire%20Winter&filter=all

Xane
19-06-12, 06:58 AM
Thanks Sue. I will definitely take a look at those when I have more time. :)

Tennyoelf
19-06-12, 07:39 AM
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Camera_Obscura

Seems like a Doctor Who, probably non-canon, novel did a crossover with the Buffyverse.

The Doctor stops by Victorian London and William the Bloody Awful Poet (Spike when he was human) makes a brief appearance.

Huh.

ubi4soft
21-06-12, 06:07 AM
Some recent facebook statistic

Buffy The Vampire Slayer (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=348003591938718&set=a.117805351625211.19906.109856449086768&type=1) asks: Who was your favorite character in Buffy?

Until now there are over 20,000 comments

Over the last 2000 I've Ctrl+F these mentions:

Buffy: 499
Angel: 305
Spike: 950
Willow: 458
Xander:153
Giles: 166
Cordelia: 15
Faith: 96
Darla: 2
Drusilla: 23

Somebody with more time (have to go to work now) and more good computer and net connection may go counting the full 20,000 comments and search also for different spelling and nicknames

~~~

updated up to 10,000 comments counted http://ubi4soft.livejournal.com/46457.html

Stoney
29-06-12, 08:10 AM
I have just finished reading my way through the IDW Spike AtF and am now on the Lynch's 8 and am finding myself wondering why there is a friggin floating fish in the mix. Am I missing something obvious?

Not sure if the IDW era gets discussed anywhere specific, I couldn't see any threads.

ubi4soft
29-06-12, 09:04 AM
WHY SPIKE
http://fozmeadows.tumblr.com

It’s been a fair few years now since I first watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and though my perception of the show, its themes and characters has changed a lot in that time, the one thing that’s remained constant is my appreciation of Spike. As a vampire, he’s done terrible things, not least of which is his attempted rape of Buffy in Season 6, and while it’s tempting to morally handwave those crimes by pointing to his soullessness as a mitigating factor, it’s*disingenuous*to do so if we’re also going to contend that all his good deeds somehow enabled him to transcend it. Or, put it another way: if we accept that soulless Spike has autonomy and responsibility when he does good things despite being soulless, then we must also accept that he has autonomy and responsibility when he does bad things. The only exception I’m willing to make is when he’s being brainwashed in Season 7, because he has no conscious control over his actions - but everything else is on him.

So, no: he’s far from morally perfect. But as a character - as an interesting, complex, three-dimensional entity - he is brilliant. In a show where almost nobody actually changes or grows up despite the relentlessly crazy shit they’re forced to endure, Spike is unique in occupying a series of wildly different roles whose transitions fundamentally alter his habits, behaviour, relationships and alliances. For seven whole seasons, Buffy remains emotionally arrested, unable to move beyond the initially established parameters of her romantic life: always messy, always conflicted, and always a bit ****ed up. She’s not allowed to move past that phase, because let’s face it: we, the audience, want to keep watching the drama unfold, which means that the writing can never afford to let her grow beyond it. Though Giles’s role gets darker near the end, his character has always had that capacity; even in his own show, Angel is perennially brooding; Xander never really stops being himself despite acquiring new skills along the way; and while Willow briefly turns to the dark side, her core personality and role within the group is never really altered.*

But every season, Spike is someone different. When he first appears in Season 2, he’s an archetypal bad boy villain in a decidedly non-archetypal loving, committed, romantic relationship. (The fact that it’s with an insane vampire prophetess is neither here nor there.) When injuries force him into a wheelchair, we see an instant power reversal: the frail Drusilla he’d previously cared for is now strong enough to care for him instead, and what’s more, he’s man enough to accept her help. Still, Spike’s jealousy of Dru and Angel is palpable, but when he switches sides in the crucial battle, it’s not just to reclaim his lover - it’s because he genuinely enjoys living. When he shows up again in Season 3, it’s as a broken, lovelorn drunk, alternately lashing out at old enemies and then sobbing on their shoulders.

In Season 4, his attempts at villainy are thwarted by the Initiative’s chip-implant. Spike becomes outcast, pathetic and lost, and eventually humbles himself by going to Buffy and the others for help - humiliation enough that he actually attempts suicide, only cheering up with the discovery that he can still enjoy violence by fighting alongside the Scoobies. But even so, that doesn’t mean he’s on their team: he still causes mayhem, trying to break up the group and aiding the Big Bad, and by the start of Season 5, he’s back to living on the fringes. His love for Buffy is both redemptive and destructive, profane and sacred; her death pushes him into genuine goodness in honour of her memory, but in Season 6, the conflict is back. All at once, Spike is tempting Buffy to the dark side while simultaneously trying to help her redeem herself, and the tension that breeds in both of them is palpable.

By now, we’ve started to learn his backstory - seen him as a poet in youth, a reckless scion of Drusilla and Angel, a merciless Slayer-hunter - all varied, well-developed roles. His attempted rape forces a crisis of conscience: for the first time in his soulless state, we see him fully comprehend the evil of his actions, which prompts him to reclaim his soul in pennance. At the start of Season 7, he’s effectively become a new Drusilla: a crazed prophet, but one who’s wretched and self-loathing. Though none of the other Scoobies ever trusts him again - it’s notable that Dawn, who once worshiped him, threatens to set him on fire - he eventually reclaims a tentative bond with Buffy and builds a weirdly hilarious rapport with, of all people, Andrew. And then, of course, the finale of self-sacrifice, where Spike dies so that all his former enemies can live. In Angel, he returns as a disembodied spirit of mischief, is reassembled, suffers for his sins at the hands of a mad Slayer, battles Angel for supremacy and finally - once again - sets out to save the world.

Romantically, Spike has more and varied relationships with other regulars in the Buffyverse than anyone else - Drusilla, Harmony, Anya and Buffy - and also boasts the most*eclectic and touching*peripheral friendships with Joyce, Clem, Dawn, Andrew and, arguably, Anya and Fred. He’s changed sides more than anyone else in the show and yet, when everyone else abandons her, he’s the only one to keep faith with Buffy. He’s been monstrous, villainous, piteous, hilarious, honest, duplicitous, self-serving, self-sacrificing, witty, speechless, faithless, dutiful, poetic, brutal, sympathetic, despicable, manipulative, manipulated, betrayed, betraying, dead, alive and everything in between - and all without it feeling either forced or contradictory. We’ve seen him panting his toenails, mad in a basement, murdering innocents, sacrificing himself for love, playing kitten poker, brainwashed, saving the day and heartbroken after losing it. He gets a significant portion of the best dialogue in the Buffyverse, both comic and serious, because more than anyone else, he lives in the space where those two things bleed together.

So, yes: he’s morally dubious, sometimes loathsome and far from a saint, but undeniably, Spike is interesting. He’s a character in constant and varied development in a medium where stasis is prized above all else. Love him or hate him, he’s impossible to ignore, and while I won’t deny my appreciation for his other, more physical charms, what really attracts me to Spike is his complexity: the fact that, unlike everyone else in the show, you never quite knew what he was going to do next.

vampmogs
29-06-12, 09:08 AM
The fish is called Betta George and was an original character created by Lynch for his non-canon comics. He first appeared in Spike Assylum and then appeared again in Smile Time. He has telepathic powers and is a "Splenden Beast." Lynch added him into AtF so he became a canonical character.

A lot of Lynchverse fans seem quite fond of the character, although I personally don't get the appeal. I don't find him memorable at all, other than the fact he's a giant floating fish *shrugs*

sueworld
29-06-12, 10:07 AM
I liked Beta George, but I felt he had no place in the verse really, mainly because however well he was written he was still a bloody silly giant talking fish. :lol:

It's the same way that I felt about thos blody awful Bugs and that damn sily spaceship. Imo they are not a good fit. They seem there for novelty value alone and whatever the writers want from the characters could have been set up without them.

Stoney
29-06-12, 10:45 AM
The fish is called Betta George and was an original character created by Lynch for his non-canon comics. He first appeared in Spike Assylum and then appeared again in Smile Time. He has telepathic powers and is a "Splenden Beast." Lynch added him into AtF so he became a canonical character.

A lot of Lynchverse fans seem quite fond of the character, although I personally don't get the appeal. I don't find him memorable at all, other than the fact he's a giant floating fish *shrugs*

See I was a little confused because I haven't read Angel AtF yet, won't get these until August but I have just finished reading Spike AtF and the fish wasn't in it so when it was just there in Lynch's 8 Spike stories I wondered where it had sprung up from. I enjoyed Spike AtF more than I am enjoying the Spike 8 so far.


I liked Beta George, but I felt he had no place in the verse really, mainly because however well he was written he was still a bloody silly giant talking fish. :lol:

:lol:


It's the same way that I felt about thos blody awful Bugs and that damn sily spaceship. Imo they are not a good fit. They seem there for novelty value alone and whatever the writers want from the characters could have been set up without them.

I've grown to quite like the bugs/ship. The web comic nicely established Spike with them I thought in hindsight. It will be interesting to see how it pans out in the mini.




WHY SPIKE
http://fozmeadows.tumblr.com

Huh... *pauses*. OK, I'll take it on....


It’s been a fair few years now since I first watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer,

No shit Sherlock!


and though my perception of the show, its themes and characters has changed a lot in that time, the one thing that’s remained constant is my appreciation of Spike.

Oh, ok, possibly consistent bad reading of the show/character then, huh, carry on...


As a vampire, he’s done terrible things, not least of which is his attempted rape of Buffy in Season 6,

As people invested in Buffy this no doubt stands out but I have no illusions that Spike did far, far, far, far, far, worse in his 120ish years than an attempted rape!.


and while it’s tempting to morally handwave those crimes by pointing to his soullessness as a mitigating factor, it’s*disingenuous*to do so if we’re also going to contend that all his good deeds somehow enabled him to transcend it.

I don't think soullessness allows anyone to morally handwave away the crimes. It may be used to explain or justify why the character does it but morally handwave???


Or, put it another way: if we accept that soulless Spike has autonomy and responsibility when he does good things despite being soulless, then we must also accept that he has autonomy and responsibility when he does bad things.

True, but this belittles his extraordinary choices a little.


The only exception I’m willing to make is when he’s being brainwashed in Season 7, because he has no conscious control over his actions - but everything else is on him.

And he is not soulless then anyway.


So, no: he’s far from morally perfect. But as a character - as an interesting, complex, three-dimensional entity - he is brilliant. In a show where almost nobody actually changes or grows up despite the relentlessly crazy shit they’re forced to endure,

Whoa, I can hear Xander/Willow/Buffy et al fans screaming.


Spike is unique in occupying a series of wildly different roles whose transitions fundamentally alter his habits, behaviour, relationships and alliances.

Oft described as the most evolved character but that is within the context that...


For seven whole seasons, Buffy remains emotionally arrested, unable to move beyond the initially established parameters of her romantic life: always messy, always conflicted, and always a bit ****ed up. She’s not allowed to move past that phase, because let’s face it: we, the audience, want to keep watching the drama unfold, which means that the writing can never afford to let her grow beyond it. Though Giles’s role gets darker near the end, his character has always had that capacity; even in his own show, Angel is perennially brooding; Xander never really stops being himself despite acquiring new skills along the way; and while Willow briefly turns to the dark side, her core personality and role within the group is never really altered.*

...all of the core four evolve. Buffy is held somewhat in limbo romantically but there is a difference between how she conducts her relationships that reflects her personal points of progression. Some basic 'normal' evolutions in her romantic relationships are shown with her character though. To suggest that Xander merely acquires skills but remains in stasis is ridiculous. Compare Xander of S1 to S7 (S8 particularly) and you see a teenager grow into a man, pure and simple. Willow's character develops dramatically through the seasons, her personality exploration is one of the most dramatically changing.


But every season, Spike is someone different. When he first appears in Season 2, he’s an archetypal bad boy villain in a decidedly non-archetypal loving, committed, romantic relationship. (The fact that it’s with an insane vampire prophetess is neither here nor there.)

Other vamp relationships existed and Dru isn't a prophet.


When injuries force him into a wheelchair, we see an instant power reversal: the frail Drusilla he’d previously cared for is now strong enough to care for him instead, and what’s more, he’s man enough to accept her help.

He doesn't have a choice and it is hardly smooth sailing for them. There are huge amounts of resentment about the way Dru treats him whilst he is wheelchair bound.


Still, Spike’s jealousy of Dru and Angel is palpable, but when he switches sides in the crucial battle, it’s not just to reclaim his lover - it’s because he genuinely enjoys living.

He's dead. It is because he enjoys what the world offers him.


When he shows up again in Season 3, it’s as a broken, lovelorn drunk, alternately lashing out at old enemies and then sobbing on their shoulders.

Love's bitch, watya to do?


In Season 4, his attempts at villainy are thwarted by the Initiative’s chip-implant. Spike becomes outcast, pathetic and lost, and eventually humbles himself by going to Buffy and the others for help - humiliation enough that he actually attempts suicide, only cheering up with the discovery that he can still enjoy violence by fighting alongside the Scoobies.

It is about being pathetic, not being the big bad anymore yeah but it is being able to kill demons and fight that envigorates him, not fighting with the Scoobs.


But even so, that doesn’t mean he’s on their team: he still causes mayhem, trying to break up the group and aiding the Big Bad, and by the start of Season 5, he’s back to living on the fringes. His love for Buffy is both redemptive and destructive, profane and sacred; her death pushes him into genuine goodness in honour of her memory, but in Season 6, the conflict is back. All at once, Spike is tempting Buffy to the dark side while simultaneously trying to help her redeem herself, and the tension that breeds in both of them is palpable.

Profane and sacred? What an odd choice and how is Spike helping Buffy redeem herself? What is she needing to redeem herself from?


By now, we’ve started to learn his backstory - seen him as a poet in youth, a reckless scion of Drusilla and Angel, a merciless Slayer-hunter - all varied, well-developed roles. His attempted rape forces a crisis of conscience: for the first time in his soulless state, we see him fully comprehend the evil of his actions, which prompts him to reclaim his soul in pennance.

He doesn't get his soul in pennance for the AR, it isn't to punish himself. It is for Buffy, to be the kind of man etc etc.


At the start of Season 7, he’s effectively become a new Drusilla: a crazed prophet, but one who’s wretched and self-loathing.

What? He is basement crazy and being terrorised by The First.


Though none of the other Scoobies ever trusts him again - it’s notable that Dawn, who once worshiped him, threatens to set him on fire - he eventually reclaims a tentative bond with Buffy and builds a weirdly hilarious rapport with, of all people, Andrew.

The Spike/Scooby relationships aren't really explored post soul but I would hardly describe his bond with Buffy as a 'reclaimed tentative' one. They connect deeply in S7 and rely on each other immensely. The Andrew thing is a road trip played for humour. I would hardly call it rapport, which means close and harmonious!!!


And then, of course, the finale of self-sacrifice, where Spike dies so that all his former enemies can live.

That would be an odd choice. I think it was so that everyone could live.


In Angel, he returns as a disembodied spirit of mischief, is reassembled, suffers for his sins at the hands of a mad Slayer, battles Angel for supremacy and finally - once again - sets out to save the world.

Is he The Judge? Recorporealized maybe? :)


Romantically, Spike has more and varied relationships with other regulars in the Buffyverse than anyone else - Drusilla, Harmony, Anya and Buffy - and also boasts the most*eclectic and touching*peripheral friendships with Joyce, Clem, Dawn, Andrew and, arguably, Anya and Fred.

