May 2003 posts


Previous May 2003  

More May 2003



Follow-up to anti-Spike Salon.com article: Letters in Response -- Rob, 11:14:59 05/16/03 Fri

Salon.com posted viewer responses, and most were similar to most responses we got here last week:

http://www.salon.com/ent/letters/2003/05/14/spike/index.html

May 14, 2003

Jaime J. Weinman makes a good point about coolness, and Spike ruining the last season of "Buffy," although of course Spike isn't really bad, he's just badly written. The most interestingly written character this season is the far-from-cool Andrew: I'm in mourning for the rest of the cast.


On the other hand, Spike used to be cool and well-written. So was Oz. So I think the real problem must be the terrible, horrible, untrue-to-the-characters story lines.

Last season, Willow was (at least half of the time) badly written. This season, everybody, all of the time, except for Andrew and Anya, is boring, mopey and prone to President Bush-style speechmaking. Boring, boring, boring! Even the villains are boring. I loathe Marti Noxon. Bad writing is worse than a stake through the heart.

-- Kelly Link

Jaime Weinman's lament about Spike's alleged "ruining" of Buffy fails to take into account an important detail: The Scoobies aren't in high school anymore. Weinman is longing for a show that hasn't existed for several seasons, not just this one. Willow is now an überwitch, Xander has become a kind of unofficial watcher, and even annoying little Dawn suddenly knows how to kick ass. How is all this Spike's fault?

I happen to disagree with Weinman's assessment of the show as well as Spike's role in it. While many programs have "jumped the shark," and Buffy has veered dangerously close to doing that throughout its run (see any episode with the Initiative), Whedon and Company have always pulled it back from the brink brilliantly. In fact, Buffy is going out on a high note. Has there been a villain as straight-up creepy as Caleb in recent memory? I think not. And the First's ability to exploit the emotional chinks in the gang's armor is also quite chilling, recalling Hannibal Lecter's onion-stripping assessment of Clarice Starling during their first meeting.

As for Spike, Weinman sees him all wrong. Spike has never been the "cool guy" as she claims. He's the uncool guy trying to BE the cool guy. In life Spike was William, a pathetic milquetoast who couldn't have gotten laid in a whorehouse. His afterlife has been spent trying to reinvent himself, and after he regains his soul we once again see the insecure man he once was, now trying to live with his carnage. Sure he has his James Dean moments, but that's clearly not who Spike is.

Spike's transformation has been one of the most interesting aspects of the show, and he fits in perfectly with Weinman's celebration of the uncool. He's way off base on this score.

-- Todd Prepsky


I would just like to briefly comment on the article by Jaime Weinman. I'm sorry that the writer has so grossly misunderstood the show that he attempts to critique.

I began watching the show only because of Spike. His story resonated with me because, despite his bravado, Spike is truly the outsider. He is the one with his face pressed against the glass looking into the world that Buffy shares with her friends and wanting to be a part of that with her. He is the one who has suffered the pain of being an outcast in the face of the mocking and disdain of the core-four clique. He has been the butt of their jokes and the punching bag for the resolution of Buffy's Season 6 self-hatred issues.

Spike's journey in the name of love is the most impressive story line I have seen on television and is worthy of all the praise that has been heaped on James Marsters for his portrayal of Spike. To dismiss Spike's story with the overused Fonzie comparison is to truly deny oneself the pleasure of watching the story of a character of true depth and beauty unfold. I'm sorry Jaime Weinman can't see the beauty while wearing the blinders that are so prevalent on Television Without Pity as well.

-- Laura Adelmann


I just wanted to express my support for Jaime J. Weinman's article about the rise of Spike-decline of "Buffy" correlation. I can imagine he has been besieged by abusive and incoherent rants that berate him for daring to question the presence of this hunka hunka burning love and redemption figure on television.

The presence of Spike on the show has been, from the end of Season 2 on, an obvious manifestation of the desires of the producers to work with sexy James Marsters and his willingness to work shirtless.

I grudgingly admit, over the years, the use of Spike has had some interesting results. The sexual relationship with Buffy in Season 6 was well portrayed by Sarah Michelle Gellar as a symptom of deep self-loathing and depression. It was heartbreaking, but I felt like I was supposed to think it was H-O-T.

Spike's had some funny lines over the years, but I'd sacrifice them all to keep the focus on the core-four cast members, whose characterizations in the present season have been reduced to agents of plot movement and ridiculous exposition. Buffy's focus on Spike in the face of his conscious and unconscious decisions to hurt and kill, blindly supporting him against the wary protests of her closest friends, has made her a completely unlikable character to me -- something unthinkable for me before this season.

And I feel better knowing that I'm not alone in blaming Spike, because he ruins everything he touches.

-- Nora McGunnigle

I have watched "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" from its beginning and have read thousands of articles written about the show. NEVER have I been so upset about what someone, who is obviously so one-minded, that I've actually seen red!

The character of Spike is so much more than what the writer of this article states him as. I have watched Spike's development over the years and if anything, he HAS proven that a soulless evil demon CAN CHANGE. There was no reason for this change, other than his love for Buffy. He has repeatedly gone completely against his nature (evil souless creature) and proved himself in more ways than one.

Spike has ALWAYS showed more humanity than any other vampire on the show or of any mentioned. He has shown his ability to love and has worn his heart on his sleeve countless times. That fact alone sets him apart from all the others.

The quest to regain his soul was in itself an act that goes against everything he is. An evil soulless creature that "should not" care one way or the other, but he did and does. Why? Because of the love for a woman who cannot return his love because of moral issues. He did not regain his soul for any other reason than to prove to Buffy that he does indeed love her. To show her he CAN be a good man despite what he is.

James Marsters is a brilliant actor who has created a character with more depth than any other on the show in my opinion. He cannot be faulted for his ability to bring a character to life and to create a fan base for that character. There are people who hate Spike, and that is their right to do so, just as it is mine to love the character. For the author of your article to personally attack James Marsters for his ability to "act" and bring his character to life is a low blow.

The development of Spike over the years has been what kept me interested in the show. I doubt very seriously I would have continued watching if it weren't for the Spike story line. The chemistry between James Marsters and Sarah Michelle Gellar was amazing to watch and I will miss it. And as for Spike ... I'll be tuning in each week to catch him on "Angel," to see where he goes and what happens next. A character like that won't be forgotten and I'm sure thousands will agree with me.

-- Rhonda Hefner


Jaime J. Weinman makes some very interesting and valid points in his article "Why Spike ruined 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer,'" and this is not a letter calling for the "all shirtless Spike, all the time" show. However, I think she misses one central issue that Spike's back story has brought out beautifully: Spike was a geek and he retains a good part of that geekiness inside his sleek, platinum exterior.

When he was mortal, he wrote bad poetry, doted on his mother, and generally had no clue how to act around women. Hell, the "cool kids" made fun of him and his nickname "William the Bloody" originally referred to his writing being "bloody awful." When Spike gets to join the popular gang (Angel, Darla and Drusilla), he tries over and over to prove himself worthy -- he affects his cockney accent, starts smoking, dresses better, has lots of sex with Dru, but it doesn't, truly, make him fit in. He's with the popular gang because the beautiful psycho girl likes him, not because he, himself, is cool.

If Spike really were a jackass who hated the nerds, would he have felt genuinely sorry for Anya when Xander (in a fit of horrid cowardice) left her at the altar, or found Willow hottest when she wore the "fuzzy pink number"? In many ways, Spike is the outsider among the in group. He speaks the truth when no one wants to hear it, he ineptly, and, at points, disturbingly demonstrates his obsession with Buffy, and he plays on every "cool guy" cliché without ever making it work out exactly right.

Don't blame Spike for the decline in the show. Underneath the leather and the tight pants and the punk rock, he's still the sad, bad poet trying to win the girl.

-- Alice Stanulis

I agree with much of your article -- but you are forgetting how Spike began -- as a poetry-reading, mouth-breathing Mama's boy, universally humiliated by women. (He still has a twisted addiction to being beaten on emotionally and physically by women, Buffy and Drusilla being cases in point.) He is as much of a reinvented character is Willow is -- the leather jacket is a facade. The difference is, we got to witness Willow's transformation firsthand.

And therein lies the problem -- we don't get to witness anything firsthand anymore. Anything that passes for human interaction, we are told about, not shown, and there's no growth, just repetition (Willow's Kennedy "thing" -- I can't call it a relationship -- for starters). We are hit over the head with anything the writers want us to know through the characters' exposition rather than watching it unfold ourselves. They've begun talking everything to death on "Buffy" even worse than on "Charmed."

(Not to mention the gross errors of continuity the writers have allowed through -- sending characters traipsing through an Initiative that was supposed to be "destroyed and filled with cement.")

The show has suffered dreadfully and perhaps irredeemably the past two seasons, but I can't blame Spike all alone.

-- C. Lofters


Mr. Weinman, I imagine today's e-mail bag is stuffed fulla unfriendly messages from folks who just can't bear you shedding the harsh light of day on beloved "Buffy." The show, they'll argue, is just like it was -- no, better! Well, take heart, Mr. Weinman, this isn't one of those letters. I think the show has changed.

Praise for uncool kids, meant to counterbalance their constant denigration, is almost always founded on some expectation of future retribution and assimilation: When you're rich and handsome, oh spotty nerd, then you'll show 'em. And sure enough, some of those geeks grow into handsome lawyers and swanky socialites. But what about those that don't? What happens to the poor saps who didn't fit in then and can't fit in now? Well, I suppose they write articles like yours.

You're right, "Buffy's" characters have changed. Joss Whedon's famous theme for the sixth season was "Oh, grow up!" By then, the Scoobies had literally and metaphorically overcome social isolation and needed to move into adulthood, which may be less romantic and more ambiguous, but no less terrifying. Appropriately, that season's big bad villains were three boys who couldn't face these challenges, who still dreamed of fighting high school battles for high school fantasies. Should the show have defended the left behind? That would've justified the chronically uncool, but would it have been right, for its characters or us? Don't we ever get to grow up?

"Buffy's" greatness never rested in its allegiance to those that don't fit in; rather, it constantly delighted because it forced its characters to grow, and allowed them to fail. Even in its final seasons, the show presented choices we'd rather ignore. And between change and stasis, I'd choose change. Because we have no choice.

-- Jeremy Eric Tenenbaum


There is a whole faction of Buffy fans who hate Spike. I don't, because except for Xander, Spike is the only character who can make me laugh.

Spike didn't ruin the show. We have the lack of an engaging plot, the lack of an interesting villain, an overcrowding of faceless girls who are simply there to be killed off, and an unlikable heroine; but it's all Spike's fault?

Willow's character was neutered in Season 6 with her ridiculous "addiction to magic," which in Season 7 became something else entirely, but with the same result -- she's afraid to help out. Seriously, if Willow wasn't afraid to use her magic, she could solve all the problems Buffy is having in one episode. So just to keep the plot going, Willow's sidelined.