[cue major rant time]Why do people constantly make out that Spike is some Slutty McSlut. It really drives me nuts (still smarting deeply from Faith's bitchy comment in A&F). He was with Dru for a century, Anya was a one night stand. Geez. In the course of the show Buffy dated Angel, Scott, Parker, Riley, Spike, Wood (kind of). Willow had her thing with Xander, Oz, Tara and Kennedy. Xander was with Cordy, Willow and Anya and had his demon related amorous adventures (inca mummy, preying mantis). Angel in his show I believe had plenty of partners/romances. Can everyone please back off ffs. [*deep breath* /rant]


He’s changed sides more than anyone else in the show and yet, when everyone else abandons her, he’s the only one to keep faith with Buffy. He’s been monstrous, villainous, piteous, hilarious, honest, duplicitous, self-serving, self-sacrificing, witty, speechless, faithless, dutiful, poetic, brutal, sympathetic, despicable, manipulative, manipulated, betrayed, betraying, dead, alive and everything in between - and all without it feeling either forced or contradictory. We’ve seen him panting his toenails, mad in a basement, murdering innocents, sacrificing himself for love, playing kitten poker, brainwashed, saving the day and heartbroken after losing it. He gets a significant portion of the best dialogue in the Buffyverse, both comic and serious, because more than anyone else, he lives in the space where those two things bleed together.

Spike is complex and fascinating, watching him manage his own duality as part of his nature/personality and how it drives him and plays a major role in determining his path.


So, yes: he’s morally dubious, sometimes loathsome and far from a saint, but undeniably, Spike is interesting. He’s a character in constant and varied development in a medium where stasis is prized above all else.

Spike is morally dubious? If I was writing an essay on Spike the chances of any of this making it into the final edit of my closing paragraph is zilch. And progression is part of the underlying story of BtVS, for all the characters. This isn't a hero's story where nothing changes, did the whole school-college-working life happen in my head? The emotional transitions from child-adult something I dreamt?


Love him or hate him, he’s impossible to ignore, and while I won’t deny my appreciation for his other, more physical charms, what really attracts me to Spike is his complexity: the fact that, unlike everyone else in the show, you never quite knew what he was going to do next.

He is the best character in the show. I love him. He is my favourite fictional character of all time and yes, he is damn hot. :D Now, just imagine how much more this writer might like him if they actually understood him better and appreciated the show fully. :confused3:



EDIT: I have just realised what a grumpy mood I am in, poor bugger dint really deserve scorn. I'll go and get myself in a better frame of mind. :twak:

ubi4soft
02-07-12, 05:46 AM
EDIT: I have just realised what a grumpy mood I am in, poor bugger dint really deserve scorn. I'll go and get myself in a better frame of mind. :twak:

Have at it :D. As per her own description "Foz Meadows is a bipedal mammal with delusions of immortality. Also, she writes fantasy novels"

ubi4soft
26-07-12, 05:42 AM
MikeJer's review for Destiny
http://www.criticallytouched.com/angel/5x08_destiny.php
has a great insight about the differences between Spike and Angel dealing with their soulless past


The key here is that Spike has a major philosophical difference with Angel in regard to the responsibility they have for their soulless crimes; Spike knows he wasn't the same person then and didn't have the moral conscious capable of unselfish behavior – of truly knowing the difference between right and wrong. Despite how haunted he can still be by the memories of what 'he' did in the past, he doesn't generally beat himself up over it much because he recognizes that wasn't the same person that he is now – the soul changes everything.

Stoney
26-07-12, 08:34 AM
Perhaps after S8 we can see why Angel has less problem visualising his soulful self committing the same acts????

dorotea
26-07-12, 06:53 PM
But maybe the key here is that most of the time Spike is pretty much immune to 'What have I done ?' arcs due to a mild case of 'Moral Myopia' ? Occam's Razor works most of the time where complicated reasoning fails.

TimeTravellingBunny
26-07-12, 07:44 PM
But maybe the key here is that most of the time Spike is pretty much immune to 'What have I done ?' arcs due to a mild case of 'Moral Myopia' ? Occam's Razor works most of the time where complicated reasoning fails.
Immune? Huh, that's funny, I remember Spike having the biggest of the "What have I done" arcs... the one that lead to him fighting for his soul.

Then there was the entire first half of season 7, particularly Never Leave Me, plus Damage...

Stoney
26-07-12, 08:33 PM
The current A&F focus on Giles' murder rather than any of the other hundreds of people and the manipulation and attack on destroying Buffy's moral certainty etc etc is the biggest 'eyes closed, fingers in ears, lalalalaaaa didn't happen' that either vamp has displayed in text without evidence of remorse/awareness and above all else, with a soul that, theoretically, provides the ability to have that awareness of right and wrong.

Neither of them are saints but Spike has always, souled or not, been able to lead by his heart rather than being controlled entirely by his demon. Let us not forget there is an element of the men they were in there too (by Angel's own admission) but, importantly, with or without a soul there is a demon in the mix as well for them both. Angel, so far, is the one out of the two that has stepped questionably, and extravagantly, over the line with his soul intact. But I personally feel, taking into account the original foundation of the 'man' each was, Angel has the harder fight against himself in front of him (as he himself identified to Buffy way way back, it is the man that is weak).

I think Angel has a blind spot to his own actions when he is souled, he lacks a self awareness, self analysing approach, but I don't think either vamp has been shown to lack 'issues' with their past villainy. I don't think the quote is strictly true personally. I don't think that Spike thinks that the soul changes everything in a way that disassociates him from his past crimes. The only difference was the length of time that Spike and Angel took to 'get on with it' effectively post soul gain. Firstly, Spike was prepared and walked into it by choice (his demon wanted 'in' so to speak), secondly, he was helped out of it earlier and helped to get on the path to putting himself together as a champion. I don't think it is more complicated than that. Sure, their personalities will come into play with how they respond to what they did internally but in terms of basement vs gutter, both spent their time overwhelmed and were pulled out essentially by their abilities, desire and drive to be 'better'.

dorotea
26-07-12, 08:44 PM
Spike has always, souled or not, been able to lead by his heart rather than being controlled entirely by his demon.

You do realize that this is a complete oxymoron yes? Soul is supposedly the moral compass. Vampire without a soul cannot be 'led by his heart' - (but can be lead by other privates) - because they do have demons embedded 'in their hearts'. Or I missed the point of those quotes from Marti Noxon in another thread completely.

Stoney
26-07-12, 09:26 PM
You do realize that this is a complete oxymoron yes? Soul is supposedly the moral compass. Vampire without a soul cannot be 'led by his heart' - (but can be lead by other privates) - because they do have demons embedded 'in their hearts'. Or I missed the point of those quotes from Marti Noxon in another thread completely.

Eh? I don't know what Marti Noxon quotes you mean.

A soul is not a perfect moral compass or you would not get Warrens and if you are seriously suggesting that Spike was incapable of love soulless and only chooses to fight to get a soul because he wants to have sex that has to be one of the most inaccurately (imo) shallow character analysis of Spike I have, so far(!), come across. One of the most defining and established character points for Spike is based around love and the heart of the poet.

TimeTravellingBunny
26-07-12, 10:57 PM
You do realize that this is a complete oxymoron yes? Soul is supposedly the moral compass. Vampire without a soul cannot be 'led by his heart' - (but can be lead by other privates) - because they do have demons embedded 'in their hearts'. Or I missed the point of those quotes from Marti Noxon in another thread completely.
You do realize that that actually isn't an oxymoron at all? And of course a vampire without a soul can be led by his or hers heart - as we've seen it happen. Why wouldn't they?

And I really don't know what you're talking about regarding Noxon's quotes. Maybe you've missed their point. She certainly never said that soulless vampires don't have feelings or can't feel love. Love =/= morality. Feelings (of any kind, positive or negative) =/= morality. Those aren't the same things - and as a matter of fact, they often clash in us humans.

emmiemears
27-07-12, 06:34 PM
You do realize that that actually isn't an oxymoron at all? And of course a vampire without a soul can be led by his or hers heart - as we've seen it happen. Why wouldn't they?

And I really don't know what you're talking about regarding Noxon's quotes. Maybe you've missed their point. She certainly never said that soulless vampires don't have feelings or can't feel love. Love =/= morality. Feelings (of any kind, positive or negative) =/= morality. Those aren't the same things - and as a matter of fact, they often clash in us humans.

Well said.

Throughout both BtVS and Angel you see vampires without souls acting in ways "led by their hearts." A common theme in literature/film/the arts in general is exploring how positive emotions can lead people into poor, even abhorrent behavior.

The vampires in both shows often act out of love or at least an emotional bond for one another. They're as subject to the whims of revenge and retaliation as the humans, albeit with a bit more scary to back them up. :)

dorotea
29-07-12, 03:57 AM
Throughout both BtVS and Angel you see vampires without souls acting in ways "led by their hearts."

No you don't , but thanks for saying that. Because this stresses my original point.



A common theme in literature/film/the arts in general is exploring how positive emotions can lead people into poor, even abhorrent behavior.

No it is not ( i.e. 'common'.) It is usually just the opposite - a common theme in both fiction and physiological research works is examples of how *negative emotions* can lead people into poor, even abhorrent behavior. But I would be very grateful if you bring up half a dozen examples - to prove up your point of how common it is.



The vampires in both shows often act out of love or at least an emotional bond for one another.


Examples? And if you mean 'love' equals to lust, empowerment, enjoyment of domination, possession, addiction, obsession, then state so.



They're as subject to the whims of revenge and retaliation as the humans, albeit with a bit more scary to back them up. :)

Methinks we have our big deference in defining positive emotions and love. For example I don't count ones satisfied lust a s 'positive emotion', same as I don't count obsession/satisfaction with possessing as 'positive emotion'. As such I find vampires psyche entirely alien to humans - great white sharks are probably subjects to whims too, with a bit more scary to back them up. :) That fact does not equate their behavioral codex to human one.

vampmogs
29-07-12, 10:12 AM
BtVS is full of examples of good characters making bad/wrong decisions because of love. Buffy didn't kill Angel when she had the chance, Willow mind raped Tara so they would stay together, Angel resorted to black magic’s to rescue Connor, Wesley kneecapped lawyers to save Fred, Xander showed total hypocrisy when Anya slaughtered 12 frat boys etc. Some characters are guilty of it multiple times.

Love is a "positive" emotion but it is pretty standard in fiction for it also to be a character's Achilles Heel. It's often used by villains to make heroes compromise themselves, and sometimes characters will just do bad things out of desperation to save or be with the person they love.

One of the most iconic examples of this is Anakin Skywalker (aka "Darth Vader") and how it's his love for Padmea that finally sends him over to the dark side. He loved her too much to see her die and he was willing to do anything to try and save her.

People in love do bad things all the time.

Tennyoelf
29-07-12, 10:19 AM
No you don't , but thanks for saying that. Because this stresses my original point.



No it is not ( i.e. 'common'.) It is usually just the opposite - a common theme in both fiction and physiological research works is examples of how *negative emotions* can lead people into poor, even abhorrent behavior. But I would be very grateful if you bring up half a dozen examples - to prove up your point of how common it is.




Examples? And if you mean 'love' equals to lust, empowerment, enjoyment of domination, possession, addiction, obsession, then state so.




Methinks we have our big deference in defining positive emotions and love. For example I don't count ones satisfied lust a s 'positive emotion', same as I don't count obsession/satisfaction with possessing as 'positive emotion'. As such I find vampires psyche entirely alien to humans - great white sharks are probably subjects to whims too, with a bit more scary to back them up. :) That fact does not equate their behavioral codex to human one.

That paints an extremely black and white picture of human emotions.

Love is not a pure and selfless emotion. Love is a combination of many things. Love can be ugly. Love can be beautiful.

Soulless vampires are "led by the heart" to the point nothing else matters but how they feel about something. Angelus saw beauty in the destruction of the human spirit, so he followed that to make him happy. And happiness is not an ugly emotion, happy is usually something good or positive...but here it's also sadistic and not something you want Angelus to feel, because that would mean the death of a person.

Same with Spike, he loved while soulless, and while soulless does not mean that his love was the healthiest, it led him to both horrible and heroic acts. He was led by it, to a selfish degree. But led by it nonetheless.

My point above is that not even positive emotions are pure.

In pursuit of happiness > case of Angelus > killed and tortured people as an art form.

In pursuit of love > case of Spike > chained Buffy up and demanded she admit there was something between them. Did anything Drusilla wanted him to.

Both are 'positive' emotions that led to both of them doing awful things while soulless. It's the person that twist positive emotions into negative actions. The emotion behind the act is not always a negative one.

Negative emotions are usually hate, anger, fear. Things that displease and usually cause negative actions. However these things can be good or can have a good reaction from the person. Hating something can cause change. Anger can cause determination and awareness. Fear is known to help us survive as it's actually designed as part of our survival instincts. Possessiveness can lead to defending what you care about, obsession can cause discipline to perfect an art form. It's not the emotion, it's the person.

As for anyone thinking vampires aren't people, they run off of human memories and bodies, which will include emotions, as that is part of our biology. The demon plus dead human would twist any positive emotion into a negative action, that is usually selfish.

Unless, of course, your argument is that you can't have any emotions if your soulless. And if that's the case, why did Angelus do anything he did? Why aren't they all just zombies or robots?

dorotea
29-07-12, 07:06 PM
That paints an extremely black and white picture of human emotions.

Disagreed. That paints extremely black and white picture of demon emotions. See - the key word here is demon. Embedded in every vampire's heart, however sentimental, educated, good-looking, sexy, poetic, etcetra the vampire is. (Recall Angelus crying like a baby watching the ballet.)


Love is not a pure and selfless emotion. Love is a combination of many things. Love can be ugly. Love can be beautiful.

Well, than lets stop here, shall we ? The ugly part of what you are describing is not love. It is selfishness. Pure and simple, plus a score of other primitive behavioral patterns. I have no doubt that mating of two great whites might be exciting to watch - but there is nothing I would call 'love' in that imagery.


And happiness is not an ugly emotion, happy is usually something good or positive...

Happiness is not a emotion per se in my books. At least it is not in the sense of complex human emotions associated with human morality, associated with human society - and ability to be part of the said society or even elemental group of people. Happiness is a condition that a great white or lion can experience upon successful feeding or mating.


My point above is that not even positive emotions are pure.

My point above is that happiness is not complex enough emotion to be associated with possession of a soul, morality or ability to be emphatic. One demon can have plenty of happiness while eating kittens. There is nothing specifically human (or related to human definition of love) in achieving/ experiencing happiness.



In pursuit of happiness > case of Angelus > killed and tortured people as an art form.


Exactly my point. Great whites kill and eat up seals. Cat hunt, torture and devour mice. I saw my sweetest cat play and continuously torture injured mouse once - does it make him evil ? No. But me stopping him makes me human.



In pursuit of love > case of Spike > chained Buffy up and demanded she admit there was something between them. Did anything Drusilla wanted him to.


And that's were we differ the most , I guess. Because I don't give a fig about here his 'pursuit of happiness' ( see my cat and mouse example - my cat really wanted to get satisfaction from that mouse), and don't equate it with pursuit of 'love' for sure. Girl restrained, chained to the wall and threatened - some might find their hearts palpitating - I immediately imagine myself in her place instead. It is called 'empathy'.


Both are 'positive' emotions that led to both of them doing awful things while soulless. It's the person that twist positive emotions into negative actions. The emotion behind the act is not always a negative one.


See above - and once again to quote Whedon here indirectly - a soulless demon can be affable - the main difference is that they don't relate their pursuit of happiness to the suffering they might be causing. Humans do. that's what makes human love different from lust, desire to mate, satisfaction from possession, pride etc. Empathy.



Negative emotions are usually hate, anger, fear. Things that displease and usually cause negative actions. However these things can be good or can have a good reaction from the person. Hating something can cause change. Anger can cause determination and awareness. Fear is known to help us survive as it's actually designed as part of our survival instincts. Possessiveness can lead to defending what you care about, obsession can cause discipline to perfect an art form. It's not the emotion, it's the person.


Here we go again as you equate the whole spectrum of primitive negative emotions - that any being with vegetative nerves system can experience - with a complex spectrum that humans have.



As for anyone thinking vampires aren't people, they run off of human memories and bodies, which will include emotions, as that is part of our biology. The demon plus dead human would twist any positive emotion into a negative action, that is usually selfish.

Vampires luck major 'device' that makes them 'people' - a soul. And that was brought up by Joss Whedon , not me. Plus vampires 'eat' people because they don't consider themselves part of peoples tribe, they consider people 'cattle' at best, or happy meals on legs if you want to go poetic. It is like with people and guinea pigs or rabbits or geese - we can get attached to one, like it a lot - and still eat their cousins without blinking an eye. Exactly because we dont consider them us.



Unless, of course, your argument is that you can't have any emotions if your soulless. And if that's the case, why did Angelus do anything he did? Why aren't they all just zombies or robots?

I think I tried to explain my view on soullessness, human morality and emotions as best as I can above. But to reiterate - being able to experience basic animistic level emotions or even enjoy art does not make vampire able to love or empathize with humans. Because they have demons embedded in their hearts and that makes them carriers of demon morality and demon set of behavioral rules. It is that simple.

Stoney
29-07-12, 07:40 PM
See above - and once again to quote Whedon here indirectly - a soulless demon can be affable - the main difference is that they don't relate their pursuit of happiness to the suffering they might be causing. Humans do. that's what makes human love different from lust, desire to mate, satisfaction from possession, pride etc. Empathy.

I think I tried to explain my view on soullessness, human morality and emotions as best as I can above. But to reiterate - being able to experience basic animistic level emotions or even enjoy art does not make vampire able to love or empathize with humans. Because they have demons embedded in their hearts and that makes them carriers of demon morality and demon set of behavioral rules. It is that simple.

But all of your ideas fall apart the moment that Spike (with his demon in concurrence) chose to go and fight for a soul. That wasn't out of lust that was out of a pure desire to be a better person for love and to be loved. It is what is unique about him for me. I think what you are saying about demons can, a lot of the time be said to run true, but it isn't that simple or Spike's story just doesn't work. There is no way around that and I honestly feel if you don't/can't see that then you miss some of the most salient points and drivers about his journey (in itself and also in comparison to Angel's path).

dorotea
29-07-12, 09:28 PM
But all of your ideas fall apart the moment that Spike (with his demon in concurrence) chose to go and fight for a soul. That wasn't out of lust that was out of a pure desire to be a better person for love and to be loved.

I don't see how my ideas fall apart here. Lets agree that neither of us will convince the other of our respective PoV's, but at least let me try to explain a none-Spuffy-rose-tinted-glasses PoV that does not make Spike into a sparkly unique vampire but still does not make his soul-getting quest a mistake. Spike supposedly leaves because he is disgusted with himself - being a demon with a chip that prevents him from embracing demon morality ( humans equal cattle) and yet not being able to comprehend what did he do wrong. I cannot see how he could fully understand that rape is a heinous act - because for a demon is is fully acceptable and encouraged form of foreplay. It never failed him before with Dru ( tie her up and torture her until she loves me again). He also (later) confesses to being a serial rapist of young humans - so the act itself should not really disgust him out of a sudden - what disgusts him is that he is rejected again , even after he tried his best to make the human ( part demonic) woman he wants to want him back. Love of a demon is still a very selfish and basic emotion so want it is for the lack of better word. Spike wants *to be hers* - as in he wants her to want him back. And his inability to be hers as he is is what drives him to seek change. I mean... if he truly wanted *just * a soul - not the soul as an element lacking that would make him desirable by the girl, he did not need to go all the way to Africa and get tortured for his effort. Willow is right here in SunnyD - run a few streets and ask for a soul - what's easier than that ?


It is what is unique about him for me. I think what you are saying about demons can, a lot of the time be said to run true, but it isn't that simple or Spike's story just doesn't work. There is no way around that and I honestly feel if you don't/can't see that then you miss some of the most salient points and drivers about his journey (in itself and also in comparison to Angel's path).

I think Spike's story works perfectly fine the way I described above. It is not very romantic true, but heck it is so much more poignant when the guy gets a soul so he 'can be hers' as in 'wanted' by her, and gets something that instead makes him realize how selfish his whole pursuit of her was - and how unfair to her. And then it hits him why what he did was so bad. And in the end - it makes him sacrifice himself for her - which is the truest embodiment of human - not demonic - love.

TimeTravellingBunny
29-07-12, 10:05 PM
Vampires luck major 'device' that makes them 'people' - a soul. And that was brought up by Joss Whedon , not me.
Really? When did Joss Whedon say that vampires are not people?

I'll tell you what Joss Whedon did say: that Spike loved Buffy when he was soulless, even though that love was possessive and selfish.



Plus vampires 'eat' people because they don't consider themselves part of peoples tribe, they consider people 'cattle' at best, or happy meals on legs if you want to go poetic.
They consider humans as cattle. The word "people" is a bit trickier and should be more expansive than that. Surely any sapient intelligent beings should be considered people - say, if we actually encountered sapient aliens.

And since the only differences we actually see between souled and soulless vampires in the verse are in whether they have conscience, internal moral compass, and empathy - that would actually exclude many humans from your definition of "people". For starters, psychopaths aren't "people" by your definition.



I think I tried to explain my view on soullessness, human morality and emotions as best as I can above. But to reiterate - being able to experience basic animistic level emotions or even enjoy art does not make vampire able to love or empathize with humans. Because they have demons embedded in their hearts and that makes them carriers of demon morality and demon set of behavioral rules. It is that simple.
So you're saying that Angel can't feel love or empathize with humans? You do realize that souled vampires still have demons "embedded in their hearts"? Therefore, everything you said should apply to souled Spike and souled Angel just as much as to the soulless vampires.


I don't see how my ideas fall apart here. Lets agree that neither of us will convince the other of our respective PoV's, but at least let me try to explain a none-Spuffy-rose-tinted-glasses PoV that does not make Spike into a sparkly unique vampire but still does not make his soul-getting quest a mistake.
Who said anything about Spike being unique? (Any more than everyone is a unique person, that is. ) He was in unique circumstances, having a chip in his head and then living for years next to humans including the Slayer. But as for vampires having feelings and feeling love - that's nothing unique to him, every vampire we've seen had feelings, and several of them felt love for someone.

This whole "it's not love because it's not 100% pure and unselfish and positive and healthy" reasoning is absurd. What you're really saying is that it's not Good Love, or what you deem worthy of the lofty name of love. That definition of 'love' would mean that at least some 90% of humans never felt love... Heck, I'm not sure if anyone can be said to ever have felt "love" by those standards.

As Tim Minear pointed out in an interview: yes, soulless vampires can feel love, but love isn't always a positive thing, it often makes people do terrible things.


He also (later) confesses to being a serial rapist of young humans - so the act itself should not really disgust him out of a sudden - what disgusts him is that he is rejected again , even after he tried his best to make the human ( part demonic) woman he wants to want him back.
That makes no sense. Why would he only decide to do it in Seeing Red then? Why not in As You Were? Why not in Crush? Why did the writers think that they needed to have Spike do something awful, and that the AR was that, that would make him realize he needed to get his soul back? According to you, he could have simply decided to do it when Buffy dumped him in AYW or when she previously rejected him in S5.

And it's also textually not what happened - his words weren't "why did she reject me?" but "What have I done? - Why didn't I do it?" - feeling guilty, and then wondering why he's feeling guilty. "It (the chip) won't let me be a monster, and I can't be a man. I'm nothing." Spike decided to get his soul back because he finally realized that he was stuck in between being a monster and a man, and that he had to finally resolve that identity crisis - and he decided to resolve it by becoming a "man" rather than going back to being a "monster", so he would be "the kind of man who would never..." (the part of his speech from Beneath You that you choose to conveniently ignore).



I mean... if he truly wanted *just * a soul - not the soul as an element lacking that would make him desirable by the girl, he did not need to go all the way to Africa and get tortured for his effort. Willow is right here in SunnyD - run a few streets and ask for a soul - what's easier than that ?

LOL what?! :roll: Where did you get that from? Willow is not the Resident Soul-Giver. If she were, why hasn't she been giving vampires souls left and right?! :s Instead of Buffy dusting vampires, Willow should be giving them souls! She only performed the curse on Angel that was already done once by Gypsies and the elements of the curse got handed to her on the disc.

And I don't even know what point you think you're making. If Spike had been able to simply get a soul from Willow, why wouldn't he have done it? What does his motive have to do with it?

You're just making up things that aren't in the text of all.

Maggie
29-07-12, 10:59 PM
I don't see how my ideas fall apart here. Lets agree that neither of us will convince the other of our respective PoV's, but at least let me try to explain a none-Spuffy-rose-tinted-glasses PoV that does not make Spike into a sparkly unique vampire but still does not make his soul-getting quest a mistake.

I think it takes anti-Spike-tinted glasses to deny that Spike was capable of love -- real love -- before the soul. He allowed himself to be tortured in order to protect Dawn because he didn't want Buffy to be in the kind of pain she'd have had something happened to Dawn. He did that at a time when he was very much on the outs and had zero chance with Buffy -- which is why he'd made himself a Buffybot. Nor did he run off to tell Buffy what he'd done in the hopes of getting back in with her. He explained what he did while thinking he was talking to the bot.

Lots of folks will try to find some way to call that 'selfish' -- because of the dogma that no-soul ==> incapable of anything genuinely good. But that's trying to fit the facts to fit a preconceived notion. If you asked anyone unfamiliar with the show to describe Spike's sacrifice for Buffy and Dawn it's inconceivable that they'd say "well, obviously it's a limited selfish form of love". On the contrary.

We can also point to Spike being obviously proud of the fact that Buffy treats him like a man (The Gift).

He just did have good impulses prior to the soul. Purely good impulses. The problem is there was a lot more to him than just those good impulses. What Spike also had were a lot of demonic impulses and sensibilities that made it impossible for him to not lapse back into doing some dark things. He thought what the demons were doing to Sunnydale in Bargaining looked like fun. He really didn't understand why Buffy was tied into knots when she thought she'd killed Katrina. Above all he didn't see how much damage he was doing to Buffy in their relationship, and that blindness got epitomized in the AR. So he felt he needed to go get a soul. He couldn't go back to just being a monster, but he also couldn't be a man.

He's a complicated fellow. But I do think the show is quite clear about why he went off for the soul. He was trapped in no-man's land and he had to make a choice -- demon or man. He chose to be a man, or at least as much of one as any vampire can be. That's a *good* choice to make.

And yes, that makes him unique. Some vampires have been known to viciously murder people who threatened to force a soul on them. Spike went half way around the world to fight for his. Personally, if I were a fan of Angel's rather than of Spike's, I wouldn't try to deny this difference. Instead, I'd emphasize that Angel's uniqueness and heroism manifests itself in Angel's ongoing struggle to not give in to a demon that is NOT on board with the program. He could just give up and it'd be a lot easier for him if he did. But he doesn't. That's really admirable, and Spike just doesn't have that same kind of struggle. In some ways Spike has it easier because -- for whatever reason -- he's got a demon that could decide to fight for a soul. Angel doesn't have that, but it makes his struggle more epic and compelling.

Basically they are two great stories, and I think it's demeaning to the overall story to try to deny one in order to privilege the other.

Artea
29-07-12, 11:29 PM
Talk about an exercise in futility. All interpretations of Spike's story require extreme mental gymnastics and ignoring chunks of canon, so I don't really see how one claim their interpretation is the correct one. And before anyone jumps on me, yes, that includes my own interpretation as well. Heck, the writers themselves pretty much concede the farcical nature of the story with such scenes like Riley using a plastic stake or Willow encouraging Spike to kill and eat her.

Stoney
29-07-12, 11:37 PM
That makes no sense. Why would he only decide to do it in Seeing Red then? Why not in As You Were? Why not in Crush? Why did the writers think that they needed to have Spike do something awful, and that the AR was that, that would make him realize he needed to get his soul back? According to you, he could have simply decided to do it when Buffy dumped him in AYW or when she previously rejected him in S5.

And it's also textually not what happened - his words weren't "why did she reject me?" but "What have I done? - Why didn't I do it?" - feeling guilty, and then wondering why he's feeling guilty. "It (the chip) won't let me be a monster, and I can't be a man. I'm nothing." Spike decided to get his soul back because he finally realized that he was stuck in between being a monster and a man, and that he had to finally resolve that identity crisis - and he decided to resolve it by becoming a "man" rather than going back to being a "monster", so he would be "the kind of man who would never..." (the part of his speech from Beneath You that you choose to conveniently ignore).



I think it takes anti-Spike-tinted glasses to deny that Spike was capable of love -- real love -- before the soul. He allowed himself to be tortured in order to protect Dawn because he didn't want Buffy to be in the kind of pain she'd have had something happened to Dawn. He did that at a time when he was very much on the outs and had zero chance with Buffy -- which is why he'd made himself a Buffybot. Nor did he run off to tell Buffy what he'd done in the hopes of getting back in with her. He explained what he did while thinking he was talking to the bot.

Lots of folks will try to find some way to call that 'selfish' -- because of the dogma that no-soul ==> incapable of anything genuinely good. But that's trying to fit the facts to fit a preconceived notion. If you asked anyone unfamiliar with the show to describe Spike's sacrifice for Buffy and Dawn it's inconceivable that they'd say "well, obviously it's a limited selfish form of love". On the contrary.

We can also point to Spike being obviously proud of the fact that Buffy treats him like a man (The Gift).

He just did have good impulses prior to the soul. Purely good impulses. The problem is there was a lot more to him than just those good impulses. What Spike also had were a lot of demonic impulses and sensibilities that made it impossible for him to not lapse back into doing some dark things. He thought what the demons were doing to Sunnydale in Bargaining looked like fun. He really didn't understand why Buffy was tied into knots when she thought she'd killed Katrina. Above all he didn't see how much damage he was doing to Buffy in their relationship, and that blindness got epitomized in the AR. So he felt he needed to go get a soul. He couldn't go back to just being a monster, but he also couldn't be a man.

He's a complicated fellow. But I do think the show is quite clear about why he went off for the soul. He was trapped in no-man's land and he had to make a choice -- demon or man. He chose to be a man, or at least as much of one as any vampire can be. That's a *good* choice to make.

And yes, that makes him unique. Some vampires have been known to viciously murder people who threatened to force a soul on them. Spike went half way around the world to fight for his. Personally, if I were a fan of Angel's rather than of Spike's, I wouldn't try to deny this difference. Instead, I'd emphasize that Angel's uniqueness and heroism manifests itself in Angel's ongoing struggle to not give in to a demon that is NOT on board with the program. He could just give up and it'd be a lot easier for him if he did. But he doesn't. That's really admirable, and Spike just doesn't have that same kind of struggle. In some ways Spike has it easier because -- for whatever reason -- he's got a demon that could decide to fight for a soul. Angel doesn't have that, but it makes his struggle more epic and compelling.