Xander has always been the bravest person on the show. He has no special powers and doesn't have a vampire's strength and agility, yet he throws himself into every battle without hesitation. This is still the case, but when they focus on Xander's personal life it's all Anya, Anya, Anya. How is that Spike's fault, again? And speaking of mass murderers ...

Don't forget that Anya and Andrew are both killers. Andrew is a personal favorite of mine, but he had a very important episode this season in which he faced the reality of his deeds. He's not just some brave geek whom people unfairly scorn. They don't trust him because of his past. At least that story line came to some kind of resolution when Buffy suspended him over the hell mouth! Anya, just one season ago, killed a houseful of frat boys. She faced no comeuppance other than the death of a friend and the loss of her demon status, and nobody has forced her to face anything except that she has friends.

I, too, am upset about the scene that was cut from "Beneath You." But it's the least of the problems the show has this season. The show hasn't done the most it could do with any of the characters, including Spike.

And one last thing. Spike was also a misfit -- before he was a vampire. This was established in Season 4 or 5. The revelations in recent episodes concerning Spike's past do not necessarily contradict what came before. I wouldn't be surprised if Joss Whedon planned a lot of the current Spike story line from the very beginning.

-- Helen Mazarakis



[> Thanks for posting these, Rob -- Scroll, 12:04:21 05/16/03 Fri

I find myself teetering back and forth on this issue. Reading everybody's defence of Spike, I remember how much I've always loved his fun and his snark, the way he was an outsider and a "self-made man". On the other hand, I agree that the writers haven't written Spike as wisely as they could have, to the detriment of Spike, the other characters, and the show itself. (Also agree Willow was written fairly haphazardly in S6 as well.) Granted sometimes a break-out character will simply capture the imaginations of the writers, and the creative flow just can't be stopped. But I admit (my own personal opinion) that I've found Buffy's focus on Spike in the middle part of this season quite tiresome. So yes, I do wish the "core-four" could interact more, and that Dawn or Anya could have more to do.

As for Spike, Weinman sees him all wrong. Spike has never been the "cool guy" as she claims. He's the uncool guy trying to BE the cool guy. In life Spike was William, a pathetic milquetoast who couldn't have gotten laid in a whorehouse. His afterlife has been spent trying to reinvent himself, and after he regains his soul we once again see the insecure man he once was, now trying to live with his carnage. Sure he has his James Dean moments, but that's clearly not who Spike is. [...]

-- Todd Prepsky


I agree with this assessment entirely. Spike's (perhaps unconscious) desire to reinvent himself, to move away from William the Bloody Awful Poet, has been one of the highlights of his character. I love him for it. JM has brought a lot of depth to Spike by showing glimpses of the nerd beneath the cool guy exterior. (Though sometimes I wonder if Spike even remembers how to be that nerdy poet anymore, or if the manufactured image has become the real thing.)

I also agree with C. Lofters:

And therein lies the problem -- we don't get to witness anything firsthand anymore. Anything that passes for human interaction, we are told about, not shown, and there's no growth, just repetition [...]. We are hit over the head with anything the writers want us to know through the characters' exposition rather than watching it unfold ourselves.

Granted, some episodes/characters are better than others when it comes to showing, not telling. But still, I feel a little uneasy whenever I hear Buffy saying how it's a war, girls are going to die, blah, blah. Because for the longest time, nothing really happened. They kept preparing and preparing for war, but there was no enemy to fight. The evil was so intangible (that's not a pun) which, granted, might have been the point. Okay, Caleb has now come and gone, and there were fights. But there was definitely a stretch in which I kept scratching my head and thinking, "Um, please show me this big war you're fighting, and stop talking about it please?"

But no, I don't think Spike has ruined Buffy. I don't think Buffy has been "ruined" at all. I do, however, feel the pacing has dragged a lot and that some characters were neglected in favour of not-so-interesting story-lines (IMHO). I also found the resolution to "Lies My Parents Told Me" rather controversial, and the fandom reaction even more controversial. Still, Buffy was my first love, and my first fandom. I'll always be grateful for the six years/seven seasons we've been given.

[> [> Proving my "Buffy" love -- Scroll, 23:32:32 05/16/03 Fri

Reading my above post, I realise that while I did defend Spike against the accusation that he's ruined Buffy, I didn't really balance out my comments on why I don't think Buffy has been ruined at all. Don't know if anybody will read this but I'll do this anyway for my own sake. So in no particular order:

- Willow: her confrontation with Warren's "ghost", and her break-down over being the cause of Tara's death (as she believed) was very touching and real. Kennedy may be the total opposite of Tara, but I rather like her anyway. It's taken Willow a while to trust herself and her power again, but I think mastering herself will be key to winning the day.

- Dawn: has quietly grown up and proven her worth. She may not have any super-powers, but she has been working hard to help Buffy and the Potentials, without any desire or expectation of recognition. Her love for her sister and friends is inspiring.

- Xander: has been a highlight this year. A calm, steady, loyal presence that reminds me exactly why Buffy has managed to survive being the Slayer these seven years. Watching him lose his eye was the single-most shocking, disturbing, and ultimately painful Buffy experience for me, even more so than Buffy, Joyce, Jenny, or Tara's deaths.

- Spike: his desperate cry for forgiveness and understanding in in the church moved me to tears, and his dedication to training the Potentials, to being a source of emotional support to Buffy, and to being a warrior for the side of Good are all reasons why redemption is also about actions, not merely words.

- Cassie: She was one of the best one-off characters I've seen on Buffy. I cried when she died, and felt bad for Buffy when she felt guilty for being unable to save her.

- Andrew: his geeky self-delusion made me want to shake him hard at times, but in the way that I sometimes want to do to myself. I recognised something of myself in him. His sorrowful acceptance of his actions and their consequences was one of the most poignant moments for me this season.

- Faith: returning to the place of her downfall took courage. She doesn't expect to be welcomed back, to be forgiven, or to become friends. She only wants to help. Having walked a mile in Buffy's shoes, she's learned that while she had felt alone way back in S3, Buffy also feels alone, even while surrounded by friends.

- Buffy: poor girl, she's had it tough all year. Behind every one of her speeches, I could feel the misery and pain she was experiencing over the knowledge that people were going to die. She has recognised her own failure to connect with others and has made some steps to reach out, which I believe (I don't know for sure, since I'm not spoiled) will lead to her uncovering the key to her power.

So therein lies my Buffy love.

[> [> [> Thank you for that Scroll. Lovely post. -- shadowkat, 20:19:06 05/17/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> Very welcome, s'kat! -- Scroll :o), 16:56:21 05/18/03 Sun


[> Oh Kelly Link, how could you? -- ponygirl, 12:06:20 05/16/03 Fri

My new favourite author of the moment, too, alas! Read her book! Ignore her hate-on for Marti Noxon!

[> [> Re: Oh Kelly Link, how could you? -- MaeveRigan, 14:43:53 05/16/03 Fri

You said it, ponygirl. I read the letters, missed Kelly Link's authorship of this particular one. It's not worthy of her. Or maybe it is--shall I rethink my assessment of her writing?

[> [> [> Naw, I still love her stories -- ponygirl, 16:46:14 05/16/03 Fri

Though this is the second interview I've read where she's bashed Marti. Maybe she's fallen in with a bad crowd. We should do a cyber-intervention to get her to come by the board. She'd come to re-evaluate season 7, and possibly let us hang out at her house. Then she'd dedicate all of her books to us. Yeah, that'd be cool.

[> Succubus Club interview response -- Anneth, 12:46:47 05/16/03 Fri

The most recent Succubus Club interveiw, with David Fury and Tim Minear, responded to the Salon article also. Both Fury and Minear spoke at length about the author's claims, and basically concluded "oh, please!" - but it seemed that for Fury, in particular, the article hit a raw spot.

[> [> s'kat's transcript below. -- Anneth, 13:27:25 05/16/03 Fri

note to self - next time, read entire board before posting!

[> Thanks, Rob. Good to see this. -- Dariel, 12:49:01 05/16/03 Fri

Glad to see such articulate defense of Spike the character (except for the Marti-bashing). While agreeing that he wasn't so well written this season, that Buffy has been too focused on Spike and ignoring her friends, and that we didn't get enough of the other core characters this season.

Jeremy Tenebaum's snark at the reviewer, about "poor saps who couldn't fit in then and can't now," was dead on. Adults should know better than to be antagonized by the "cool guy in the leather coat." "Cool" is just a facade used to hide one's weaker, but essentially human, traits. I know it's sacrilege, but I bet even Oz was hiding something behind his cool!

[> [> Re: Thanks, Rob. Good to see this. -- Rob, 13:16:14 05/16/03 Fri

"I know it's sacrilege, but I bet even Oz was hiding something behind his cool!"

...Which is one of the reasons the werewolf metaphor worked particularly well for his character. If you haven't checked out my annotated Phases, there are quite a few notes that delve into detail about werewolf mythology and how it could be seen as the metaphysical price Oz had to pay for his otherwise outwardly cool and calm exterior. His innermost angers and frustrations manifested themselves externally.

Rob

[> [> [> Wow. Very interesting! -- Dariel, 17:33:29 05/16/03 Fri

I didn't start watching BtVS regularly until S5, so I'm still catching up on some things. Thanks for the insight on Oz.

[> Nice place to put this ("Lies" revisited) -- KdS, 14:10:46 05/16/03 Fri

Note: the following was originally posted on Rahael's Live Journal, and linked to from my review of last night's eps. To avoid invading the privacy of some third parties, I've decided to post it on the board. It should be noted that it contains some comparisons between Angel and Spike, which I know are usually discouraged but are vital to my points.

I won't go into much detail about my specific problems with the episode, as I've explained them fairly clearly in the original post in my thread "I Spit on Your Grave" on the ATPO board, and my subsequent responses. Rather, this is meant as an explanation of what I subsequently realised were my underlying feelings, and what that says about choices ME have made in portraying Angel and Spike since their mutual soulings.

A few days ago, I was reading a collection of essays by the American pop culture essayist Greil Marcus (In the Fascist Bathroom, if you want to chase it up yourselves) when I came across a piece that seemed to speak very clearly to my uncomfortable feelings with Lies. As preamble to a review of a John Cale gig, Marcus talked about seeing a television documentary which included an interview with an American former soldier who had murdered civilians in an atrocity during the Vietnam war. The soldier was very clear about admitting his guilt for these appalling crimes, and seemed genuinely contrite, but felt the need to constantly explain how horrible his own earlier experiences during the war had been, how he'd been brutalised, and how he'd come to be capable of committing this massacre. And it seemed to Marcus that, as these explanations poured out, unchallenged by the interviewer, the soldier himself came to be reinvented as the main victim of the situation, and the nameless Vietnamese people who he had slaughtered disappeared from view. That essay was written in 1980 or so, but the same criticism has been made of many later Vietnam films, novels, TV shows and so forth, even those unambiguously opposed to the war. We are so much in the point of view of the American soldier that the war, the Vietnamese nation, the people themselves, seem to be a backdrop to tell stories about American suffering and moral ambiguity and personal growth. And while this comparison in itself may seem a little tasteless, that's my discomfort with Lies, that the focus on Spike's past life and psychological pathologies, and how he overcomes them, blots out Nikki herself, who only gets to appear in a few brief moments in the teaser, and whose skin Spike reclaims as armour against the world, and Wood, who Spike celebrates this break-through by defeating and emotionally demolishing.