Basically they are two great stories, and I think it's demeaning to the overall story to try to deny one in order to privilege the other.

Both quoted for excellent points that saved me typing time!!

And I do think Spike is pretty unique because of the drive, the desire to fight for a soul.



Spike wants *to be hers* - as in he wants her to want him back. And his inability to be hers as he is is what drives him to seek change. I mean... if he truly wanted *just * a soul - not the soul as an element lacking that would make him desirable by the girl, he did not need to go all the way to Africa and get tortured for his effort. Willow is right here in SunnyD - run a few streets and ask for a soul - what's easier than that ?

Not much which is the problem. It is so much more than being 'wanted' by her. He says he doesn't want to be the kind of man who... he is blatantly distressed about what he did and if you can't go with what the text specifies then you will see what you want regardless of what I say.

There is little self discovery, redemption, development with treating a soul like you can go down to the corner shop and pick one off the shelf. Spike wanted to deserve his soul. He wanted to fight for it and gain it for himself or die in the process by not being worthy of earning it. Your point only emphasises how much more it was than what you are suggesting. Because if it was all that shallow then he would have just tried to get one the easiest way possible. He didn't.

Spike loves Buffy soulless. He loves her so much and so significantly that he can take that step. The 'vamp' you describe wouldn't have even seen the issue in what he did, why in hell would he have been driven to do what he did. The significance of CHOOSING to go and FIGHT for a soul with the demon in situ in his heart next to the love which drives him to be as close to a 'man' as he can manage is immense. Strip away his ability to love and his desire to be better and reduce it to possession, lust, etc etc and it removes the poignancy of his arc. Angel struggles and fights in a way that Spike never will because the soul side by side with the demon isn't as 'natural' to him. It is what keeps their stories and their choices post soul different and interesting.

dorotea
30-07-12, 02:15 AM
I think it takes anti-Spike-tinted glasses to deny that Spike was capable of love -- real love -- before the soul.

On the opposite, it takers extreme wank and aversion to being logical to maintain that Spike was capable of love before the soul, and yet he went for attempted rape option. My interpretation makes him at the very least redeemable and potentially likeable after all the serial rapist , love's bitch (aka sex addict ) crap that the writers unfortunately put him through. If he is not capable of truly understanding his crime/s at the time of its commitment it actually leaves him open to being forgiven. On the opposite, if Spike is fully capable of love in its human sense - i.e.e understanding that love is sacrifice then his insistence of forcing himself on the object of his current obsession is truly a violation - as in he knows he is in the wrong, he knows what true love should be - and he goes for an attempted rape anyhow because satisfying his urgent momentary need of sex is more important at the moment...

Maggie
30-07-12, 05:50 AM
On the opposite, it takers extreme wank and aversion to being logical

Huh. I could have sworn that I was a devotee of logic and reason. I may fail, but certainly not because I *want* to avoid being logical. Really, if you want to haul ad hominem accusations out of your arse, you should go for the claim that I lack logic, not the much harder to sustain claim that I WANT to lack logic.


to maintain that Spike was capable of love before the soul, and yet he went for attempted rape option.

You see, in my world, people have all kinds of mixed motives. Angel can love his friends but still wipe their memories from them. He can be committed to being a champion but still try to lose his soul. He can love Buffy and still spend a year trying to beat her down so that she'd be defeated enough to turn into a goddess for him.

In my world, people aren't all good or all bad. They are a jumble of things. I'm good to my students, working hard to help them think logically. I'm tender with my animals. Cheerful and warm with my friends. That doesn't keep me from also snarling at people on the internets some times, or having a bit of a rage when someone cuts me off on the road. Heck I can some times yell at my darling dog when she does something naughty -- even though I do love her very much. My father loves me very much -- he also verbally abused me for my entire childhood. I just don't think it's a matter of *logic* that someone who is capable of genuinely loving acts can therefore not be capable of quite awful acts. As an *empirical* matter I'd say most people are mixed bags. I'm sure that the people who know you in real life think much more highly of you than do I -- because they get to see the positive traits you undoubtedly have, whereas all I can see is what happens on line. And vice versa, no doubt. I'm a much nicer person than I expect you would imagine that I am.

Anyhoo. Spike is a mixed bag. He loves Buffy. He also didn't see that his love was hurting her. And he also didn't hear her when she pleaded with him to stop. He was horrified when he realized what he was doing, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. And it doesn't mean he doesn't love her. Anymore than the fact that Angel brutalized Buffy for a year both physically and emotionally means that Angel doesn't love Buffy. You always hurt the one you love.


My interpretation makes him at the very least redeemable and potentially likeable after all the serial rapist , love's bitch (aka sex addict ) crap that the writers unfortunately put him through. If he is not capable of truly understanding his crime/s at the time of its commitment it actually leaves him open to being forgiven.

I don't really follow your reasoning here. I think everyone is open to being forgiven... so maybe that's the difference we have. Angel had a soul when he tried to murder Wesley. He knew what he was doing. Yet Wesley forgave him, as did most of the audience. Angel had a soul when he put Satsu in the hospital. He knew that it's wrong to batter women and put them in hospitals, I assume. And I also assume that he can be forgiven for that.

Do you disagree? Is it your claim that anyone with a soul who does something bad cannot be forgiven? Because if so, I'm at a loss at how you could be a fan of Angel's. He tried to lose his soul by screwing/raping Darla. I'd say that's something that needs forgiving. Do you not?


On the opposite, if Spike is fully capable of love in its human sense - i.e.e understanding that love is sacrifice then his insistence of forcing himself on the object of his current obsession is truly a violation - as in he knows he is in the wrong, he knows what true love should be - and he goes for an attempted rape anyhow because satisfying his urgent momentary need of sex is more important at the moment...

Well, I don't think Spike was aware of what he was doing as he was doing it. He was horrified at himself, if you recall, after he came back to himself when she threw him to the wall. But yeah -- pretty much I think people can get caught up in things that allow them to either be unaware of the harm they are doing to loved ones or to rationalize it some how. Angel rationalized working for a year to thoroughly demoralize Buffy, did he not? My father rationalized all the verbal abuse. I can't think of anyone who loves who does NOT sometimes hurt the one they loved -- often badly. When someone is murdered the number one suspect is always the spouse. And of course that's just the extreme. Husbands know how to say nasty things to their wives and vice versa. Parents can be cruel to their children and vice versa. Friends can get in some licks. It's part of the human condition. It's why forgiveness is so necessary to us. If on your view love is only love if we NEVER hurt the other -- then I really don't think there's any love in the world at all. I can't think of a single relationship that hasn't involved hurt -- often inadvertent, sometimes deliberate -- but always, always, we do hurt the ones we love. It's part of the human condition.

To work with the text of the show -- Buffy tells us why she forgives Spike. She doesn't say she forgives him because she realizes that he was soulless and didn't know what he was doing. She says:

BUFFY: You're not alive because of hate or pain. You're alive because I saw you change. Because I saw your penance.

SPIKE: (lunges violently at her, but chains hold him back) Window dressing.

BUFFY: Be easier, wouldn't it, it if were an act, but it's not. You faced the monster inside of you and you fought back. You risked everything to be a better man.

Smart girl that Buffy. I don't care what Willow says.

Stoney
30-07-12, 08:28 AM
On the opposite, it takers extreme wank and aversion to being logical to maintain that Spike was capable of love before the soul, and yet he went for attempted rape option.

If he wasn't capable of love and was as you describe what in the world possessed him to go and risk his existence to fight for a soul. Your interpretation strips him of the very thing that makes it even vaguely feasible for a soulless demon to choose to do this. I mean good grief if he felt like you say he could have just gone and found a darn sight easier lay!!!!


My interpretation makes him at the very least redeemable and potentially likeable after all the serial rapist , love's bitch (aka sex addict ) crap that the writers unfortunately put him through. If he is not capable of truly understanding his crime/s at the time of its commitment it actually leaves him open to being forgiven. On the opposite, if Spike is fully capable of love in its human sense - i.e.e understanding that love is sacrifice then his insistence of forcing himself on the object of his current obsession is truly a violation - as in he knows he is in the wrong, he knows what true love should be - and he goes for an attempted rape anyhow because satisfying his urgent momentary need of sex is more important at the moment...

It was an attempted violation. I don't believe he did realise what he was doing at the time, at that moment he was lost in his emotions. In addition, they had a very abusive relationship which had included dubcon on both sides previously and Spike, in that moment, was desperate to attain the only connection she had ever let him have. And she did let him have it, repeatedly, despite telling him she found him disgusting and that she didn't want him. He was horrified when he realised what had happened, when he looked at her and realised that he hadn't heard her, hadn't been aware and that she had really been trying to stop him. James Marsters is an excellent actor and it was abundantly clear what Spike was feeling as he came to himself when Buffy kicked him away. If he didn't love her then he would have possibly told her she was a c0ck tease or tried again or shrugged and walked away to see if Harmony was still in town. Your assertion that he doesn't love her because he tried to rape her only works if it was a clinical decision that he selected out of his action options. It very, very clearly was not that.


BUFFY: Stop!!!

She gives him one last shove with her Slayer-strength and Spike goes flying backward, crashing into the sink and the wall. Buffy gets to her feet, holding her robe closed with one hand. It's torn so that one of her shoulders is exposed.

Spike gets up, panting and staring at her.

BUFFY Ask me again why I could never love you.

Spike looks like he's just realizing what he was doing.

SPIKE: Buffy, my god, I didn't-

BUFFY: (angrily) Because I stopped you. (quieter) Something I should have done a long time ago.

A tear runs down Buffy's face. Spike stares at her looking horrified.


There is one difference between soulless Spike's reaction to the AR and souled Spike's imo. Soulless Spike went to get his soul to be hers and to be loved because he didn't want to be the kind of man who would have done that. But Spike understood what he had done on a different level after gaining his soul and doubted he was worthy of Buffy to a degree that he never had previously. He was incredulous about being forgiven, Spike viewed himself differently with the soul. S7 is, to a great degree, about how Spike forged himself into the champion he became, how he took the part of himself that loved and expanded it beyond his own selfish wants (Buffy S6) and he was able to use his strength of purpose and his love to save the entire world.


Is it your claim that anyone with a soul who does something bad cannot be forgiven?

But yeah -- pretty much I think people can get caught up in things that allow them to either be unaware of the harm they are doing to loved ones or to rationalize it some how... If on your view love is only love if we NEVER hurt the other -- then I really don't think there's any love in the world at all. I can't think of a single relationship that hasn't involved hurt -- often inadvertent, sometimes deliberate -- but always, always, we do hurt the ones we love. It's part of the human condition.

Well quite. Love does not exist if it can only be truly found within someone with no imperfections and who never is negatively motivated by that love. I would love to hear an example of who does show love under these constraints.

beech
31-07-12, 01:04 AM
Hi all.
I entered this thread to read quotes and became engrossed in the discussion. Very interesting read. Unsure if I can add anything of note. I always liked Spike. I found his reaction to his change of circumstances fascinating.

My all time favorite Spike quote is:


"You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not goin' around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story."

sueworld
31-07-12, 10:51 AM
Welcome to the thread/board beech. I hope you'll post more. :)

Here's a thing. I nabbed his from Buffy confessions on Tumblr.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7xpe8sYdq1r1puh0o1_500.jpg

Well, does anyone think It would have fitted Spikes character more, because I don't. Imo stupid ideas are well, still stupid whichever character you'd pinned this nonsense on.

Stoney
31-07-12, 11:57 AM
Urk. No. :down:

Angel was able to be swayed because of his desperate desire for heroic redemption, that is his main driver and consequently his weakness. I actually think Twilight works for Angel, personally. Spike would not have done that to Buffy and would not have been taken in by the idea that something which went against his very idea of how to treat the woman he loved was necessary for the purposes of 'destiny'. Spike would have said 'bugger that' loud and clear straight away. I can't think of a single way in which it works for Spike's character to be Twilight and would just assume that the person who said it is not a Spike fan as I honestly think it shows a lack of understanding of the character.

I don't have much else to add, I'm trying to not be too emotive in my response as I am pretty irritated by the mere suggestion tbh. :rolling:

vampmogs
31-07-12, 12:10 PM
It wouldn't have fit Spike. Back before Twilight was revealed the most logical suspects were always Angel or Giles. Both characters were guilty of making decisions for Buffy, both would act in their own interests if they thought it was for the greater good and both have been willing to sacrifice innocents when they’ve felt it necessary. Spike’s characterisation never really fit with Twilight’s modus operandi. He isn’t one for waging a yearlong campaign against his enemy (“I got bored”) and he’s never felt it has fallen on him to singlehandedly save the world. In Spike’s world Buffy is his hero whereas in Angel’s world he is. He’s the Champion, the PTB’s golden boy, the apple in W&H’s eye, the prophetic vampire in the Shanshu Prophecy, so it makes sense he’d buy into the idea that “it falls on him to avert disaster.” And as even Allie said, if Twilight had approached Spike (or Buffy) it would never have worked because Spike wouldn’t be tempted by the kinds of things it was offering.

It was always a better fit for Angel and the clues were there right from the beginning. Buffy and Twilight’s first confrontation takes place in a cemetery, which Joss described in the Chosen DVD commentary as the “iconic” place for their relationship, and he attacks right in the middle of Buffy talking about her past loves. We have the panel of Twilight pulling Buffy in close which is the exact shot used in Innocence when Angelus grabs Buffy in the hallway (“things are about to get very interesting”). We have Twilight telling Buffy that “he knows that move, Slayer” as she tries to hurl the scythe between his legs, which is of a course a reference to Buffy splitting Caleb in half which Angel was present for. We have Twilight’s humorous “itchy neck” moment which was both a fun clue that he was a vampire and, perhaps, a vague reference to his being decapitated in Angel: After the Fall. We have Twilight (and Riley’s) reaction to the word “spike” in Retreat which in hindsight was a dead giveaway. We have Angel’s silhouette loom over Buffy in After These Messages. And Twilight’s whole plan of “stripping Buffy of her moral certainty” and slowly torturing her for a year is reminiscent of Angel’s sordid past and what he did to Drusilla and what he had previously tried to do to Buffy back in S2.

If Twilight had pulled off that mask and it had been Spike it would have been a total cheat. All the clues pointed to Angel.

As for the audience? No, I really can’t imagine the Spuffy fandom would have reacted well to Spike waging a campaign of terror against Buffy, being duped into becoming a villain, and ultimately killing Giles. People are already paranoid that DH has it in for Spike as it is so I can’t imagine him being Twilight would have went down smoothly. The only reason I can think of as to why somebody might be under the impression that the fandom would have reacted better if it had been Spike is that he gets to have the great apocalyptic sex with Buffy and proclamations of great love. However, from what I’ve been able to tell, it’s always been a great misunderstanding when people think Spuffies (or Bander fans) were jealous of these developments, and with good reason. No sane person could ever want their couple reunited under such horrible circumstances and it would never bode well for the ship. Most people certainly wouldn’t have responded more positively seeing as how – and I say this as both an Angel and Buffy/Angel fan – both Spike and Spuffy have more fans in fandom which just means even more people upset. To say it wouldn't have went down well, is an understatement.

TimeTravellingBunny
31-07-12, 12:35 PM
As for the audience? No, I really can’t imagine the Spuffy fandom would have reacted well to Spike waging a campaign of terror against Buffy, being duped into becoming a villain, and ultimately killing Giles. People are already paranoid that DH has it in for Spike as it is so I can’t imagine him being Twilight would have went down smoothly. The only reason I can think of as to why somebody might be under the impression that the fandom would have reacted better if it had been Spike is that he gets to have the great apocalyptic sex with Buffy and proclamations of great love. However, from what I’ve been able to tell, it’s always been a great misunderstanding when people think Spuffies (or Bander fans) were jealous of these developments, and with good reason. No sane person could ever want their couple reunited under such horrible circumstances and it would never bode well for the ship. Most people certainly wouldn’t have responded more positively seeing as how – and I say this as both an Angel and Buffy/Angel fan – both Spike and Spuffy have more fans in fandom which just means even more people upset. To say it wouldn't have went down well, is an understatement.
There are people who think there's something about the season 8 Bangel to be jealous about? :err: :confused3: Wow... that just shows a profound lack of understanding for the story, the show/franchise and its messages, and the reasons why the majority of the fandom was upset by the Twilight arc. Season 8 was really awful to Bangel, if they had done that to Spuffy I would really think that Joss has someone come to hate Spuffy and wants to parody and destroy it, but the dubious OTT proclamations of love wouldn't be IC, certainly not on Buffy's side - Spuffy never had that overblown romantic facade and was always more about suppressed and unspoken feelings that are hinted at or shown in action.

I agree that Spike would never work as Twilight. He would tell Twilight or any other higher force "bugger off". He's not that obsessed with destiny and willing to listen to the "higher forces", and Twilight would know that Spike is a "loose cannon" and impulsive and straightforward guy who would never be either willing or able to wage a year-long campaign of terror, deceit and manipulation. Not only he wouldn't have agreed to do that, but even if it was to someone he didn't care about rather than to Buffy, he'd just get bored.

sueworld
04-08-12, 07:55 PM
Saw this old lj essay linked to on the current Mark Watches site. It's entitled

Captain Cardboard, or How I Learned To Stop Seething And Love "As You Were"

http://theohara.livejournal.com/162286.html

Trying to make the best of a poor episode?

Artea
04-08-12, 08:16 PM
That is quite possibly the most idiotic fanwank I've ever read for something Buffy-related - and that's saying a lot. So Riley spends an incredible amount of effort, time, money, etc. to frame Spike...when he could just walk into his crypt and simply stake him at any time, without any repercussions? Yes, that makes total sense. You've convinced me. Yup.

EDIT: And why the hell would Riley jeopardize his career and endanger his own life? He knew everything there was to know about the eggs (like the fact that they had to be frozen). According to this fanwank, he deliberately put the eggs in a situation in which they would hatch, after which they would've gotten out and slaughtered people, which would have gotten Riley penalized and/or fired. And Riley was in that crypt when those eggs hatched, so he was risking his own life.

Jack Shaftoe
04-08-12, 08:39 PM
Oh, no it couldn't have been Spike, he was framed! Because if he weren't it would be bad writing. True, the episode has like ten huge plot holes. But guess what, if Spike were framed it's even worse writing since Riley's supposed motives for that are even less plausible than the idea of Spike being arms dealer. Might as well go with MikeB's theory that Spike cast a spell in Becoming to prevent Acathla from swallowing the world. For a character who is supposedly such a great example of gray there seems to be an awful lot of people ready to contrive an excuse for each and every bad thing he ever did.

sueworld
04-08-12, 09:16 PM
Yes, the international arms dealer that doesn't even own a phone. Yeah, nice one. :lol:

Imo If the writers wanted to go down that route then maybe they should have fleshed it out a wee bit better?

Tennyoelf
04-08-12, 09:40 PM
I honestly believe Spike when he said he was holding them for a friend. I don't think he was the dealer, maybe one of Spike's poker pals was the dealer. But holding the eggs for his demon pal without thinking about what that entails seems very IC to me for Spike. And it also works in the sense soulless Spike wouldn't understand the harm of dong so, especially if his friend is going to pay him. Plus, it would be fun, being bit of the villain again.

So yeah, I don't think Spike was the dealer but I do think he played a part and was doing something idiotic and bad by keeping them for a friend...and not on ice (maybe that was the fun part?).

Riley just found out Spike had the eggs and quickly made the assumption that Spike was the doctor, as he has a bunch of ill will towards Spike and wouldn't second guess that assumaption.

Stoney
04-08-12, 10:46 PM
Wow, I never even realised there was much contention over AYW. I was soon skim reading that article. Look, I adore Spike, he is my favourite fictional character ever and as an English lit student in my youth he has had a lot of competition! But one of the things that makes him so great is the depth of his character and the journey he has had.

The reason I didn't read the essay closely was because I could see quite clearly I was just not going to be on the same page as the writer. Firstly, I don't want to burn Seeing Red. Without Seeing Red Spike would not have hit realisation that he wanted more of himself. Yeah, Buffy was still his inspiration but it was as much about the man he wanted to be able to be. Next, the sex behind the tree was in that setting to show that Spike wished to be let into her life, into her house but that he was taking what connection she was allowing although it wasn't satisfying him deeply, there is a desperation to touch, to hint, to see if she may let the barriers down but not to feel rejected. He needs to persuade her to go behind the tree because she didn't invite him in. This is why it can't be in the graveyard because that would be Spike accepting that he will never be invited in and that isn't really what he wants, he wants it to be real.

I then started to get tied up in the start of the mental gymnastics that were obviously going to be used to blame Riley for the eggs and relieve Spike of the burden. I started skim reading. Look Spike may have been roped into it for a friend and got himself mixed in the deal for a bit of cash. The whole 'doctor' thing isn't very him but being roped in to something that seemed like easy cash is. He was lying about having them downstairs and tried to stop them finding them he was not shocked they were there because he. was. involved. Perhaps he wanted the money to help Buffy, that is the best fanwank intention I can give him, because nothing changes that he was doing the wrong thing. At the time he said to Buffy "You know what I am. You've always known. You come to me all the same." That is not denying involvement, Spike quite clearly knew they were in his crypt but he is calling her on expecting him to not do something stupid (regardless of intentions). Getting involved in this sort of plan for cash is very predictable of Spike at this point and Buffy should have seen that as possible. I'm sure he didn't know they were dangerous in an immediate sense because I strongly believe he wouldn't have put Buffy at risk like that, let alone himself, which lends to his 'friend' line being true. Because yeah, Spike as an international military trader is ridiculous. A bit of lackey work for blood/cigarette money, totally feasible.

The idea that Riley believes Spike could be the 'doctor' is funny but Riley was never the sharpest tack. Truly successful Machiavellian behaviour is difficult, it requires extreme intelligence Riley simply does not possess. His prejudice could have blinded him here but there is no reason to believe he suddenly knew about Buffy and Spike and was delighted by his genius in suddenly setting up the vampire for some elaborate vengeance. It just seems ridiculous. The idea that the writers would structure this entirely hidden background story of how Riley set Spike up... I say ha, ha, ha, haaaa, what a farce. The point of the whole episode is for Buffy to pull away from the side of Spike that can't be the man he wishes he could be, that she wishes he was so that she was able to allow herself to love him ("I can't love you"). She has to start to want more for herself. Then in Seeing Red he has to see the difference and want more for himself too. Both of them need to turn away from who he currently is to eventually embrace who he strives to become.

As I said, I love the character but it has to be with his mistakes. IMO you can't remove them without removing an integral and important part of his story and what makes him so perfectly imperfect.

Maggie
04-08-12, 11:52 PM
Oh, no it couldn't have been Spike, he was framed! Because if he weren't it would be bad writing. True, the episode has like ten huge plot holes. But guess what, if Spike were framed it's even worse writing since Riley's supposed motives for that are even less plausible than the idea of Spike being arms dealer. Might as well go with MikeB's theory that Spike cast a spell in Becoming to prevent Acathla from swallowing the world. For a character who is supposedly such a great example of gray there seems to be an awful lot of people ready to contrive an excuse for each and every bad thing he ever did.

One article does not "an awful lot of people" make, does it? I'd say the vast majority of Spike fans take Tenny's view. It's highly implausible that Spike was a sophisticated international arms dealer. But it is very plausible that he agreed to hold the eggs for cash for someone, and being sans moral compass, didn't see the need to ask questions about what those eggs were, etc. Quite possibly wouldn't have cared if he'd been told -- though it's unlikely he'd have kept them in his crypt where they could endanger himself or Buffy if he'd known.

Jack Shaftoe
05-08-12, 12:20 AM
One article does not "an awful lot of people" make, does it?

Let's just say this article isn't the first time I have seen this particular "theory". Nor is it an isolated example of fans blindly defending their favourite. All characters have such fans, mind you, not just Spike (the theory that Xander covered for Dawn in OMWF immediately comes to mind). But in Spike's case things are funnier than usual because the very same fans who won't shut up about how flawed and three-dimensional Spike is also go to great lengths to try to explain away any of his crimes/mistakes that can possibly be explained away.


But it is very plausible that he agreed to hold the eggs for cash for someone, and being sans moral compass, didn't see the need to ask questions about what those eggs were, etc.

Yes, sure, I can totally see Spike doing plenty of bad things to earn some money but the guy is a survivor. He wouldn't want to know about the possible dangers for himself, if not for other people. Plus, why would this arms dealer go to a guy who helps the Slayer and who would be defenceless if any humans come to try and steal the eggs? Why didn't this Doctor come to punish Spike for his failure? Nothing about this plot makes much sense.

Tennyoelf
05-08-12, 12:50 AM
Yes, sure, I can totally see Spike doing plenty of bad things to earn some money but the guy is a survivor. He wouldn't want to know about the possible dangers for himself, if not for other people. Plus, why would this arms dealer go to a guy who helps the Slayer and who would be defenceless if any humans come to try and steal the eggs? Why didn't this Doctor come to punish Spike for his failure? Nothing about this plot makes much sense.

That is why I don't care for this episode, because the plot doesn't really make sense. Spike being the Doctor doesn't add up, at all, but Spike being morally dubious at this point to help a friend and make a quick buck? Spike could have lied to his "friend" (and seriously, normal bad demons aren't the best of friends) about knowing a good place to hide them from the Slayer and just put them in his crypt. If later Spike's friend went after him, Spike could threaten him with his slayer association or even just the fact Spike can hurt demons and his "friend" probably wouldn't be strong enough against Spike. As you said, Spike is a survivor. I doubt that Spike would feel bad if he had to kill his demon "friend" to save his own skin at this time.

I'm not trying to whitewash Spike here. He screwed up and did a bad thing. It was good that Buffy broke it off with him. But the other plot points of this episode stink. Or would have been better if properly explained on or hinted at.

Maggie
05-08-12, 01:56 AM
Yes, sure, I can totally see Spike doing plenty of bad things to earn some money but the guy is a survivor. He wouldn't want to know about the possible dangers for himself, if not for other people. Plus, why would this arms dealer go to a guy who helps the Slayer and who would be defenceless if any humans come to try and steal the eggs? Why didn't this Doctor come to punish Spike for his failure? Nothing about this plot makes much sense.

No, it doesn't. I reread the article that started this conversation, and I think that's actually the real motivation there. Not so much to exonerate Spike as to try to wank a whole bunch of plot holes into some kind of sense. But as you say, there are plot holes no matter where you turn in that episode, so best to leave it in gauzy focus. It's a POV episode more than anything. Riley is super-idealized because Buffy sees it that way; and everything about Buffy in that episode seems super-crappy because Buffy sees it that way. None of it makes sense because Buffy's POV is so very warped. That's my wank.

KingofCretins
05-08-12, 02:50 AM
One can wank just about anything they want, and there will be holes in any plot. Doesn't change the fact that the most sensible explanation was the face value one. Spike had an ill-conceived and poorly thought out scheme that went awry... must be Tuesday. See also; blowing off the plan to attack Buffy at her school, talk about both episodes involving the Gem of Amara, talk about his "put the hostages exactly where anybody would guess" plan in Lovers Walk. Not a master strategist, never was, so he himself is the best answer to questions like "why does he not have a fridge or a phone" -- because he's also the guy who hires another vampire to help him steal a vampire invincibility ring.

vampmogs
05-08-12, 04:05 AM
"Holding them for a friend" is the most plausible explanation and, most importantly, doesn't contradict the message that the writers were trying to send about Spike - that he was still soulless and capable of this stuff.

The fanwank that Riley "framed him" not only vilifies Riley and creates a whole bunch of new plot holes (because it'd be totally OOC for him to do this not to mention a huge waste of time) but it betrays the intended message of the episode, which is why it's my least favourite kind of wank.

"Holding them for a friend" is a happy medium. It's less implausible than Spike the "International Arms Dealer" who, as already pointed out, doesn't even own a tełephone, but it doesn't let him off the hook for still holding the eggs and puting everybody at great risk. Despite what some people would like to think, not all Spike fans dislike this episode because it paints Spike in a bad light and shows him doing something bad. A lot of people just don't like it because turning Spike into The Doctor seems highly unlikely and inconsistent with what they know about him. They're fine with having Spike hold them for the real Doctor instead because it still portrays him in a poor light but is also more believeable too.

PS; Is it really nitpicky and silly that a part of me wants to leave a comment just to point out the inaccuracies of what they say about Doug Petrie? The line they cite from Beneath You was actually written by Joss, and Whedon was heavily involved in writing Fool For Love. I know it doesn't really matter but they're very adamant this wank makes sense because Petrie understands Spike and has written him so good in the past. And I'm fighting the urge to go "Well, actually..." :lol:

KingofCretins
05-08-12, 04:30 AM
"Holding them for a friend" is the most plausible explanation and, most importantly, doesn't contradict the message that the writers were trying to send about Spike - that he was still soulless and capable of this stuff.

Holding them for a friend is a sort of... irrelevant distinction, to be honest, so it's not one that I object to. It still leaves him, factually, as trafficking in demon eggs that can destroy who knows how many people, and, factually, as having done so for a quick buck to help out Buffy. Which is all the plot really requires of it. If that makes people happy to think that there is some untextually established, untextually hinted at other entity out there that was really the Doctor who was just outsourcing to Spike... okay, whatever.


The fanwank that Riley "framed him" not only vilifies Riley and creates a whole bunch of new plot holes (because it'd be totally OOC for him to do this not to mention a huge waste of time) but it betrays the intended message of the episode, which is why it's my least favourite kind of wank.

It's the lowest calibur and purpose of fanwank, really -- it completely usurps not only the plot, but also the basis upon which the plot advances the characters, for both Spike and Buffy. It redefines his entire motivation for... basically the entire season up to and through getting his soul if it was actually just him being outraged at a false accusation by Riley. It's straight BS, to put a fine point on it.


"Holding them for a friend" is a happy medium. It's less implausible than Spike the "International Arms Dealer" who, as already pointed out, doesn't even own a tełephone, but it doesn't let him off the hook for still holding the eggs and puting everybody at great risk. Despite what some people would like to think, not all Spike fans dislike this episode because it paints Spike in a bad light and shows him doing something bad. A lot of people just don't like it because turning Spike into The Doctor seems highly unlikely and inconsistent with what they know about him. They're fine with having Spike hold them for the real Doctor instead because it still portrays him in a poor light but is also more believeable too.

If anything, the worst point for Spike actually being the Doctor is how ridiculous it makes... the Doctor look. Because Spike sucked at it, clearly, so how scary is this person supposed to be that Sam and Riley cross the planet and enlist Buffy's help? Spike being a sort of diffident middle man in the whole thing at least explains his ineptitude about it.