Here's where the comparisons with Angel begin. Before I start properly, I want to make clear that Angel has done some quite monstrous things with a soul during the 20th and 21st centuries, and that I feel that Buffy needs to be told some of the lowlights if any final reconciliation between them that ME might be planning isn't to insult her character. But one thing that Angel has never done is to speak about his past victims with contempt, and it has never been implied that those crimes are being portrayed primarily as a means to his personal development. The only line from Angel which approaches Spike's in Lies for callousness is the regrettable "chicken" line in Sense and Sensitivity, and nothing like that has been repeated. Daniel Holtz manipulated and sacrificed other human beings as collateral damage in his war against Angel with a callousness and cold blood which makes Wood's actions pale into insignificance, but Angel never allowed himself to dismiss Holtz's motivation. In a way, Lies proves why Angel does feel guilty about his actions without a soul, which has puzzled some viewers. If he didn't, even though he may not be fully morally responsible, the fact of hearing a crude dissociation from the same mouth that committed those crimes seems viscerally, emotionally indecent, however you may intellectually understand it. What if, after the events of Revelations, Angel had told Xander that Buffy would never love him as much as she did Angel, and that he (Angel) didn't give a shit about Jenny because she picked the fight with him and he wasn't that person any more?

It's now almost a full week since I saw Lies, I've heard the defences, and my opinions really haven't changed. I'll probably be getting the season on VHS or DVD, but I think instead of Lies, I'll skip back and watch Storyteller a second time. Just for that perfect ending, in which Andrew Wells coldly faces and states his guilt for murdering Jonathan, and then finds himself utterly lost for words, because short of a total change of subject, what words can meaningfully illuminate such an admission without devaluing it?

[> [> Re: Don't Buy It -- Rina, 15:11:48 05/16/03 Fri

I'm sorry, but the main problem I see with your argument is that you're judging Spike by what he said; not by what he did.

He said that he couldn't care less about Nikki Wood's death. Yet, he spared Robin Wood's life, because of the latter's mother. Why is it that so many people who are either anti-Spike, or who didn't care for his actions in LMPTM, fail to see this? It's as if they've forgotten the old axiom: "Actions speak louder than words".

Angel can moan to the stars all he like. Words are empty. Actions aren't. Angel should be satisfied with his decision to get on with his life and help others.

And why should Spike openly express remorse to a man who had just tried to cold-bloodedly kill him? You say that Wood was thinking of his mother. Sorry, I don't think that revenge is a good reason to attempt murder.

[> [> [> Actions -- Grant, 11:30:56 05/17/03 Sat

About the only positive action Spike did is letting Wood live. But he let him live only after beating him to within inches of his life and telling him that his mother never actually loved him. He basically left Wood shattered and broken both inside and out. That seems more like the actions of a vampire, leaving someone alive so that they can suffer, than someone with a soul.

And Spike's decision not to kill Wood was not exactly a very moral one. It was not that killing is wrong or I'm going to show you that the monster that killed your mother is finally gone by letting you live. It was, I liked your mom, so in her memory I'll let you live. But I have nothing against killing you again at any moment, so don't make me angry. In that context, it certainly does not seem like Spike is acting like someone in touch with their soul.

I usually avoid the Angel comparisons myself not so much because they are controversial but because Angel had a lot more time to get his act together. However, in this case I think the comparison is useful to show how far Spike still has to go before he truly becomes a good person rather than a vampire who happens to have a soul. Holtz certainly led a lot more serious attacks against Angel and all of his friends during a much more tense and critical time for Angel, but Angel responded by acknowledging that Holtz had a valid reason for wanting revenge and by constantly attempting to save Holtz and bring him back to fighting for the good guys. He did not tell Holtz that his daughter did not love him and wanted to be vamped and then proceed to be beat him to within inches of his life and then walk away, saying, "See, I let you live. I truly am a good person now."

For Spike, meanwhile, the only moral he seemed to learn from the Nikki Wood situation from a newly ensouled perspective is, "She was a Slayer, I was a vampire, that's how it works." Essentially, he was saying that it was acceptable that he killed Holtz's mother because that's the way of the world. While he certainly has a point that soulless vampires tend to kill people and Slayers are there to stop them, the problem arises in that fact that his soul has not seemed to change this perspective for him. To be a champion he can't be someone who does the easy and wrong thing with the justification that that is the way the world works. He needs to be someone who acts like the world is a better place than it is and does the right thing accordingly. That is a lesson that he still apparently needs to learn. I only hope it takes him less time than Angel to learn it.

And, as a bit of aside for actions versus words, actions are important, but words tell us what a character wants us to know about them. So when Spike says things that sound unredeemed, that means that he either is unredeemed or that he wants everyone to think that he is unredeemed. In either case, him talking in an unredeemed manner show that he is not really willing to fully face up to redemption no matter what his actions are. It only makes the case more damning when his actions themselves are questionable.

[> [> [> [> Thanks for the post -- oceloty, 21:00:47 05/18/03 Sun

Thanks for articulating the issues that bothered me about the episode.

Some early ATS S4 stuff follows -- not sure if that counts as spoilery.

I definitely agree that words, or their absence, have power, especially when motives are ambiguous. Look at Wes in ATS S4 -- his rescue of Angel (in Deep Down) says one thing, his words (in Ground State) say another. Why did Wes find Angel, and how does he really feel about him? We might or might not believe the reasons he gives, but without that articulation, it's hard to say what's going on in his head.

[> [> [> Speech is an action...if you don't think so, study Hitler, or the concept of verbal domestic abuse -- Random, 08:50:54 05/18/03 Sun


[> [> [> [> Now that's a really complex issue. -- Sophist, 14:59:26 05/18/03 Sun

Legally speaking, anyway.

At the risk of simplifying way too much, let me give some generally accurate statements as "rules":

1. The content of speech cannot be regulated by the government.

2. Actions which are purely communicative (e.g., holding up a sign or making an obscene gesture) qualify as speech and are therefore protected.

In these general senses, the concept of speech works just the opposite of that suggested by your post. In other words, not only do we not punish speech the way we do actions, we go so far as to protect certain actions the way we do speech.

This is all speaking legally, not morally. Nevertheless, I do believe we make a moral distinction between even abusive speech and abusive actions. I wouldn't take the concept of abusive speech quite as far as your post suggests.

[> [> [> [> [> Heheh, didn't suggest too terribly much, seeing as it was a NT post. But... -- Random, 16:29:23 05/18/03 Sun

While you're quite right, I certainly wasn't talking legally, since the context was non-prosecutable, i.e. Spike and Wood. Hence, the speech must be judged on moral grounds. Spike's barbs at Wood were hardly a harmless insults -- he knew perfectly well that suggesting that Wood's mother didn't love him enough and then the "don't give a piss about your mum" line were both inflammatory and cruel. They were deliberately geared to incite a reaction in Woods, cause him pain. And verbal abuse, while not considered legally as culpable as physical abuse, is nevertheless a very real, very damaging phenomenon.

While we're on the subject, inciting through speech is legally punishable. Working a lynch mob into a murderous frenzy, like helping plot a murder and staying home while it is actually being carried out, is a crime, both legally and morally. Another example can be seen in international war crimes law -- leaders who never sully their hands are held responsible not only for their actions but their speech. Hate speech is likewise subject to punishment in certain environments. Assault, for instance, can be purely speech, and is punishable, even if battery is considered worse. And, of course, there's the old "fire in the crowded theatre" principle.

But all this is extraneous. I am arguing for a moral standard here, and if one judges the moral progress of a character, one can hardly exclude examination of how that character treats others, not just physically, but verbally. A taunt, in essence, is a deliberate act of opening one's mouth and articulating the words in order to harm or incite another. Sticks and stones versus words may work in elementary school, but the real world is much more complex in how cause/effect are examined.

[> [> Re: Nice place to put this ("Lies" revisited) -- Sarand, 16:35:51 05/16/03 Fri

I don't know whether to get into this again. I read the previous thread where this was discussed at length by people who are far more articulate and philosophical than I am. I understand your problems with "Lies," and, indeed, there were some aspects of the episode that trouble me. But I find your analogies here to be inapt. You are comparing the machine-gunning, apparently, of unarmed civilians in Vietnam, who had no way of fighting back, and Angelus's murder of ordinary people (Holtz's family, including small children, and Jenny) who could not hope to match Angelus in strength or speed with Spike's killing of a Slayer who was stronger and faster than him. It's been shown many times that Buffy is stronger and faster than Spike and there is nothing to indicate that previous Slayers were any less powerful than Buffy. The fact is neither Nikki nor the Chinese Slayer were Spike's "victims" in the same sense as Holtz's family or Jenny were Angelus's "victims." Spike indeed may not feel remorse for killing Nikki as he might for his unarmed or defenseless victims. But in Spike's mind, and as we were shown in "Fool For Love," Spike bested both Slayers in fair fights. They fought, he won; but for fortuitous events (the explosion that distracted the Chinese Slayer the subway blackout that appeared to distract Nikki), he could just as easily have lost. I'm trying to understand your point of view but I just don't think you make your case with grossly disproportionate analogies.

[> [> Since you mentioned Angel -- Dariel, 18:36:57 05/16/03 Fri

Angel's current sense of morality didn't spring fully grown with his ensoulment; it is a result of long years of development, with some notable slip-ups along the way. He was, for example, still feeding after the soul, although only on "evildoers." (He obviously repented of this later, since he lies about it to Buffy). With all of his guilt and aversion to killing, he still tried to get back with Darla, as vicious a killer as one could imagine.

I agree with Sarand's points about your comparisions; fighting and killing a powerful slayer is not the same as machine gunning innocent civilians in wartime. I think that Spike has come a long way--he may not feel bad about killing the slayers, but he clearly feels bad about the innocents he's killed. That's a huge step from "I'm not good, but I'm okay" (Tough Love).

Should he feel bad about the slayers? Yes, he should, but not because he personally took their lives. They were victims of their calling, of a life they didn't choose but couldn't run away from. He respects and loves Buffy for what she is; sooner or later, he will see the tragedy of those two slayers.