sueworld
05-08-12, 08:45 AM
PS; Is it really nitpicky and silly that a part of me wants to leave a comment just to point out the inaccuracies of what they say about Doug Petrie?

Hum, might be a bit pointless as that discussion was dated 2004. :)

sueworld
12-08-12, 12:37 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7771aoT3Z1qbs2s8o1_r1_250.gif http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7771aoT3Z1qbs2s8o2_r1_250.gif

Saw this posted on Tumblr, and thought I'd link to it here..

Loki, the new Spike?

A Loki fans response to such a suggestion...

http://beckerbell.tumblr.com/post/29256313839/anonymous-asked-you-please-tell-me-what-was

Not a happy bunny it seems. :lol: For what It's worth I think Spikes a far better written character, but then a TV series has far longer to develop a character then a few movies.

vampmogs
12-08-12, 12:56 PM
"All his characters sound the same" is one of the silliest criticisms I've ever heard about BtVS. It is just blatantly untrue. I guess they’ve never listened to Jane Espenson’s commentary for Earshot where she talked about how she wrote a line intended for one character and then randomly decided to give it to another (sorry I can’t remember who the characters were) and when Joss went over her script he said “you wrote this for [insert character] didn’t you?” and made her change it back? The characters in BtVS all have VERY distinct voices. Buffy does not like Spike. Spike does not sound like Willow. Anya does not sound like Dawn. Xander does not sound like Giles. Tara does not sound like Cordelia etc. To claim otherwise would just demonstrate what little understanding you have of the characters.

Now, I can understand thinking that Joss recycles his character-types as you can find characters occupying similar roles throughout all his shows. But the characters in BtVS all had very distinct personalities and voices and the same line could not just be said by anyone in the cast.

sueworld
12-08-12, 12:59 PM
Maybe when she say all his characters sound the same, that she means Whedons style of humor that comes through all his characters?

Because like you I don't agree otherwise.

TimeTravellingBunny
12-08-12, 01:11 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7771aoT3Z1qbs2s8o1_r1_250.gif http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7771aoT3Z1qbs2s8o2_r1_250.gif

Saw this posted on Tumblr, and thought I'd link to it here..

Loki, the new Spike?

A Loki fans response to such a suggestion...

http://beckerbell.tumblr.com/post/29256313839/anonymous-asked-you-please-tell-me-what-was

Not a happy bunny it seems. :lol: For what It's worth I think Spikes a far better written character, but then a TV series has far longer to develop a character then a few movies.
I replied to that comment saying that a) it makes me wonder if they've actually seen BtVS, since Spike's redemption wasn't him getting rendered relatively harmless through the chip - nobody on or outside the show ever considered that redemption - it was all about the CHOICES he made: to get his soul back and fight for it, to fight on the side of the good guys, to sacrifice himself to save the world and close the Hellmouth for good. Also, "Spike doesn't focus on being lost and heartbroken" - WTF?

b) But I agree that Spike and Loki are nothing alike, and as a Spike fan I'd also be pissed off, if I didn't think that Joss is not serious and is simply referring to the fact that they're both villains played by attractive actors, who have become sex symbols and have lots of fangirls.

KingofCretins
12-08-12, 01:16 PM
Noncommittal and ineffectual villains are both noncommittal and ineffectual. It's not a comparison that he pulled out of his hat. I'm sure by "Avengers 3" Loki will wake up in a cold sweat realizing he's in love with Natasha Romanoff, whom he thought he tormented but mostly just failed to faze as a villain, and reform himself to prove his love. He will then let Galactus swallow him to save the world :)

TimeTravellingBunny
12-08-12, 01:23 PM
Noncommittal and ineffectual villains are both noncommittal and ineffectual. It's not a comparison that he pulled out of his hat. I'm sure by "Avengers 3" Loki will wake up in a cold sweat realizing he's in love with Natasha Romanoff, whom he thought he tormented but mostly just failed to faze as a villain, and reform himself to prove his love. He will then let Galactus swallow him to save the world :)
Nah, silly, it's common knowledge that the person that the fandom is predominantly shipping (slashing) Loki with is not Natasha, but Loki's adopted brother Thor, so if you're gonna go that way, uh... :err:

sueworld
12-08-12, 01:24 PM
Yeah, I also agree they're absolutely nothing alike, but I don't trust Whedon. Maybe later down the line Loki will get a chip implanted in him by Shield. :lol:

And yeah, the biggest Loki ship is 'Thorki'. The 'new' Spangel. :lol:

KingofCretins
12-08-12, 01:45 PM
Nah, silly, it's common knowledge that the person that the fandom is predominantly shipping (slashing) Loki with is not Natasha, but Loki's adopted brother Thor, so if you're gonna go that way, uh... :err:

What does slash preference ever have to do with what actually happens in fiction?


Yeah, I also agree they're absolutely nothing alike, but I don't trust Whedon. Maybe later down the line Loki will get a chip implanted in him by Shield. :lol:

And yeah, the biggest Loki ship is 'Thorki'. The 'new' Spangel. :lol:

Certainly sounds pretty thorki.

I don't get the "they're absolutely nothing alike" bit. Methinks the Spike fans doth protest too... kid themselves. I don't think I could work up the energy to try to act like Topher and Xander and Wash are "absolutely nothing alike", or that Willow and Kaylee are "absolutely nothing alike". Yeah, I could never imagine Spike getting in a rueful "if it's all the same, I think I'll have that drink" if one of his villainous plans was foiled. Maybe it takes the 4th dimensional thinking, you're comparing the floundering villain Asgardian to the reformed vampire, not to the floundering villain vampire.

sueworld
12-08-12, 01:49 PM
Well for a start as they did say Spike can plan, but he's more in impulse kinda guy when he was unsouled, also he's not an Norse god. :lol:

Maybe you can't see the difference because you're not particularly invested in either character?

KingofCretins
12-08-12, 01:58 PM
Well for a start as they did say Spike can plan, but he's more in impulse kinda guy when he was unsouled, also he's not an Norse god. :lol:

Maybe you can't see the difference because you're not particularly invested in either character?

Frankly, I think that's why I'm not falsely protested there are no similarities, because I'm not trying to protect a favored character from being a Nth-less special of a snowflake. There's just no point in pretending there aren't pretty identifiable threads throughout Joss' work... anyone's work, really, but certainly Joss'. And it's just sheer madness to suppose that Spike -- one of his most preeeeesciouuuus and dear toys -- isn't going to be evoked in later characters he creates or gets to interpret.

I did have a funny (to me) mental image when Joss first said this, though -- a video edit of the Hulk's crowning moment of awesome with Loki, but with Spike and his black leather duster flapping around as he goes. Alas, I have absolutely no skill or inclination to bring the animated .gif in my mind to fruition, or it would already be my avatar :)

sueworld
12-08-12, 02:03 PM
one of his most preeeeesciouuuus and dear toys --

No, thats Willow. I don't think Whedon is drawn to 'cool characters'. He'll use them to get audiences If he discovers they're popular, but If left to his own devices I somehow don't he's that invested in them.

And yes, I know Spike got a good innings in the TV show, but I think other writers and audience response helped push that.


because I'm not trying to protect a favored character from being a Nth-less special of a snowflake.

What, like you tried to do with Xander over on the comics thread the other day? :)

KingofCretins
12-08-12, 02:20 PM
No, thats Willow. I don't think Whedon is drawn to 'cool characters'. He'll use them to get audiences If he discovers they're popular, but If left to his own devices I somehow don't he's that invested in them.

And yes, I know Spike got a good innings in the TV show, but I think other writers and audience response helped push that.

"Writers and audience response" helped shape the last two televised seasons of the show as though he were named in the title? You can't expect to be taken seriously asking like Spike is just this constantly victimized character with whom Joss has no interest. He was supposed to die 8 episodes into his arc. And don't feed me a line about how it was all audience response; "School Hard" aired on 9/29/97, "What's My Line, Part II" aired 11/24/97. In a pre-twitter, pre-facebook age, do you suppose it was a massive letter writing campaign based only on "School Hard" and maybe "Halloween" (10/27/97), his only two appearances theretofore, that just forced Joss to keep him around?


What, like you tried to do with Xander over on the comics thread the other day? :)

No idea what the hell you're talking about, but I'm sure you can link the post in question. You'd never be one to make that claim without a referable example.

sueworld
12-08-12, 02:29 PM
You know. The one Maggie called you on in the comics thread about Xander's involvement with the deaths in OMWF.

As she said we all like to stick up for our fav peeps. :lol:

TimeTravellingBunny
12-08-12, 02:33 PM
What does slash preference ever have to do with what actually happens in fiction?
I'm pretty sure the amount of seriousness of my response was completely fitting as a reply to your post.


I don't get the "they're absolutely nothing alike" bit. Methinks the Spike fans doth protest too... kid themselves. I don't think I could work up the energy to try to act like Topher and Xander and Wash are "absolutely nothing alike", or that Willow and Kaylee are "absolutely nothing alike". Yeah, I could never imagine Spike getting in a rueful "if it's all the same, I think I'll have that drink" if one of his villainous plans was foiled. Maybe it takes the 4th dimensional thinking, you're comparing the floundering villain Asgardian to the reformed vampire, not to the floundering villain vampire.
Well "absolutely nothing alike" would be an exaggeration, especially since it's very hard to find two characters who are "absolutely" nothing alike. But the similarities, such as they are, are superficial, and the differences are far too big to equate two characters.

Speaking of which, Topher, Xander and Wash have an obviously similar manner of talking and making jokes and geeky references, but they're still three very different people with very different emotional and ethical mindset. Willow and Kaylee? Other than the "they're so cutesy", I really can't see any similarity between those two, if you picked any two female characters in Joss' works it would be hard to find two women that have more different personalities than those two. Can you tell me one single thing that's common for them in terms of character traits and background, apart from the "cutesy" factor?

vampmogs
12-08-12, 02:36 PM
Spike is one of Whedon's favourite characters. That's straight from the horse's mouth so as far as I'm concerned there's nothing to even debate. The only person who would know who Joss's favourite characters are... is Joss himself.

I must say, I don't quite get the Spike/Loki parallels either. They're both villains (or were) but other than that I don't see a lot of similarities between them. Then again, I don't quite get the fascination with Loki in the first place? He wasn't a bad character by any means but I never saw him as the standout star of The Avengers and he is well-acted but, then, they all were.

sueworld
12-08-12, 02:43 PM
I think Tom Hiddleston brought an awful lot of sympathy to the role in Thor just as JM brought to Spike, and so Loki was already beginning to become popular amongst certain sections of online fandom even before the Avengers got finished.

So even though in the Avengers Whedon made the character more your usual 'I'll get you and your little dog too' kinda villain, the fans just kept on growing.

Hell, the character/Hiddleston practically 'owns' places like Tumblr. :lol:

vampmogs
12-08-12, 03:07 PM
I didn’t find Loki to be any more sympathetic than most of your average villains these days. I’d say it’s much rarer to find a villain who isn’t written to have at least somewhat of a sympathetic background as nobody much cares for the two-dimensional, moustache-twirling villains anymore. Loki didn’t particularly standout to me in that regard *shrugs*

But then, I wasn't all that taken with Thor. It's a good movie, I guess, but I never thought about it again after it finished watching it. Maybe it's because I've never been all that into comics.

sueworld
12-08-12, 03:10 PM
Well It takes all sorts, but considering his (quite literally) army of fans I think you may be in a bit of a minority there. :lol:

KingofCretins
12-08-12, 04:32 PM
Well "absolutely nothing alike" would be an exaggeration, especially since it's very hard to find two characters who are "absolutely" nothing alike. But the similarities, such as they are, are superficial, and the differences are far too big to equate two characters.

Speaking of which, Topher, Xander and Wash have an obviously similar manner of talking and making jokes and geeky references, but they're still three very different people with very different emotional and ethical mindset. Willow and Kaylee? Other than the "they're so cutesy", I really can't see any similarity between those two, if you picked any two female characters in Joss' works it would be hard to find two women that have more different personalities than those two. Can you tell me one single thing that's common for them in terms of character traits and background, apart from the "cutesy" factor?

Well, in the commentary for the 2-part "Serenity" pilot with Nathan, Joss himself explicitly draws the comparison between Kaylee and Willow as being the moral arbiter of the series; Kaylee says "I love my captain" so that we don't just immediately dismiss him for a jerk, and that Willow was that character too for most of the series. I don't remember if he said Fred was, but Fred was. So that's a slightly more substantive similarity than "cutesy".

Xander, Wash, and Topher all also similar for more than just jokey mannerisms, and for reasons that I don't really think bear up well for Xander, so you would trust I don't make the comparison idly; they are all the characters who do not always have the harsh realities clearly in hand, sort of the redeemable cautionary tales about not taking things seriously enough.

I wonder if anyone might see any similarity between Spike and Loki if we played, side by side, Spike's "imma gonna kill you Slayer" speech before getting "yes I tase you bro"'d by the Initiative, and Loki's "puny god" scene. Or Spike's Gem of Amara rage-to-head on fire to Loki's "mewling quim" speech curtailed by Natasha's abject indifference to him. They are both villains that Joss uses (when as villains, obviously, for Spike's benefit) to play against the ridiculousness of villainy, they are the villains that get comically undercut.


Spike is one of Whedon's favourite characters. That's straight from the horse's mouth so as far as I'm concerned there's nothing to even debate. The only person who would know who Joss's favourite characters are... is Joss himself.

I must say, I don't quite get the Spike/Loki parallels either. They're both villains (or were) but other than that I don't see a lot of similarities between them. Then again, I don't quite get the fascination with Loki in the first place? He wasn't a bad character by any means but I never saw him as the standout star of The Avengers and he is well-acted but, then, they all were.

Vampmogs, I have to ask... by the same reasoning that you trust that Spike is a Joss favorite, why don't you give credence to the comparison? We are, after all, talking about a comparison that he himself made.

TimeTravellingBunny
12-08-12, 04:51 PM
Vampmogs, I have to ask... by the same reasoning that you trust that Spike is a Joss favorite, why don't you give credence to the comparison? We are, after all, talking about a comparison that he himself made.

Well, in the commentary for the 2-part "Serenity" pilot with Nathan, Joss himself explicitly draws the comparison between Kaylee and Willow as being the moral arbiter of the series; Kaylee says "I love my captain" so that we don't just immediately dismiss him for a jerk, and that Willow was that character too for most of the series.
^ This may be one of the reasons why.

Let's just say that Joss can sometimes make some statements that, if taken literally and 100% seriously, will make you go "huh? You must be familiar with your own stories, so what gives?"

I mean, Willow as the moral arbiter? Hamnoo? I suspect that what he really meant is actually the same thing I mentioned as the only similarity between them: the actresses play them oh so cutesy - and Joss believes that every viewer must be so crazy about them that they will automatically side with them on anything.

KingofCretins
12-08-12, 05:07 PM
^ This may be one of the reasons why.

Let's just say that Joss can sometimes make some statements that, if taken literally and 100% seriously, will make you go "huh? You must be familiar with your own stories, so what gives?"

I mean, Willow as the moral arbiter? Hamnoo?

In seasons 1 through 3, without question or reasonable debate -- she was there to call good things good and bad things bad, and we were meant to feel those through her. Almost every character in "Welcome to the Hellmouth" we are guided to our initial impressions of through their interaction with Willow. Almost every character in "Serenity" (TV) we're guided to our initial impressios of through their interaction with Kaylee. This is that same 4th dimensional imagination thing; you seem to think one can only make these comparisons to the entire span of a character's existence, rather than the actual parallel points therein. In season 4, they did begin to abandon that role with Willow, and starting in Season 5 it really became Dawn's job. But Joss' comparison between Willow and Kaylee was so obvious it should have been intuitive, honestly.


I suspect that what he really meant is actually the same thing I mentioned as the only similarity between them: the actresses play them oh so cutesy - and Joss believes that every viewer must be so crazy about them that they will automatically side with them on anything.

I'm assuming he really meant what he really said, which was that he, authorially, created and cast those characters with that role in mind for them. So if they are cutesy, it is a function of filling that role as audience familiar, not the other way around.

TimeTravellingBunny
12-08-12, 05:17 PM
In seasons 1 through 3, without question or reasonable debate -- she was there to call good things good and bad things bad, and we were meant to feel those through her.
So we were supposed to seriously think that Xander dating Cordelia was against all the rules of God and men? :lol: That Faith should be completely unsympathetic (despite Joss talking about her as a more mature and 'humanist (?!) version of Buffy and other things that may raise my eyebrow if taken too literally, but that make even less sense if we're supposed to take Willow's opinion of Faith?) That the right way for Buffy to get over Angel in S3 was to immediately start dating the first guy who showed an interest in her? We were supposed to cheer her on when she called Cordelia or Faith names like sluts and hos? We were supposed to think that casting a de-lusting spell on Xander without his consent was the right thing to do?

The whole idea is frankly stupid ,because not all the viewers will react the same way to the characters, and patronizing, because it means that he wanted to tell the audience how they should feel. And finally, it makes no sense since it would then make Willow a one-dimensional character with a paper-thin characterization who's never allowed to do anything wrong and say or do bad things - which is absolutely not what the actual character of Willow was.

Fortunately, Joss is actually a much better writer than you'd think from many of his over-simplified statements about various characters 'functions'.

Stoney
12-08-12, 08:07 PM
I don't know who Loki is and pretty much don't give a rat's arse. :D

Spike is a special snowflake, an amazing character with an amazing story who we are lucky was created and explored in an amazing show. If another character in a different show follows a similar path or has the same arcs or, geez, likes the same nibbles and whiskey, I don't care. None of that devalues or changes Spike's character and the story that he has had and is having. It doesn't impact the character at all. So it is either a good/fair or bad/unfair comparison. Either way, it doesn't matter bugger all to me. :xd

Dipstick
12-08-12, 09:10 PM
I still haven't seen The Avengers so I can't comment on Spike v. Loki. However, there are substantive difference between Willow/Kaylee and Xander/Topher/Walsh. IMO, the closest connection is Xander and Walsh. However, Xander and Walsh are almost nothing like Topher. Walsh prizes nothing so much as his freedom. Topher is a cog in the corrupt system. Xander knows what it's like being on the bottom and abused; Topher plays god and abuses others.

Kaylee is a content follower who knows that she's a good mechanic and just sticks to that; Willow is uncontent merely following anyone without knowing "why" and is never happy with just what she has and always wants more of everything- more knowledge, more magic, more control, etc.

I generally agree with TTB over [B]King/B] that Willow/Kaylee were never intended to be the moral arbiter of the series. S1-3 Willow and Kaylee were certainly focal points of sympathy but never the moral arbiter. However, I disagree with some of the directions that TTB takes her arguments:


I mean, Willow as the moral arbiter? Hamnoo? I suspect that what he really meant is actually the same thing I mentioned as the only similarity between them: the actresses play them oh so cutesy - and Joss believes that every viewer must be so crazy about them that they will automatically side with them on anything.

As a matter of fact, there were plenty of times that Joss/the writers seemed under the impression that Willow and Kaylee were behaving unlikably and the other side against them was correct and I ended up siding with Willow and Kaylee based on the raw facts as I perceived them.

I get the impression that the writers wanted to me to think of Kaylee as more unreasonable and unlikable than I thought she was when she was calling out Simon for being cold or snotty. While I thought Kaylee had Simon's number entirely right- from his wonderful intelligent, self-sacrificing side to his "above it all" elitism.

Certainly with Willow, IMO, the writers wanted the audience to take Tara's side in their arguments a hundred percent of the time while I fervently took Willow's side in tension and/or arguments in Who Are You?, Out of My Mind, Family, Crush, Forever, Tough Love, through the tension in Bargaining, right through the decoration debate in All the Way and the keeping ingredients in Older and Far Away. I'm pretty sure we were supposed to hate Willow for telling Anya to screw herself while I was ready to hand Willow champagne and flowers. I know I was more sympathetic to Willow in Something Blue than the writers intended.


That Faith should be completely unsympathetic (despite Joss talking about her as a more mature and 'humanist (?!) version of Buffy and other things that may raise my eyebrow if taken too literally, but that make even less sense if we're supposed to take Willow's opinion of Faith?)

Willow never said that Faith was completely unsympathetic, even at the bottom trough of Willow's feelings about Faith. Willow acknowledged in Choices that Faith had a lot of tough breaks and problems and reasons to be unhappy. Willow didn't flip-flop from her stance in Faith, Hope and Trick and The Wish that a law-abiding, nice Faith is someone to feel sorry for and try to include. Willow merely argued in Choices that Faith's problems didn't truly matter in the shadow of Faith's considerable crimes despite all of the advantages and second chances that Faith did have. And the stance of the show did end up being that Faith's problems weren't an excuse for her considerable and that Faith of BTVS S3/S4 did belong behind bars.

I'd say Willow embodied a lot of the changing thoughts that the audience was "supposed" to have about Faith real time. Big fondness from Faith, Hope and Trick up until the class cutting in Bad Girls. Mounting dislike and mistrust but with a, "Maybe she's in shock; she's a slayer, how bad can she be?" through Bad Girls. A "This girl maybe belongs behind bars" sentiment after she frames Buffy and tries to rape/murder Xander. "You've chosen your side and no more chances and trust unless it comes with jail or something" in Choices and throughout the eve of the Ascension.

Willow didn't speak during the most controversial time in deciding how to really feel about Faith- after Faith showed some repentance but merely had a path of lies, violence and evil behind her in Sanctuary.


That the right way for Buffy to get over Angel in S3 was to immediately start dating the first guy who showed an interest in her?

First, we don't know if Scott Hope was the first guy to show interest in Buffy or one of several or more guys that was asking after Buffy who Willow liked best. Willow *did* like Scott Hope for being quirky and kind of old school. Second, Willow and everyone had no idea what would get Buffy over Angel. Willow seemed to be wildly in favor of anything that would do it- Buffy being a schoolgirl again, Buffy going out with them to the Bronze without the Scoobies acting couply, Giles getting Buffy to unload her secrets, etc.

Third, Buffy decides that she needs to start dating to get over Angel and goes to ask out Scott by herself, tries acting very girlfriendy in Beauty and the Beasts and begs him to not break up with her in Homecoming. Buffy didn't know how to get over Angel either but she seemed to believe that having a high school boyfriend who is a good, solid guy could be a good start.


We were supposed to cheer her on when she called Cordelia or Faith names like sluts and hos?

Willow referred to Cordelia's sexuality disparagingly only once. "1-800-I'm-Dating-a-Skanky-Ho" from Phases. I got the impression that the writers had Buffy's reaction of "Meow" and hence, wrote it in. A "Meow" but an approving "meow".

As for Faith, the writers have Buffy kind of agree with Willow again when Willow makes a crack about Faith's sexuality in Enemies. And I sensed the same approving Meow as in Phases from the writers in Beer Bad, when Willow said that Veruca dresses like Faith.

Just going based on pure surfacey impressions of what the writers wanted instead of any deeper foreshadowing or picking or choosing, I'd argue that the writers wanted the audience to truly disapprove of S1-3 Willow during: (1) her blow-up in Innocence, (2) the entire cheating arc from Homecoming through Lover's Walk, (3) the delusting spell in Lover's Walk, (4) trying to get Oz to kiss her to make Xander jealous, (5) keeping Ted's robot parts, (6) being angry at Buffy in Dead Man's Party and (7) any time that Willow seems blithely happy which makes somber Buffy unhappy (see Earshot as a prime example).

TimeTravellingBunny
12-08-12, 10:30 PM
I don't know who Loki is and pretty much don't give a rat's arse. :D

Spike is a special snowflake, an amazing character with an amazing story who we are lucky was created and explored in an amazing show. If another character in a different show follows a similar path or has the same arcs or, geez, likes the same nibbles and whiskey, I don't care. None of that devalues or changes Spike's character and the story that he has had and is having. It doesn't impact the character at all. So it is either a good/fair or bad/unfair comparison. Either way, it doesn't matter bugger all to me. :xd
Loki hasn't gotten the same or even a similar arc to Spike, and at the moment, people are just speculating that he may get a "similar" arc in the future. By that, most of them seem to mean a redemption story - but that's hardly an exclusively Spikeian arc. And then you get cheeky suggestions such as King's that Loki would wake up and find out he's in love with the Black Widow :rolling: which makes no sense since 1) Loki, unlike Spike, hasn't portrayed as someone motivated by romantic love; and 2) Loki has never been portrayed as being obsessed with the Black Widow in any way. My joke about the Thor/Loki slash in fandom, apart from being a humorous stab at the opinions of some posters that Spuffy was a result of Joss picking up onto Spuffy an extremely popular non-canon ship in the fandom at the time, also has some truth in it - minus the sexual aspect of the slash. I can't speak about the comics, but in Thor and The Avengers, Loki's motives are all about his relationships his father Odin and his brother Thor. So if there's a redemption story in sight, it would most likely be connected with them.

And I can tell you that Spike and Loki really aren't alike at all. Like I said, they're villains, they're good-looking, and they have a lot of fangirls... That's it. Who was it in this thread that described them both as "snarky villains"? That's only true of Spike - Loki isn't snarky and hasn't showed any sense of humor, he's your stereotypical baddie with a silver tongue when he needs it, who gives big Shakespearean speeches when he's openly villainous. I liked Spike from the start because he was unconventional - a punk vampire who doesn't give a crap about rituals and tradition. Loki is nothing like that. And I really didn't find him sympathetic at all in either of the two films. Sue, I'd like to know what you find sympathetic about him. His beef is "I'm gonna commit a little genocide because just found out I was adopted, and my dad wants my brother to be a king rather than me". Well, cry me a river. :D



Willow referred to Cordelia's sexuality disparagingly only once. "1-800-I'm-Dating-a-Skanky-Ho" from Phases. I got the impression that the writers had Buffy's reaction of "Meow" and hence, wrote it in. A "Meow" but an approving "meow".

As for Faith, the writers have Buffy kind of agree with Willow again when Willow makes a crack about Faith's sexuality in Enemies. And I sensed the same approving Meow as in Phases from the writers in Beer Bad, when Willow said that Veruca dresses like Faith.
I don't know why you bring that up - Buffy saying something doesn't make it right, either. There are plenty of times when Buffy said and did things that weren't commendable. I assume that they were just meant to act like flawed humans, as we all are - in this case, as high school girls being catty, rather than we should participate in their "moral condemnation" of Cordelia's or Faith's way of dressing or flirting.


Just going based on pure surfacey impressions of what the writers wanted instead of any deeper foreshadowing or picking or choosing, I'd argue that the writers wanted the audience to truly disapprove of S1-3 Willow during: (1) her blow-up in Innocence, (2) the entire cheating arc from Homecoming through Lover's Walk, (3) the delusting spell in Lover's Walk, (4) trying to get Oz to kiss her to make Xander jealous, (5) keeping Ted's robot parts, (6) being angry at Buffy in Dead Man's Party and (7) any time that Willow seems blithely happy which makes somber Buffy unhappy (see Earshot as a prime example).
Thank you for that - I was saying the first things that came to my mind (and didn't mention her cheating since one could say he knew it was wrong), my point is that Willow wasn't supposed to be a moral arbiter - and IMO, nobody was.

Dipstick
13-08-12, 12:09 AM
I don't know why you bring that up - Buffy saying something doesn't make it right, either. There are plenty of times when Buffy said and did things that weren't commendable. I assume that they were just meant to act like flawed humans, as we all are - in this case, as high school girls being catty, rather than we should participate in their "moral condemnation" of Cordelia's or Faith's way of dressing or flirting.

It's something of both. Just based on my instinctual read of the authorial intent (which is impossible to prove), there is a kind of distant, "Girls, don't call other girls 'sluts'" when Buffy or Willow slut-shame in the early seasons. But most of the time, I do get the sense that the writers would primary approvingly "meow" their snark at the Cordelias and Faiths trying to bring them down. And more to the point, that Buffy and Willow are acting as something of an arbiter of others' morals or the accurate predictors of the future storyline in the specific instances that they slut-shame in the early seasons. That becomes stronger when they're doing it together.

I mean, Willow was making an accurate character-assessment that Faith is the type to steal Buffy's boyfriend. While I disagree with King's thesis that Willow is an arbiter of morals, she is (or maybe, *was*) considered *a* moral voice and very rational observer. Willow saying that Faith is the type to steal boyfriends serves the purpose of validating Buffy's suspicions as reasonable. Buffy isn't a paranoid gal with an axe to grind against Faith. *Willow* just said it was wise to suspect Faith. When Willow disparagingly analogizes Veruca to Faith, the storyline would give a "Good call, wicked obvious" honorific.

Willow calling Cordelia a "ho" and Buffy calling Cordelia a "whore" and Xander calling Cordelia a prostitute in so many ways is not nice in the strictest sense. However, having all three of them use the same term against Cordelia does give the impression that the writers *do* find something wrong with how Cordelia will take Mitch for a test-drive if he makes varsity, how Cordelia will date frat guys because they'll inherit lots of money later, etc. And the writers are using their heroes to, however impolitely, condemn Cordelia for whorish tendencies.

Long story short, the show, particularly the early seasons, isn't as politically correct as fandom. IMO, the writers had a MUCH bigger problem with Willow keeping Ted's robot parts than Willow calling Cordelia a skanky ho. The writers had a MUCH bigger problem with Willow not following Tara's instructions and desisting practicing teleportation spells in Crush than Willow calling Faith a cleavagey slut bomb.

Again, those are my instincts about authorial intent but this is a hard debate to prove.

ubi4soft
13-08-12, 04:13 AM
I liked this post :)

http://what-ismy-life.tumblr.com/post/28946196292/he-starts-out-as-an-arrogant-villain-without-any

He starts out as an arrogant villain, without any sympathetic qualities except perhaps for his unconditional love for a female villain. Later on, he is overpowered in a fight with an enemy, and somehow gets captured. A little while after leaving imprisonment, he finds himself crippled and can no longer kill people, or even fight them. He worries that this means he has lost his identity. Throughout this time, he endlessly insults a warrior-woman who feels somewhat responsible for him. This woman is considered to be one-of-a-kind, largely due to her incredible physical strength and her defiance of traditional gender roles. After this whole ordeal, he no longer loves the woman for whom he initially promised the world and experiences a moral change of heart. He begins to use the skills he has left for what he believes to be a nobler cause. It’s also worth mentioning his beautiful blond hair and undeniably amazing face.

QUESTION: Is the man in this story Spike from Buffy or Jaime Lannister from the Game of Thrones series?

They are the same character.

KingofCretins
13-08-12, 06:04 AM
Again, those are my instincts about authorial intent but this is a hard debate to prove.