I agree also with Rina about watching what Spike does, not what he says. And what he is not doing--feeding--despite the lack of a chip. I think he was chipped so long that viewers have forgotten what he's capable of (something he tries to remind Buffy about in BotN). Spike is controlling himself now, choosing not to feed. That's an important moral choice, far more important than what he might say about a slayer's death.

[> [> [> Who's Responsible? -- Malandanza, 22:13:39 05/16/03 Fri

I think it's interesting to look at the way the characters deal with guilt (leaving aside whether the characters really are responsible).

In the cases of Angel, Buffy, Faith, and recent addition Andrew, the character says "I am responsible."

In Willow's case, it's "I feel responsible." The implication is clear: she does not believe she is responsible, yet she feels some sympathy for her victims (except Warren, of course -- she "killed him for a reason").

For Giles and Wesley, "I am not morally culpable, since I did what I did for the greater good of mankind." I'd put Wood in this category as well, although he was really serving vengeance rather than mankind.

For Xander and Anya, "I am not responsible." Xander professes ignorance when he summons Sweet while Anya blames Xander for leaving her at the altar, driving her to become a vengeance demon again. Anya momentarily joins Angel's group, but we haven't seen much remorse or regret from her since. I'd put Fred here too.

I don't believe that Spike fits into the final category. He claims responsibility for the deaths of lots of peoples' mothers. He exults in the death of Wood's mother. He puts the trophy coat back on before leaving. His attitude is: Yeah, I'm guilty -- what are you going to do about it?

I agree with Sarand's points about your comparisons; fighting and killing a powerful slayer is not the same as machine gunning innocent civilians in wartime. I think that Spike has come a long way--he may not feel bad about killing the slayers, but he clearly feels bad about the innocents he's killed. That's a huge step from "I'm not good, but I'm okay" (Tough Love).

I don't think a Spike defender should excuse his attack on the slayer simply because the Slayer isn't as defenseless as his other victims. Using the same logic, we can excuse the Wood/Giles treachery by saying Spike was more powerful than a human, so Wood was just playing the game. No harm, no foul. And it's more than just not feeling bad -- he relishes the memory of killing Wood's mother -- he keeps the coat as a momento.

I don't think the comparison between newly souled Angel and newly souled Spike is particularly apt. Spike had two years of being neutered to get used to the idea that humans aren't just happy meals with legs -- Angel had a crash course. Next, Angel was cursed with a soul -- of course he fought against it. Spike sought a soul so he could be good. There just isn't a good excuse for Spike's lack of empathy for his victims. (Yes, I know we saw early in the Season that he felt some remorse for the little girls he killed, but I sure haven't seen anything resembling regret recently). If Spike wants to grow up and be responsible, he can start by apologizing to Buffy for his part in the nightmare that was Season Six. I am so sick of hearing the words "you used me!" come out of his self-righteous mouth.

I think we've seen some real growth in Angel, by the way. This last time Angelus was on the lose, Angel didn't immediately slip into brood mode. He recognized that he wasn't responsible. It wasn't his idea to become Angelus and it was his friends' fault for losing the soul and letting him out. He's still sorry for what he did as Angelus, but at least he isn't doing penance for something beyond his ability to control.

[> [> [> [> Thanks Mal... -- KdS, 03:03:45 05/17/03 Sat

We were feeling very alone on this side of the Atlantic in our responses to Lies :-)

I 100% agree with what Mal said about Nikki's strength not mattering, but I also see motivation as key here. Nikki was conscripted into a fight with no choice. Spike was killing people, including Nikki, because it was fun.

In response to Rina's post, I don't see why I should view anyone as a hero just because they didn't kill someone they'd already beaten to a pulp. That just puts you at the baseline for human morality - the bare minimum someone can do and claim to be moral.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks Mal... -- Malandanza, 06:43:31 05/17/03 Sat

"I don't see why I should view anyone as a hero just because they didn't kill someone they'd already beaten to a pulp. That just puts you at the baseline for human morality - the bare minimum someone can do and claim to be moral."


As Buffy says in Triangle:

"You want credit for not feeding off bleeding disaster victims?"

[> [> [> [> [> [> Boy do I agree with you Mal (how suprising eh?) -- Dochawk, 13:45:34 05/17/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> Re: Who's Responsible? -- Dariel, 11:55:01 05/17/03 Sat

I don't think a Spike defender should excuse his attack on the slayer simply because the Slayer isn't as defenseless as his other victims.

I didn't "excuse" Spike's attack on Nikki, as you well know from reading my post. I said that it was not the same as killing innocents who could not defend themselves, and that Kds's Vietnam analogy didn't hold. I also said that Spike should feel bad about it, which you also seem to have ignored.

I am so sick of hearing the words "you used me!" come out of his self-righteous mouth.

Well, then maybe you should stop watching BotN over and over, because that's the only time he said it.

I don't think the comparison between newly souled Angel and newly souled Spike is particularly apt. Spike had two years of being neutered to get used to the idea that humans aren't just happy meals with legs -- Angel had a crash course.

Hmm. Now, didn't you maintain in S6 that chipped, unsouled Spike was not one iota better than the prechip version, but only restrained by artificial means and his desire to please Buffy? If this was the case, then his getting used to not feeding on humans had no moral dimension whatsoever, and has nothing to do with how he feels about this with a soul. Plus, the FE had him killing again--he seems to go through some kind of withdrawal in BotN--so that pretty much wiped out the two years off the juice.

Next, Angel was cursed with a soul -- of course he fought against it. Spike sought a soul so he could be good.

Now I'm really confused. If a person wants to be good, but has to struggle with it, he's morally inferior to someone who never wanted to be good and also has to struggle with it?

Compare:

I think we've seen some real growth in Angel, by the way. This last time Angelus was on the lose, Angel didn't immediately slip into brood mode. He recognized that he wasn't responsible.... He' still sorry for what he did as Angelus, but at least he isn't doing penance for something beyond his ability to control.

to:

There just isn't a good excuse for Spike's lack of empathy for his victims. (Yes, I know we saw early in the Season that he felt some remorse for the little girls he killed, but I sure haven't seen anything resembling regret recently).

The things Spike did as an unsouled vamp were beyond his ability to control also. But for some reason, Spike needs to do some more brooding, maybe pound on his chest to show growth, whereas Angel shows growth by not doing these things. Sounds like a double standard to me.

[> [> [> [> [> Never Leave Me not BoTN ;-) -- sk (just helping to clarify), 12:16:12 05/17/03 Sat

And yes you are right he's only said "you used me" once and it was not self-righteous in the context that it was used, which is - her asking him questions. And she TOLD him that she USED him, so he was merely acknowledging that their relationship was abusive on both parts and she NEVER loved him. It was an acknowledgment NOT a condemnation of her. If anything it was a condemnation of himself.

Also bad form Mal - "Spike apologist?" you know better than to attack the poster not the arguement. I expect better from you. Don't make me eat my words that you are one of the best Spike critics out there. That's like someone saying I should know better from a Spikehater...see get into name-calling, lose the arguement.

sk ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, SK, for the correction and the defense -- Dariel, 13:50:39 05/18/03 Sun

I get those mid-season eps all mixed up in my mind!

It seems, from Malandaza's follow-up post, that I'm now an official "Spike Girl." Do you think that comes with a recording contract?

Dariel

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL!Ahh...the hazards of getting too emotional..and name calling -- sk, 21:02:19 05/18/03 Sun

You're welcome, though I doubt anyone paid much attention.

A bit of advice I learned in law school - the moment you give in to emotion and allow it to rule your argument, is the moment you lose the argument - because the name-calling and button pushing and low blows make you look like a fool. Best to jump off line or back away when that happens. Stop arguing. So when someone starts name-calling? It feels as if their argument basically is dead and they are operating on emotion not intellect at the moment - probably got a button pushed and believe me nothing can push peoples buttons more than our two vampires and the topic of redeeming them. And when you push someone's button? Immediate response is to try and push yours. That's when we leave the field of debate and enter the field of one-upmanship and troll logic.

This is nothing - I've seen screaming matches erupt on other boards. During SR last year? People stopped arguing and just resorted to calling each other and the characters names. The board mistress got fed up and started deleting threads... and called a moratorium on the episode - if you discussed it? You were deleted and banned. Can't say I blamed her. That has never happened at Atpo. Usually people just back away and go on to something else, hence the reason I really only post on it, that and the fact that this board is the least shippy of all the boards out there and the least prone to character bashing. You bash a character here? Watch out. Regardless of the character. Bronze Beta, isn't that shippy either, but it is more like a chat room than a posting board and really hard to follow. But until I came onto the fan boards - I didn't understand what flame wars were or believed it was possible to scream in writing. Now I know. ;-)

At the Atpo..the worst I've seen is a little name-calling and snark. And heck I've done the snark myself, I have a really sardonic sense of humor and when I get irritated the snark comes out big time. I can be brutal with it. So usually I jump off line before I get myself into too much trouble.

At any rate, after seeing LMPTM being discussed five different times since it aired in five different rigorous and brutal debates...one that caused a poster to leave the board, I'm wondering if we should just table it, clearly we're never going to agree on this. And in a way the whole thing amuses me greatly - since I predicted this would happen way before LMPTM aired. I knew it the moment I found out ME decided to make Wood Nikki's son. I even knew all the arguments people would make and who would make which argument. And was dreading it. Loved the episode. Dreaded the reactions to it. Dang writers.
I may never forgive Jane Espenson for this idea. HEck I think LMPTM may come close to SR as the most controversial and debated episode. Even if I much preferred LMPTM.

That said - I really really hope that somewhere in Tues's finale we address that damn jacket. Can we have him burn it or get rid of it? Or just something? Sigh. Doubt it. But one can hope. OTOH since he is joing ATs - there is more than enough time for them to re-address the issue.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Who's Responsible? -- Malandanza, 21:42:25 05/17/03 Sat

"I didn't "excuse" Spike's attack on Nikki, as you well know from reading my post. I said that it was not the same as killing innocents who could not defend themselves, and that Kds's Vietnam analogy didn't hold. I also said that Spike should feel bad about it, which you also seem to have ignored."

I'm pretty sure not every civilian in Vietnam was innocent. Some were Viet Kong, others supported the Viet Kong (so I think KdS's analogy is better than you give it credit for being) -- but it doesn't make much of a difference to me that there were a few less innocent victims in the massacres. Innocent or not, defenseless or not, the massacres were still massacres. What I intended to do with the Wood/Spike analogy was draw your attention to the double standard of the near universal condemnation of the Wood/Giles plot (which I also condemn) but the defend Spike's attack on the slayers with claims like "they were victims of their calling". No, actually they were victims of Spike. It would be like excusing a cop killer by saying, well, the cops know what they're getting into. They're really just victims of their own calling. The double standard is clear to me -- by that logic, Spike is also a victim of his own calling. He chose to become the "Big Bad" and that decision put him up against other in "the game," like Wood and Giles. So let Wood and Giles plot away -- let Xander get in on the action. They wouldn't be murderers because Spike's a big boy and can defend himself. I don't buy it for Wood and I don't buy it for Spike.

"Well, then maybe you should stop watching BotN over and over, because that's the only time he said it."

Well, perhaps I'm just sick of the endless repetitions of his line here at ATPoBtVS where Spike apologists the Spike-eteers berate Buffy for exercising her free will and defend their Gothic Hero against all charges, legitimate and otherwise. But I'm pretty sure he said it last season as well -- and, based on his actions, I'm pretty sure he still believes he being used.

"Now I'm really confused. If a person wants to be good, but has to struggle with it, he's morally inferior to someone who never wanted to be good and also has to struggle with it?"

If a person claims he wishes to be good, then doesn't do good, I think he is morally inferior to someone who wished to do evil but ends up doing good.

"The things Spike did as an unsouled vamp were beyond his ability to control also. But for some reason, Spike needs to do some more brooding, maybe pound on his chest to show growth, whereas Angel shows growth by not doing these things. Sounds like a double standard to me."

Vampires have free will. Joss has said that the soul acts as a guiding light, making people want to do good, while demons have a guiding light that makes them want to do evil. Yet, we've seen demons (like the Kamal, the Prio Motu demon gone good) choose to do good -- just as we've seen souled creatures choose to do evil. The things Spike did while under the control of the First were beyond his control -- the things he did as a vampire were not. Vampires are not mindless automata. Isn't that the point the Redemptionistas persons interested in Spike's spiritual odyssey made last season? That he chose to get a soul?

In any event, I do not believe that the souled entity is actually responsible for the crimes of the previously unsouled entity. I don't believe than Angel is really responsible for Angelus and I don't believe that new-Spike is really responsible for old-Spike's crimes (as I have said previously in posts this season). So why do I care if new-Spike feels guilty about the crimes of old-Spike? I don't. Angel shares the memories of Angelus and those memories repel him. New-Spike shares the memories of old-Spike and he exults in them (as is evident in the joy he took in abusing Wood). Essentially, my problem with new-Spike comes down to this: he still wears the trophy coat taken from the slayer he murdered. (I think you'll find I have been consistent in this opinion this season).

But I think KdS really put what's wrong with Spike into words better than anything I could say:

"If he didn't, even though he may not be fully morally responsible, the fact of hearing a crude dissociation from the same mouth that committed those crimes seems viscerally, emotionally indecent, however you may intellectually understand it. What if, after the events of Revelations, Angel had told Xander that Buffy would never love him as much as she did Angel, and that he (Angel) didn't give a shit about Jenny because she picked the fight with him and he wasn't that person any more?"

If there is a problem with KdS's analogy, I think it is that Jenny was less a victim than Nikki. Jenny was part of a plot to keep Angel suffering -- she really did know what she was getting into and she chose to be a part of it. Jenny sought out Angel and her death has a poetic tinge about it. Nikki did not have a choice. Spike sought her out, stalked her, and killed her. For fun. It doesn't seem to me that Spike's attitude shows much personal growth. He still doesn't care about anyone but Buffy and himself.

Now, I do believe that Angel's guilt serves a function. Angelus lives in Angel's subconscious and can (and has) take control on occasion (and, I believe, influence his decisions to some degree -- like Angel's noir period). Angel is constantly vigilant because he never forgets what Angelus is capable of.

I know the Spike Girls Spike Aficionados like to think of him as the consummate outsider. The poor, persecuted Romantic, defeated in love, belittled by the brutes of society, who risks everything for his one true love. Then tries to control her when she rejects him -- control culminating in a rape attempt. Finally he realizes his mistake and desires to reform, to be punished for his crimes, but before he can, he has his skin ripped off. Ummm... actually that was Warren -- but getting back to Spike: Warren and Jonathan have acted as foils for Spike. They were both in the same condition he was -- abused and berated. The lowest echelon of all the castoffs and pariahs. When Jonathan gets power, he uses it to help people -- he treats them as he wished he had been treated. For Warren, it's different. He gets the orbs of power and becomes the bully he always hated. So, too, for Spike. He's the "Help me out, Spock, I don't speak loser" guy. Old-Spike was a nasty piece of work, and I have seen little to suggest that new-Spike is much of an improvement.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Who's Responsible? -- Dariel, 18:23:36 05/18/03 Sun

What I intended to do with the Wood/Spike analogy was draw your attention to the double standard of the near universal condemnation of the Wood/Giles plot (which I also condemn) but the defense of Spike's attack on the slayers with claims like "they were victims of their calling".

Not gonna argue when I didn't defend the attacks in the first place; just said they were different. The idea of Spike killing a slayer in a fair fight does not turn my stomach in the same way as Spike killing the helpless teacher in School Hard, or Spike shoving a broken bottle in Willow's face in Lovers Walk. That's not a claim, it's not even a statement of a certain philosophy, but that's how I feel about it.

It would be like excusing a cop killer by saying, well, the cops know what they're getting into.

No, because the cop killer is a human with a soul who chooses to go against his own kind.

They're really just victims of their own calling. The double standard is clear to me -- by that logic, Spike is also a victim of his own calling. He chose to become the "Big Bad" and that decision put him up against other in "the game," like Wood and Giles. So let Wood and Giles plot away -- let Xander get in on the action. They wouldn't be murderers because Spike's a big boy and can defend himself. I don't buy it for Wood and I don't buy it for Spike.

Doesn't follow--Spike is no longer a Big Bad; he's a vampire with a soul. As for him being a "big boy who can defend himself," Giles and Wood tried to set things up so that Spike could not defend himself, what with the room full of crosses, the metal gloves, and the trigger.

Well, perhaps I'm just sick of the endless repetitions of his line [about Buffy using him] here at ATPoBtVS where Spike apologists the Spike-eteers berate Buffy for exercising her free will and defend their Gothic Hero against all charges, legitimate and otherwise.

I guess we're reading different posts, because I haven't seen much berating of Buffy on this board. Not a member of the Buffy-bashers club myself, although she does piss me off occassionally. I've never thought that Buffy should love Spike, and I felt a lot of sympathy for her in S6. I know it's hard to believe, but some of us like both Buffy and Spike. And Buffy herself said that she was using him in S6--to Tara and to Spike himself when she broke up with him.

But I'm pretty sure he said it last season as well -- and, based on his actions, I'm pretty sure he still believes he being used.

Hard to know what a TV character "thinks" if we're not shown. I think Buffy may be using him, in some sense. However, I can forgive her if that's what she's doing. That doesn't mean I'm bashing Buffy; she's a young woman in a very tough spot, and is trying to save the world, after all.

If a person claims he wishes to be good, then doesn't do good, I think he is morally inferior to someone who wished to do evil but ends up doing good.

I don't follow your reasoning here. Doesn't matter-I think where you end up is the most important thing. Spike has a ways to go-what of it?

New-Spike shares the memories of old-Spike and he exults in them (as is evident in the joy he took in abusing Wood).

Nothing about Spike's manner or tone indicated that he took joy in abusing Wood; he was angry at being beaten, so he beat Wood in return. Not the most mature reaction, but one I easily imagine coming from Giles in his Ripper days, or even Angel, who took pleasure in knocking out and scaring Xander a time or two.

Essentially, my problem with new-Spike comes down to this: he still wears the trophy coat taken from the slayer he murdered. (I think you'll find I have been consistent in this opinion this season).

I agree that the coat is problematic; I don't like seeing it on him either. However, I can't say I know exactly what it means because ME hasn't yet shown me. In GID, Buffy did exhort Spike to be "the Spike that tried to kill me," the Spike that's dangerous. The coat is part of that persona, as we saw in that same episode. Spike thinks he has to be a certain way to help Buffy fight the FE, so that's what he does. Whether it's wise, whether it's a detriment to his moral development in the long run, remains to be seen.

It doesn't seem to me that Spike's attitude shows much personal growth. He still doesn't care about anyone but Buffy and himself.

I don't see how you can know this from what we've been shown. We've seen very little Spike interaction with the Scoobies and others; heck, we've seen very little interaction between anybody who wasn't Andrew or a Potential and anyone else before End of Days. On the other hand, Spike was kind to the monk in Empty Spaces, the first time we've ever seen him be kind to a stranger without Buffy around. And he certainly seemed upset when Caleb gouged out Xander's eye; he went into overdrive to get Xander away from Caleb.

I know the Spike Girls Spike Aficionados like to think of him as the consummate outsider. The poor, persecuted Romantic, defeated in love, belittled by the brutes of society, who risks everything for his one true love. Then tries to control her when she rejects him -- control culminating in a rape attempt.

What's with the name-calling here? I thought we were having a discussion. And throwing in the attempted rape, as if I (or anyone on this board) didn't abhor it?

Believe it or not, I've actually been influenced by some of your criticism of Spike in the past. Especially when you've stuck to the topic at hand. When you go off about what some Spike fans might have said at one time or another, it doesn't help your case. We're not some monolithic conspiracy, ya know.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Who's Responsible? -- sdev, 00:48:14 05/19/03 Mon

Free will is not much of an excuse for Buffy's wrong behavior. And I'm really sick of this AR stuff. Spike stopped dead in his tracks after his initial assault. Yes I know first Buffy threw him off, but he did not persist.

Buffy beat him to a bloody pulp in Dead Things. Score even. Her excuse? He asked for it. Sound familiar?

Hasn't this season been about undoing the mutual abuse dished out by the two of them at each other?

I also have the sense that Angel is by far the greater danger and a morally devoid character. How is he held in check? A curse. Put on him by others. What is he like sans curse? Totally despicable. The Judge said there was no humanity in him.

Spike, read free will, acquired a soul with great physical pain and endurance. Actions again over words. I believe his motives are irrelevant. Again actions over words. He is just growing into his soul. Prior to ensoulment he had many vestiges of humanity which is probably what enabled him to have any relationship with Buffy and subsequently elect to reclaim his soul.

[> [> [> [> I think that is called a selective reading of the text -- Caroline, 14:21:28 05/17/03 Sat

I wrote a post last week where I systematically went through the first 10 episodes of the season and looked at exactly what Spike said about how he now feels about his past actions. I will reproduce it below. I think the point is that Spike is the one having a crash course in soulfullness, unlike Angel's 100 years of solitude. But it doesn't mean that the guilt is no less intense and it doesn't mean that Spike didn't grow. It took Angel a 100 years to become the person who could help Buffy in S1. It has taken Spike 15 eps in S7 but that is a dramatic convenience that should not speak for or against either soulled vamp. And while Spike with a soul looked like he wanted to go back to being wussy William, he was called on it by Buffy - who basically said to him that she wanted him to be a warrior for good, not a warrior for evil or a wuss. Spike may not have expressed explicit remorse in the last couple of eps about everyone he has killed but neither has Angel - don't you think it would be a bit boring if both of these vamps did it every single show? We get the message and we move on! Or maybe you are trying to say that Angel's soul is a better model than Spike's and the remorse Angel feels is somehow better?