It's really not, at least not to the Kaylee/Willow point. It just takes pulling out your "Firefly" DVD set, which I will do tomorrow so I can transcribe exactly what he said, in context. And neither I, nor Joss who I was referencing, said that his goal was for the audience to agree with every freakin' word that came out of these characters' mouths, that's a strawman. I brought it up at all to prove, and it does, that Joss has no problem recognizing threads between characters between his various works, so there really is no credible reason to think he's making the Spike-Loki comparison idly, and it does in fact hold up under scrutiny unless you are looking at it with a "Spike's scar is 2.38 centimeters long, not 2.31 centimeters, JEEZ" level of specificity... which, of course, the author never has and never will.

vampmogs
13-08-12, 06:44 AM
Vampmogs, I have to ask... by the same reasoning that you trust that Spike is a Joss favorite, why don't you give credence to the comparison? We are, after all, talking about a comparison that he himself made.

Because it’s not really the same thing at all. I don’t dispute that Joss made a Spike/Loki comparison, or even that he meant what he said, I just don’t see it myself. IMO they are only similar in the most superficial of ways and I can think of other Jossverse characters I consider far more similar to Spike, Jayne from Firefly being the most obvious example.

The only comparison worth making between Joss saying who his favourite characters are and Joss saying that Loki and Spike are similar, is that on both occasions he meant what he said and I take him at his word. However, whilst it's not my place to question Joss – or anyone for that matter – on who their favourite characters are, I am able to disagree with his opinion of those characters.

Stoney
13-08-12, 08:24 AM
I liked this post :)


It seems quite easy to solve to me....

He starts out as an arrogant villain, without any sympathetic qualities except perhaps for his unconditional love for a female villain. Later on, he is overpowered in a fight with an enemy, and somehow gets captured.
Spike isn't overpowered in a fight with an enemy, he had never met the Initiative before and there was no somehow about it, they tasered him from behind, which also doesn't really make it a fight. A little while after leaving imprisonment, he finds himself crippled and can no longer kill people, or even fight them.
It wasn't a little while after but pretty much straight away for Spike, he sees Harmony and then goes to Buffy's dorm and tries to bite Willow. He worries that this means he has lost his identity. Throughout this time, he endlessly insults a warrior-woman who feels somewhat responsible for him.
In this description of events he hasn't gone to said warrior for help which is a hugely relevant plot point. Also, Buffy certainly doesn't feel responsible for Spike, they want to use him for information and consider him harmless but there is no responsibility having. This woman is considered to be one-of-a-kind, largely due to her incredible physical strength and her defiance of traditional gender roles.
Buffy isn't considered one of a kind due to a defiance of traditional gender roles. Doesn't fit the verse of BtVS unless you just take the fact that Buffy is a leader and fighter and that is hardly unheard of or is an act of defiance.After this whole ordeal, he no longer loves the woman for whom he initially promised the world and experiences a moral change of heart.
Doesn't fit for Spike really, whether he still loves Dru or not after The Initiative isn't particularly a plot point. Spike doesn't experience a moral change of heart here and because of this ordeal either. He begins to use the skills he has left for what he believes to be a nobler cause.
Again, too soon unless you are jumping forward and really you can't get to this point in Spike's story without mentioning his love for Buffy and his care for Dawn, which he undertakes for love not because it is a nobler cause, and the desire to be a better man and his fight for his soul. It’s also worth mentioning his beautiful blond hair and undeniably amazing face.
What, and not mention his eyes or his sexy bod?!!

QUESTION: Is the man in this story Spike from Buffy or Jaime Lannister from the Game of Thrones series?
Must be Jamie Lannister from GofT. :D

They are the same character.
No. They are not.

sueworld
13-08-12, 09:58 AM
You do realise that the whole Spike/Loki comparison comment is maybe more based on Joss perceiving that both have an unexpectedly huge fangirl following, and not anything to do with the actual character themselves?

Dipstick
13-08-12, 12:36 PM
It's really not, at least not to the Kaylee/Willow point. It just takes pulling out your "Firefly" DVD set, which I will do tomorrow so I can transcribe exactly what he said, in context. And neither I, nor Joss who I was referencing, said that his goal was for the audience to agree with every freakin' word that came out of these characters' mouths, that's a strawman. I brought it up at all to prove, and it does, that Joss has no problem recognizing threads between characters between his various works, so there really is no credible reason to think he's making the Spike-Loki comparison idly, and it does in fact hold up under scrutiny unless you are looking at it with a "Spike's scar is 2.38 centimeters long, not 2.31 centimeters, JEEZ" level of specificity... which, of course, the author never has and never will.

I'd like to see that transcription on Willow/Kaylee. I don't own the Firefly DVD set and I've never seen the commentaries.

And again, I can't offer a Spike v. Loki comparison because I haven't seen The Avengers yet.

TimeTravellingBunny
13-08-12, 01:32 PM
I can't talk about Jamie Lannister since I haven't seen GOT yet (it's on my to watch list) but what's up with people saying that characters X and Y are "the same character"? I don't think they literally mean that the characters are interchangeable, but really, there are always similarities in traits and the storyarc between various characters, since there's only so many possible basic character types, plot points and backgrounds you can use (for instance, how many comic superheroes have parents and family members that tragically died or went missing?). That doesn't mean that the characters are not unique and original, when properly developed.

It's always possible to write descriptions that only point out the similarities and tweak things in the way that you can ignore the differences, and make characters seem more similar than they are. I remember an LJ post a few years ago where someone described the plot of Battlestar Galactica / The National Lampoon Vacation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lampoon%27s_Vacation) in such a way you couldn't know which one it was. :D

edit: Oh, here it is! It was very easy to find, since there aren't that many LJ pages that mention both at the same time! http://battlestar-blog.livejournal.com/1128758.html

(spoilers for BSG up till episode 4.10)


So we have a guy. He's got a job, kinda married to it, and his family life has kinda suffered for it. He's got a vehicle, it's kinda ugly but it works. The group sets out for a looooong trip to a fabled place everyone wants to go.

Along the way, the vehicle gets beaten up. We (the audience) start seeing a hawt woman. One character sees her and thinks she exists and gets all flustered when she's around, but nobody else sees her.

Halfway there, we meet a woman with control issues who makes our hero's life hell. She eventually dies in an ignoble manner, and we're all the better for it. The hero tosses her body aside and goes on.

After some more meandering, we get to the destination, and there's NOBODY THERE. It's a vast empty wasteland.


Now, the $64,000 question:

Did I just describe the plot of "Battlestar Galactica," or "National Lampoon's Vacation"?

Stoney
13-08-12, 01:52 PM
I can't talk about Jamie Lannister since I haven't seen GOT yet (it's on my to watch list) but what's up with people saying that characters X and Y are "the same character"? I don't think they literally mean that the characters are interchangeable, but really, there are always similarities in traits and the storyarc between various characters, since there's only so many possible basic character types, plot points and backgrounds you can use (for instance, how many comic superheroes have parents and family members that tragically died or went missing?). That doesn't mean that the characters are not unique and original, when properly developed.

It's always possible to write descriptions that only point out the similarities and tweak things in the way that you can ignore the differences, and make characters seem more similar than they are.

Well exactly. Spike is Spike. Straight character comparisons which look to the storyarc points are not actually looking at the characters being observed and are more a discussion about writing/plot similarities. It doesn't reflect on the characters themselves as they exist within their own context.

KingofCretins
13-08-12, 03:49 PM
I'd like to see that transcription on Willow/Kaylee. I don't own the Firefly DVD set and I've never seen the commentaries.

And again, I can't offer a Spike v. Loki comparison because I haven't seen The Avengers yet.

Set up, Joss had been talking about how they reshot the beginning of the episode so you could see how Mal became this cranky guy and show him in a more positive light at the start, rather than just slowly reveal it, and then immediately prior to this was saying how they reshot a scene to physicalize the environment; those are the reshoot mission statements he refers to, so he starts in on Kaylee because he is qualifying the necessity of having to show Mal less cranky at all because, well, he's got Kaylee for that.


JOSS: ... that was one of the reshoot mission statements, besides from making you less cranky, although she kisses you and says "I love my captain", and Kaylee... is kind of the heart of the piece. That is to say, when she believes the thing, I believe it. When Jewel says "this person is a good person", I'm like "yes, because you think so". She's got that Alyson Hannigan thing; when her heart is broken, your heart is broken.

Nathan: She's got the purest, the purest heart.

Joss: And that's what Kaylee's supposed to be, she's the soul of the ship.

Any regular consumers of commentary by Joss Whedon will know that he is far less than scrupulous about distinguishing actor from character in these things, as even here he blurs Kaylee and Jewel, so there's really no "out" in that he uses Alyson's name and not her character's; he uses the characters with the actor's strengths anyway. And yes, your heart does break when Willow's does (i.e. "Innocence"), and you do take reassurance when she pronounces that the Angel debate is essentially over by the end of "Revelations", and you do feel the sense of horror and violation when she finds the bodies and tells Buffy about them in "Prophecy Girl". They wouldn't have done that scene to rally Buffy back with Xander or Giles. It had to be Willow, because that's who Willow was on the show, certainly for those first several years. But everybody becomes more than their original slot over a long-running show.

TimeTravellingBunny
13-08-12, 03:57 PM
Set up, Joss had been talking about how they reshot the beginning of the episode so you could see how Mal became this cranky guy and show him in a more positive light at the start, rather than just slowly reveal it, and then immediately prior to this was saying how they reshot a scene to physicalize the environment; those are the reshoot mission statements he refers to, so he starts in on Kaylee because he is qualifying the necessity of having to show Mal less cranky at all because, well, he's got Kaylee for that.
That quote is really not the same thing as saying Kaylee or Willow is "the moral arbiter". "When she cries, your heart is breaking" is not the same thing as "you agree with everything you say". It's just about Joss' feeling that Alyson (and apparently also Jewel) are able to make you feel for them the way that nobody else does. He's said that about Alyson crying a lot of times. It doesn't imply anything about character's opinions or moral standing. A lot of people feel the same when they see a tormented look on James Marsters's face, others when they see Sarah Michelle Gellar crying, others when they see Alexis Denisof all mopey and broody.

KingofCretins
13-08-12, 04:18 PM
That quote is really not the same thing as saying Kaylee or Willow is "the moral arbiter". "When she cries, your heart is breaking" is not the same thing as "you agree with everything you say". It's just about Joss' feeling that Alyson (and apparently also Jewel) are able to make you feel for them the way that nobody else does. He's said that about Alyson crying a lot of times. It doesn't imply anything about character's opinions or moral standing. A lot of people feel the same when they see a tormented look on James Marsters's face, others when they see Sarah Michelle Gellar crying, others when they see Alexis Denisof all mopey and broody.

I could have typed out the entire post trying to draw an imaginary line between the actors and the characters on this point for you and it wouldn't have changed a thing. I all but did, in fact, qualifying that you know, absolutely know if you listen to every one of his commentaries as I have because I'm a commentary whore, that he often blurs that line. You are also mistaking (I hope) the fact that I type for myself, not for Joss. When he says, in context, that he uses a character to pronounce goodness or badness of characters and events with the understanding and intention that the audience will agree with them, that to me is moral arbitration. I said six, he said a half dozen.

To be clear, he brings it up at all, ("although she does kiss you...") because the very thing he is talking about is means by which he makes Mal less cranky. In context, he is referring to Kaylee as an instrument by which goals like that are accomplished. And he explicitly ties that functionality to Aly on "Buffy". But you can go right on ahead and dispute it because it is a proxy argument to tell Joss "NO you are WRONG" when he himself draws a parallel between his own character Spike and his interpretation of Marvel's Loki. Who is he, anyway, to think he has insight into Spike?

sueworld
13-08-12, 04:23 PM
Well considering Whedons track record with the comics, I'm tempted to say maybe he's loosing his touch with said characters? :lol:

I mean It's not like Whedon wrote every single Spike story alone/himself did he?

He did have an entire staff of writers who also helped form the character/bounce ideas off.



You cannot be seriously arguing that Joss was trying to "show insight into Spike" with that statement. Rather than, you know, making a joke about those villains' popularity and sex symbol status.


This. :)

TimeTravellingBunny
13-08-12, 04:24 PM
But you can go right on ahead and dispute it because it is a proxy argument to tell Joss "NO you are WRONG" when he himself draws a parallel between his own character Spike and his interpretation of Marvel's Loki. Who is he, anyway, to think he has insight into Spike?You cannot be seriously arguing that Joss was trying to "show insight into Spike" with that statement. Rather than, you know, making a joke about those villains' popularity and sex symbol status.

BuffySpike
13-08-12, 04:32 PM
Do you guys think Whedon has a set in stone ending for each character but he allows certain flexibilities from writers up until that point?

I often get that feeling when watching the show. Because the characters fly back and forth a lot in that, especially in season 6.

Though I often see season 6 as the consequences to the spell that Willow did in Bargaining 1.

In season 7 I feel that Joss always knew what was going to happen in the end with Spike but then watching a featurette the writers said they didn't really know what they were doing with him *side eye* ,<.<

Moscow Watcher
13-08-12, 08:08 PM
Фе the beginning of season 7 Joss said in an interview that he knew how the aseason would end/ Не didn't specify, though, if he meant Buffy empowering all the potential slayers or Buffy's relationship with Spike or both.

To me, it was obvious after the church scene in "Beneath You" that Joss plans to kill Spike in the end of season 7. So I was prepared to have my heart broken.

Dipstick
13-08-12, 09:21 PM
When he says, in context, that he uses a character to pronounce goodness or badness of characters and events with the understanding and intention that the audience will agree with them, that to me is moral arbitration. I said six, he said a half dozen.


Thanks for transcribing the Firefly commentary, King. However, I didn't read your transcription as Whedon saying that Willow and Kaylee guide the audience on whether to regard a person as good or bad. I merely read Whedon saying that Willow's/Kaylee's likability and vulnerability is used to raise the audience's empathy/protective hackles on other characters'. That's totally different from being a moral arbiter or a "character who pronounces goodness and badness".

Kaylee brings out a softer, cuddlier side to Captain Mal but the audience doesn't like Mal merely because Kaylee directs them to. S1-5 Willow brings out a more fun, loving and personally protective side of Buffy but the audience doesn't like Buffy because Willow directs them to.

Although long story short, I do recognize Whedon, the man himself, saying that Willow and Kaylee served a similar function in the story. Just wish that I've already seen The Avengers to comment on Spike v. Loki.

TimeTravellingBunny
13-08-12, 10:08 PM
Фе the beginning of season 7 Joss said in an interview that he knew how the aseason would end/ Не didn't specify, though, if he meant Buffy empowering all the potential slayers or Buffy's relationship with Spike or both.

To me, it was obvious after the church scene in "Beneath You" that Joss plans to kill Spike in the end of season 7. So I was prepared to have my heart broken.
From what I've heard, Joss planned to have Spike sacrifice himself in the Hellmouth from the beginning. (I agree that Beneath You foreshadows the sacrifice; and they explicitly foreshadowed the "I love you" in Help. [ Cassie to a confused Spike: "Some day she will tell you.") When he learned that Spike had to be in season 5 of AtS for AtS not to be cancelled, he still stuck to the Spike dying storyline, just deciding to resurrect him in AtS.

Re: What Joss meant by the Spike/Loki thing, let's also not forget the context, which pretty clearly shows that it wasn't a deep character insight: Joss was joking he would like to be Spike, or 'as we now call him Loki'. I really doubt he would mean that he was referring to the character traits - Spike may be used as a positive example if we look at where he ended up rather than where he started, but Loki? I don't think Joss would love to be a genocidal maniac with sibling rivalry/identity issues. It's far more likely it was simply him joking that he'd love to be that hawt.