I'd also like to add that I am seriously displeased with the tone of your post. I like both Angel and Spike and I hate to see one raised by stepping on the other. Both can be criticized and praised for various words and actions in their lives. But if you expose your own prejudices and biases in such a blatant manner and use the language you use (e.g. Spike defenders) you risk having your arguments being nullified and dismissed for entirely the wrong reasons and with good cause. Let's try to keep it respectful - for the supporters of Angel, the supporters of Spike and the supporters of BOTH characters.

My previous post:

The persona of Spike appears to be quite similar in S6 and 7 but there are significant differences in the underlying character. The main one that I would bring up is the effect that the soul has had on Spike. He feels such an incredible level of guilt and remorse for what he has done, not just to Buffy but to all his victims and he wants to atone. I'll give a few examples:

In Lessons, he says that he is 'sure to be caned'. He tried to cut out his soul.

In BY, he shows that he has no expectations of a relationship with Buffy, he just wants to help. He feels incredible remorse for his actions not just towards Buffy but to all his victims.

In STSP, Spike realizes that just getting the soul is not enough:

SPIKE
You go off and try to wall up the bad
spots, put your heart back in where
it fell out, and you call yourself
finished, but you're not. You're
worse than ever, you are.

SPIKE
William's a good boy. Carries the
water, carries the sin. It's
supposed to yet easier, in'it? It's
s'posed to help to help. 'Cept it
doesn't. And it's still so heavy...

It's what you do with it that counts. There is more work to be done.

In Help, he's tormented by 'hurting the girl'. Is this Buffy or is it the victims that we later learn he has been triggered to kill? Later, he helps Buffy to save Cassie, to stop anyone from 'huring the girl'.

In Sleeper, Spike tells us how things are different:

SPIKE
And everything I felt, feel - it only
cuts deeper now....

He is horrified that he may have hurt someone and goes out to investigate. Once he learns the truth, he confesses immediately to Buffy and then asks her to kill him. When Buffy refuses to stake him he says:

SPIKE
No, please... I need it. I can't cry
this soul out of me. It won't come.
And I... killed... And I feel it...
I feel every one of them...

In Bring on the Night, he asks to be tied up so that he can't be triggered. In NLM, he reveals the depths of his self-loathing and connects it directly to his soul.

I could go on. But I think the point has been made. The impact the soul has on Spike's moral perspective, his judgment of his own behaviour and character as well the emotional toll this has taken on him distinguishes Spike in S7 from S6. In S6 he tried incredibly hard to be good for Buffy but we did see behaviour that stemmed from lack of a soul - trying to bite the girl after he discovered he could hit Buffy, hiding Katrina's body, the demon eggs, sex with Anya, the attempted rape. He felt remorse for the AR, and had to psych himself up for the biting but most of his behaviour is a sign of lack of moral compass. It puts into stark relief the agonies that he goes through in S7. These agonies are not just associated with Buffy or things linked to Buffy - he has a broader, deeper notion of morality, something that the conditioning of the chip could not give to him. In S6 he had the moral understanding of a child, in S7 he has the understanding of an adult. And that's not only because he acquired a soul, it's because he's learning what to do with it. I don't think that the question should be why isn't Spike very different after he acquired his soul - I think the question should be why a vampire would go out and seek a soul in the first place.

[> [> [> [> [> Interesting post. Oh what JW says...to add a twist -- s'kat, 16:08:17 05/17/03 Sat

In Bring on the Night, he asks to be tied up so that he can't be triggered. In NLM, he reveals the depths of his self-loathing and connects it directly to his soul.

It's Never Leave Me.

In Bring On the Night - he's being tortured by Drusilla as the First Evil. Then he gets rescued in Showtime. And he gets really tortured.

In Killer in Me - he has handcuffed himself to the wall in the basement. Buffy questions him on it and he says that he feels its safer this way. He can't trust himself.

So he basically is holding back - all the way up to Get it Done...

On the whole soul thing? Here's what Joss Whedon says:

The soul and my concept of
it are as ephemeral as anybody's, and possibly more so. And in terms of
the show, it is something that exists to meet the needs of convenience;
the truth is sometimes you can trap it in a jar; the truth is sometimes
someone without one seems more interesting than someone with one. I
don't think Clem has a soul, but he's certainly a sweet guy. Spike was
definitely kind of a soulful character before he had a soul, but we made
it clear that there was a level on which he could not operate. Although
Spike could feel love, it was the possessive and selfish kind of love
that most people feel. The concept of real altruism didn't exist for
him. And although he did love Buffy and was moved by her emotionally,
ultimately his desire to possess her led him to try and rape her because
he couldn't make the connection -- the difference between their
dominance games and actual rape.

With a soul comes a more adult understanding.
That is again, a little
vague, but... can I say that I believe in the soul? I don't know that I
can. It's a beautiful concept, as is resurrection and a lot of other
things we have on the show that I'm not really sure I can explain and I
certainly don't believe in. It does fall prey to convenience, but at the
same time it has consistently marked the real difference between
somebody with a complex moral structure and someone who may be affable
and even likable, but ultimately eats kittens.


and here's what Caroline says:
The impact the soul has on Spike's moral perspective, his judgment of his own behaviour and character as well the emotional toll this has taken on him distinguishes Spike in S7 from S6. In S6 he tried incredibly hard to be good for Buffy but we did see behaviour that stemmed from lack of a soul - trying to bite the girl after he discovered he could hit Buffy, hiding Katrina's body, the demon eggs, sex with Anya, the attempted rape. He felt remorse for the AR, and had to psych himself up for the biting but most of his behaviour is a sign of lack of moral compass. It puts into stark relief the agonies that he goes through in S7. These agonies are not just associated with Buffy or things linked to Buffy - he has a broader, deeper notion of morality, something that the conditioning of the chip could not give to him. In S6 he had the moral understanding of a child, in S7 he has the understanding of an adult.

This is in keeping with the writer's own concept of the soul. When interpreting the show - I think we have to keep in mind that it is not a moral show like say Seventh Heaven so the morality isn't going to be black and white with very clear moral at the end. It's more ambiguous. Also the character we are discussing is a vampire NOT a man, a metaphor in effect for the ravages of addiction on the human soul/spirit/heart as well as a metaphor for arrested development and growing up.

Whedon as a writer is obessesed with two things growing up and redemption. Here's what he says:

Redemption has become one of the most important themes in my work and
it really did start with Angel. I would say probably with the episode
"Amends," but even with the character itself and the concept of the
spin-off was about redemption. It was about addiction and how you get
through that and come out the other side, how you redeem yourself from a
terrible life. I do actually work with a number of reformed addicts, if
that's what you call them. I call them drunks. But my point is a good
number of people that are most close to me creatively have lived that
life, and it informs their work. I never have, and so I'm not sure why
it is that redemption is so fascinating to me.
I think the mistakes I've
made in my own life have plagued me, but they're pretty boring mistakes:
I committed a series of grisly murders in the eighties and I think I
once owned a Wilson-Phillips Album. Apart from that I'm pretty much an
average guy, yet I have an enormous burden of guilt. I'm not sure why.
I'm a WASP, so it's not Jewish or Catholic guilt; it's just there.
Ultimately, the concept of somebody who needed to be redeemed is more
interesting to me. I think it does make a character more textured than
one who doesn't.

I can't think of anything, off hand, that I am a big fan of that
contains that kind of thing. My favorite fictions are usually the kind I
make, which is sort of adolescent rites of passage, which is what
"Buffy" is about. It's about the getting of strength and that's probably
the most important theme in any of my work, but I would say coming a
close second is the theme of redemption. I think as you make your way
through life it's hard to maintain a moral structure, and that
difficulty and the process of coming out the other side of a dark, even
psychological time is to me the most important part of adulthood.

I think to an extent every human being needs to be redeemed somewhat or
at least needs to look at themselves and say, "I've made mistakes, I'm
off course, I need to change." Which is probably the hardest thing for a
human being to do and maybe that's why it interests me so.


This is what Caroline states:
I don't think that the question should be why isn't Spike very different after he acquired his soul - I think the question should be why a vampire would go out and seek a soul in the first place.

So what I wondering is after reading both - is it possible that Whedon had Spike go after the soul as a means of exploring that journey - that decision making process of the drunk/addict or the adolescent who thinks it's all fun and games - to realizing it's not and wanting redemption but not sure how to go about it? How do we find redemption?
Is it possible?

Whedon wrote a script called Suspension ages ago, according to an SFX interview - in that script, was a man who was recently released from prison, he'd gone to prison for killing a cop. Basically a him or me scenerio. The man is traveling from NJ to NYC and to get there he must cross the George Washington Bridge - he gets to the middle of the bridge and it's taken by terrorists. He is forced to work with cops -whom he hates - to get across the bridge. He also is forced to deal with the other innocent people stuck on the bridge. Whedon is fascinated with what it would take to redeem this man. A very hard thing to convincingly pull off in fiction and one he as a writer is clearly obsessed with. The script was never picked up. Shelved. So I think in a way he transfered it to Spike. Spike is the man on that bridge.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, my Joss!! -- Caroline, 17:02:41 05/17/03 Sat

Does having written a few sentences similar to those written by a genius make you a genius? [sigh]. Sadly not. Joss creates, I praise and criticize. Even though I tend to not really think authorial intent matters that much, it is gratifying to know that I'm grokking Joss. Thanks so much shadowkat for putting that together. I agree with your take on the following:

So what I wondering is after reading both - is it possible that Whedon had Spike go after the soul as a means of exploring that journey - that decision making process of the drunk/addict or the adolescent who thinks it's all fun and games - to realizing it's not and wanting redemption but not sure how to go about it? How do we find redemption?
Is it possible?
.

I've always thought of Spike's journey as a child interacting with the world, having life just beat you down until you get to where you are supposed to be. I have many times used the psychology of child development to discuss Spike's journey. I felt a great deal of pain for Spike in S6 - he was getting beat down and when he fell back on his old vamp modes of behaviour, he kept getting smacked down by life. His way out from that was getting his soul, but then he began another journey - dealing with his actions as a soulless being. At each change in our lives occurs, we have to rethink and reevaluate our identity, our Self, and come to a new accomodation of our new understanding of ourselves. It is a painful process and we don't know how to do it until we've done it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah...I grok that completely -- s'kat, 20:10:30 05/17/03 Sat

Yes...this in a nutshell is why Spike moves me so and why I think I've been so obsessed with the character.

I've always thought of Spike's journey as a child interacting with the world, having life just beat you down until you get to where you are supposed to be. I have many times used the psychology of child development to discuss Spike's journey. I felt a great deal of pain for Spike in S6 - he was getting beat down and when he fell back on his old vamp modes of behaviour, he kept getting smacked down by life. His way out from that was getting his soul, but then he began another journey - dealing with his actions as a soulless being. At each change in our lives occurs, we have to rethink and reevaluate our identity, our Self, and come to a new accomodation of our new understanding of ourselves. It is a painful process and we don't know how to do it until we've done it.

Thank you for writing that so beautifully. I've been trying to piece it together myself for quite a while - hence all my essays on his journey.

It's reassuring that at least two of us, from vastly different backgrounds and experiences, feel this...even if others do not. Gives me an odd sense of validation.

Thank you. ;-)

SK

[> [> [> [> [> [> For more on Joss' "Suspension" -- Darby, 17:36:58 05/17/03 Sat

There's an interesting discussion of it (and another unproduced screenplay) at

http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/script_reviews/suspension_afterlife.html

[> [> [> [> [> I really want to stay out of it, but... -- Dochawk, 18:16:52 05/17/03 Sat

That wasn't Mal's point. I think most of us agree that Spike has no desire to hurt humans and in fact is horrified by the fact that he could do it even with a soul. the question Mal is asking, is does he feel remorse for what he did in the past and the evidence is no where near as clear. None of your points say anything about this. he certainly feels no remorse for killing the slayers. And the reason he is crazy at the beginning of the season? Was it remorse or was it the FE? I think that he does not carry guilt for what he did as a vampire, that he considers himself a different being, which is different than the early Angel, whose guilt and obsession with redemption make him aattempt to be a champion.

[> [> [> [> [> No problem with his journey early on... -- Random, 09:05:33 05/18/03 Sun

But none of his earlier expressions of remorse can validate his final expression of contempt. He has taken a major step backwards there. If we had enough time, I'd say that this is merely a stumble, that he will have to deal with it and move on again. That's what the journey is all about, dealing with missteps and continuing on. Unfortunately, sparing Wood's life isn't an extraordinary act of saintliness -- it's what most of us would call "just the right thing to do." So weighing that against what appears to be a honest self-appraisal -- "I don't give a piss about your mum" -- doesn't speak much for moral progress in Spike's case. At best, I'd say he's holding his ground. Analogy: If a human tries to kill one of the Scoobies -- and several have -- does the fact that the Scoobies don't kill them when they are helpless a sign of a certain basic level of moral understanding or a sign of their moral progress? Killing in the heat of battle -- as Buffy does to the KoB -- is one thing. Killing someone who one has already reduced to helplessness is quite another.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Context -- Caroline, 11:42:17 05/18/03 Sun

I agree with you that the 'I don't give a piss about your Mum' is not completely in line with his earlier expressions of remorse. And I agree that sparing Wood's life is not an act of saintliness, just the right thing to do. But I find it interesting that you think it's okay for Buffy to kill a KoB in the heat of battle but not okay for Spike to taunt Wood as a result of battle. I don't think that it is as damning for his moral progress as you believe it is. I think that you are giving Buffy the benefit of the context and not Spike.

[> [> Your analogy doesn't work for me -- Sophist, 09:57:51 05/17/03 Sat

Let me convert your analogy to a slightly different context. Imagine a biography of Thomas Jefferson. That book will, of course, have to address Jefferson's complicated views about slavery. Inevitably, the discussion will be (paraphrasing you) "a backdrop to tell stories about American suffering and moral ambiguity and personal growth."

Is this wrong? Absolutely not. Is it the whole story? Again, absolutely not. The key point is that this hypothetical book is a book about Thomas Jefferson. It's not about slaves, per se, or even about American 1743-1826. The author is not telling those stories; she's telling Jefferson's story.

The same is true of LMPTM. ME was not telling "The Nikki Wood Story". Nor was it giving "A History of the Slayer 1970-80". ME was telling a story of Robin Wood and Spike. Inevitably, we see the world through the lens of these two characters. Not because this is "objective" or even "true", but because it's their story.

Your post assumes a moral obligation to tell just one story (or, perhaps, to prefer one story over others). I can't agree that any such obligation exists. The story of slavery should be told, but so should the story of Jefferson.

[> [> Didn't Angel just this season say (AtS spoilers through Players) -- dms, 13:10:50 05/17/03 Sat

that he felt no guilt (or responsibility) for the crimes he committed when his soul was most recently removed? Of course, ME skirted the issue by not showing Angel(us) kill a single person.

[> [> [> Your right & I think I may be getting this, addiction metaphor? (AtS spoilers through Players) -- s'kat, 21:11:15 05/17/03 Sat

Actually he did hurt a few people. And just b/c they didn't show it, doesn't mean he didn't kill anyone. He almost killed Faith. And he tortured his friends.
And sucked on Lilah - causing Wes to feel the need to decapitate her. Although he seemed remorseful for Lilah. They didn't show more b/c unlike Btvs, where he's the fatal, he's the anti-hero and there's only so far you can take an anti-hero without alienating the audience, particularly considering what they pulled with Cordelia.

But yes - Angel said that he knew he wasn't responsible for anything he committed without a soul, because that wasn't him. It's a comment that bugged the board at the time and we engaged in endless frustrated debates on it.

I think the writers' little convience is starting to confuse their die-hard fans. I mean we have Angel who believes Angelus isn't him. Spike who seems to think the soulless version wasn't really him. Yet at the same time both admit that there's no one else and it is them and they do feel guilty for it. So what's up?

Well, having been around reformed addicts - I know that when they do stuff while really high or drunk - then black out and have 0 memory of it...with it coming back slowly in stages...they often will state that wasn't me, that was the drugs or the alcohol - the drugs or the alcohol changes me into something else. Yet at the same time - treatment for alcoholism or drug abuse requires the addict to take responsibility for their crimes, even those they can't remember, and actively choose not to go there again. It was you plus the drugs - is the view. ME tried to do this with Willow last year with the it was Willow plus the dark magic. But it didn't really fly. Works far better with our vamps. The soulless vamp may in a way be the addicted teen, while the souled vamp is the sober adult?? Problem with ME is they have at least two metaphors going on at once, brillant, yes, but also confusing at times for die-hard fans. ;-)

Not sure if that made sense. The addiction metaphor annoys me personally, because it seems so old tv movie of the week cliche or Ann Rice. But hey...it does work.

[> [> More analogies that didn't work for me -- Caroline, 13:36:58 05/17/03 Sat

I found this piece really interesting. The main problem is that I don't think that ME intended (and I certainly did not interpret) Spike as the American soldier and Nikki as a brutalized non-combatant (e.g. victims of the My Lai massacres). I would say that the woman in the magic shop that Spike killed in Lover's Walk could be that victim, as well as Jenny Calendar, Angelus' victim in S2. If anything, Spike and the slayers he killed all are examples of combatants. If you could make the analogy work to your argument this way, then I would like to read it.

The 'choice' Nikki had to be a slayer or not I find irrelevant - she was mystically chosen but then she 'chose' to do gladly that which she must do. (This is that interweaving of fate and free will that ME was giving us in Help). And I don't think that Nikki is blotted out - even after Wood tries to kill him, Spike spares Wood's life in honour of Wood's mother Nikki.

What if, after the events of Revelations, Angel had told Xander that Buffy would never love him as much as she did Angel, and that he (Angel) didn't give a shit about Jenny because she picked the fight with him and he wasn't that person any more? .

This analogy doesn't quite hold up either - the relationships are not the same as the Wood/Spike/Nikki trio. First off, Buffy doesn't have anything to do with the W/S/Nikki scenario - nowhere in that scene does Spike tell Wood that Buffy will never love him as much as him. Second, the reason Spike isn't more guilt-ridden about Nikki is precisely that she was a slayer and therefore could defend herself against vampires much better than the average person (see first para). Third, Spike didn't say Nikki picked a fight with him and he's not that person anymore. Spike says that she is a slayer, he was a vampire and that was the battleground. Even now, as a being with a soul, he recognises that it was a legitimate battle between 2 combatants, in fact one of the few honourable battles a vampire could have, since vampires are usually so much stronger than regular human beings. And lastly, Spike explicitly says that he let Wood live because he (Spike) killed Wood's mother. From the shooting script:

SPIKE
I gave him a pass. Let him live. On
account of the face [fact] that I killed his
mother.

She looks at him, begins to figure it out.


SPIKE (cont'd)
But that's all he gets.

What I get from this is that despite the fact that Wood just tried to kill Spike, Spike has some compunction about killing Nikki and Wood himself, thus leading him to spare Wood's life. Spike acknowledges that he caused Wood's pain by killing Nikki and that this is what precipitates Wood's attempt to kill him. Despite Spike's taunting, this looks like he's acknowledging his culpability and he is trying to atone, even though he knows that anything he could do right now is completely insufficient. But not killing Wood is a good way to start.

[> [> [> Wasn't drawing specific parallels between the massacre and Spike's actions -- KdS, 14:13:52 05/17/03 Sat

The parallel I was drawing was simply the way that Nikki was allowed to fade into the background, in a story that was all about Spike overcoming his problems.

[> [> [> I'm not getting the distinction . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:45:17 05/17/03 Sat

How is it less evil to kill someone of equal strength than to kill someone of lesser strength? After all, Spike was the one who started the fight and went in with intent to kill. I know you said that it was still wrong of him to kill Nikki, but there seems to be an implication that, since Nikki could defend herself better than most, that the act of killing her was less evil. Part of what you said was true (they entered a field as combatants), but Spike was the one who initiated the confrontation. It wasn't like an old fashioned duel where they both talk it out and agree to the fight; Spike attacked Nikki, forcing her into combat which might end her life.

(For anyone (not neccesarily you, Caroline) who brings up that Buffy and Nikki force vampires into confrontations, it's well to keep in mind that vampires are always the conflict initiators, given their penchant for killing people; even the newly risen will eventually commit murder)

The only possible way I can see the killing of Nikki Wood being less wrong than than that of an "innocent" (which, by the way, I think is the wrong term to use, since it implies that Nikki wasn't innocent, making her somehow deserving of her death) is your use of the word "honor". If you could please explain your concept of honor, that would help a great deal in understanding your side of the argument.

[> [> [> [> Re: I'm not getting the distinction . . . -- Caroline, 15:57:24 05/17/03 Sat

I'm not sure how to explain it a different way. But I'll give it a go. If you still don't understand, I'm sorry but that's all I can come up with at this time.

Our society and our laws make distinctions between types of killing and their relative 'evilness'. The point I was trying to make is that American soldiers fighting Vietnamese soldiers in Vietnam is considered a fair fight. American soldiers killing Vietnamese civilians is not a fair fight as civilians are not fair targets. (As far as I'm aware, we have ratified all sorts of these types of rules in the Geneva Conventions about who is a fair target and who is not. Perhaps Sophist or other legal types could weigh in?) Who would you feel more sympathy for - the victims of the My Lai incident or the Vietnamese soldier who died in a fight with an American soldier? For the American soldier, the killing if a civilian is considered honorable, whereas the killing of a civilian at My Lai is not honorable.

[> [> [> [> [> Perhaps Vietnam is the wrong analogy? -- s'kat, 16:21:43 05/17/03 Sat

I much prefer the idea of two hitman or snipers. One for the say terrorists of Osma Bin Lada and one for the US goverment. Now everyone goes nuts. Spike is the hitman for say OSMa Bin Lada and Nikki is the Special Ops highly trained hitman for the US governement. Neither is a civilian. The fight is fair. Spike kills Nikki - Special Ops. But his associate, say Drusilla, takes out the pizza parlor with kids in it. Now legally - Dru is the one who killed the civilians. Spike legally killed a fellow solider.
But since both are "terrorists" both should be staked by Buffy the President. But when Spike, turns states evidence and has a bout of religion, things get murky. The son of the killed solider wants Spike to get the death penalty.
But Spike holds the key to getting OBL, also they were fellow combatants and under the Geneva convention - that's casualities of war right? See murky.

Try that analogy on for size. Not sure which side of the argument it helps. But I agree with Caroline the Vietnam one didn't work for me either. PErsonally, I agree with Sophist - it's a bit like being upset while reading a book on Jefferson - that we aren't spending more time discussing the wronged slave mistress he once had who is but a footnote in a book that is about Jefferson. Same here, I think, the focus of the story is the President not the Special Ops person who died 30 years before.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I used that analogy 'cos it was in kDs' original post.. -- Caroline, 16:37:21 05/17/03 Sat

and I agree with you, it doesn't fit. Still waiting for kDs to repond to that point.

BTW I loved your own analogy. Could make a great action movie!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I should have put it under KdS' post. Kds? Look at my analogy -- s'kat, 20:12:18 05/17/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent, although I responded a few points up (for sk and Caroline) -- KdS, 03:36:36 05/18/03 Sun

Yes, your terrorism analogy works far better than any Vietnam one, but my analogy wasn't between Spike and the soldier, so much as it was purely between Nikki and the civilians who never got to tell their side of the story, and were used merely as tools to tell someone else's. I think your analogy works very well though.

[> [> [> [> [> You are correct that the "laws of war" distinguish non-combatants. -- Sophist, 16:29:23 05/17/03 Sat

I think your last sentence came out differently than you intended. What you said was

For the American soldier, the killing if a civilian is considered honorable, whereas the killing of a civilian at My Lai is not honorable.

What I think you meant was "For the American soldier, the killing of a soldier is considered honorable, whereas the killing of a civilian at My Lai is not honorable."

[> [> [> [> [> [> You are absolutely correct. Thank you -- Caroline, 16:39:50 05/17/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> It depends on who started the war . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:39:07 05/17/03 Sat

North Vietnam started the Vietnam War, and South Vietnam (and its allies) had to respond accordingly. In my point of view, this is simply a larger version of a human-human conflict. NV is the attacker; SV is the victim. If NV kills the people of SV, they are not justified, since they're the agressor. If SV and allies kill the people of NV, they are justified, since they were attacked and are only responding in violence to prevent violence being done to them. So I'm afraid I don't really see the "honorable" issue the same way you do.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I wish it were that clear -- Sophist, 17:58:37 05/17/03 Sat

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, let me use WWII as an example.

There can be no question that the Germans were the aggressors. There's also no question that millions of innocent people were victims of German aggression and that those innocent people were justified not only in fighting back but in killing German soldiers while doing so.

All that said, the clear tendency is for the victors to show respect to the ordinary German soldiers, holding only their leaders responsible. A good example of this is President Reagan's speech at the German war cemetary.

I'm not saying I personally agree with this. In fact, I'm more inclined to hold soldiers responsible for the cause for which they're fighting than most people apparently are. But mine appears to be the minority view and, if you accept Caroline's analogy otherwise, I think she accurately describes the majority view.

As an aside, your description of the Vietnam War is overly simplified. If you're interested, there are lots of good books on the subject I can recommend.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> In depends on when they enlisted -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:13:37 05/17/03 Sat

If they enlisted before German aggression began, they didn't really have much of a choice, since they would probably be shot, imprisoned, and/or tortured for refusal to obey orders. Same thing goes for those who were drafted. However, a German who chose to join the military after German aggression does have guilt on their hands, since they joined a force they knew to be culpable in crimes (although I'm not even too sure about this, since I've heard conflicting reports about how much the average German civilian knew about Germany's activities).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I pretty much agree with you, but my impression is that we're in the minority. -- Sophist, 20:25:39 05/17/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The English Patient -- mamcu, 20:53:34 05/17/03 Sat

What can we say about 12-year-old suicide bombers? what about German soldiers at the Russian front? War makes it all totally murky. That's why I think writers like Ondaatje who really look at war finally, usually, come to the conclusion that it all sucks. If you start trying to apportion the blame properly, it's impossible.

[> Actually, I have a problem with the basic arguement -- fresne, 17:15:26 05/16/03 Fri

I thought the Fonz, shark jumping aside, leant some interesting texture to Happy Days that the show wouldn't otherwise have had.

Thus using him as an example of a bad thing, err...is the reverse.

[> [> That's true. -- Arethusa, 17:26:44 05/16/03 Fri

He was both a sounding board and the path not taken for the safe suburban boys. He added a little spice to the likeable but bland main characters. Also, one of the reasons he was so popular was the vulnerability and insecurity gradually revealed underneath the tough exterior. So maybe he's a good example.

[> [> [> Re: That's true. -- s'kat, 21:56:07 05/16/03 Fri

The funny thing about Fonzi is that he was the most charismatic character on the show. And the most charismatic actor. In a recent E! The True Hollywood Story on Henry Winkler - the show examined how both cast and crew of Happy Days recognized Winkler's amazing chemistry with the camera. The camera loved him. And because of Winkler - Happy Days went up in the ratings and stayed for as long as it did. Winkler made it a hit.

I don't think the analogy works though since Happy Days was a situation comedy and driven by jokes and situations not really character or theme. Situation comedys are usually designed around a joke format. And it was only a half-hour show. Comparing Btvs to Happy Days is a bit like well
comparing JAne Eyre to Little Orphan Annie. Or PEanuts to
Harry Potter. Yes you can do it...but...it feels off logically. PArticularly since the writers aren't referencing situation comedies but rather the genres of sci-fantasy, noir, and gothic within comic book medium. A better criticism is to compare Buffy to say Dark Shadows or to Smallville or to Forever Knight or even DS9 or something that at least fits it's structural model.

So the author in picking Happy Days as a comparison, tempting because Happy Days is the cliche example of jump the shark - is showing his/her own ignorance of television style and criticism. The logic of the author's criticism falls apart on the analogy. It was impossible for me to take this article seriously on any level and by extension impossible for me to take Salon seriously as an online magazine. The publishing of this article, made me think less of the editors. And it made me appreciate the criticism on this board.

Again - if you want to read good criticism of Buffy? Check the archives for the following posters:

Darby
Cactus Watcher
cjl
Malandaza
Sophist
matching mole
munmundsie (sp?)
TCH
Dochawk
Earl Allison

etc....

This writer isn't worth our time or energy or anyone elses.

sk

[> [> [> [> Are you suggesting "Peanuts" is more sophisticated than Harry Potter? -- KdS, 03:05:25 05/17/03 Sat

'Cos I'd buy that...

[> [> [> [> [> No, actually I was saying they aren't comparable -- s'kat, 11:41:09 05/17/03 Sat

What I was trying to point out is that Happy Days and Buffy the Vampire Slayer aren't comparable genres or tv shows on the level this person is attempting to do it. Nor does the individual back up their attempt, they assume that all tv shows are comparable and that's simply not true.

It is unfair to both tv shows. Happy Days can be compared to Family Ties, but not Btvs. Btvs can be compared to Smallville, Alias, La Femme Nikita, Xena, and a host of other shows even Ds9 and the character of GulDukat.

Same thing with comic strips - both Little Orphan Annie and PEanuts are classics but you shouldn't compare them to novels or even say the X-men or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It's not fair to both. And when you do so - it comes down to whether you happen to prefer reading one or the other - not their own critical structure or form.

What I'm saying is if you want to criticize something, you have to make sure you use a logical analogy and you back up the argument or someone can poke tons of holes in it and it will drown.

[> [> [> [> [> Me too. I'd even finance that. -- Random, 17:12:36 05/17/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Me too. I'd even finance that. -- sk, 19:59:50 05/17/03 Sat

Odd, I'd say Harry Potter was more sophisticated...Peanuts seemed awfully repetitive after a while, not that I think they are remotely comparable or anything. But hey, I preferred Calvin and Hobbes...yep my wicked sense of humor even goes to comics. Aren't you glad...you only know me on the boards. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I much prefer Calvin & Hobbes. But... -- Random, 08:41:03 05/18/03 Sun

I have enormous respect for Peanuts, historically. I agree it got repetitive somewhere around the late 70s, but in its heyday, it was the defining comic strip of its era. It was, at least for its time, surprisingly sophisticated. Though we've grown a little jaded nowadays, it addressed issues such as censorship, unchecked urban development, existential malaise, longing (to me, the little red-haired girl is still the perfect metaphor), religion and society (The famous "We prayed in school today" strip), society's treatment of misfits and outcasts (Charlie Brown's existence is surprisingly bleak upon re-assessment), animal rights, feminism, the struggle to assimilate and understand the world around us (Lucy's psychiatry booth is still one of the hallmarks of modern comicdom) et al.

Charlie Brown was a flawed absurdist hero. And the Peanuts gang illustrated something that few other comic strips managed: the search for security and acceptance rarely a successful one. Linus clinging to his blanket counterpoints Charlie Brown's futility. He never gets the girl, he never kicks the football. He wins one baseball game in 50 years. The cartoon was usually subtle, and the metaphors often subverted as well as subversive. Snoopy was a brilliant example of this -- the dreamer, the materialist, the hedonist, the canine epicure.

Peanuts was the precursor to Calvin and Hobbes. It made Calvin and Hobbes possible. It has become a cultural icon in a way that other brilliant comic strips may never achieve.

~Random, a enormous C&H, Bloom County and Pogo fan...but feeling that we must give Peanuts its props.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Smock, Random.... Smock, smock smock -- LittleBit, 09:51:35 05/18/03 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Existential Hobbes? -- oceloty, 21:07:29 05/18/03 Sun

"Don't knock my smock or I'll clean your clock."

Existential Hobbes?

[> I was disappointed in the responses -- Sophist, 18:13:10 05/16/03 Fri

Most of them were far too defensive about the show and conceded (or asserted) criticisms far more severe than I think are justified. I wouldn't describe these letters as remotely similar to the posts here -- the posts here were more analytical, less conclusory, and free of writer-bashing.

The show deserves, and has, far better defenders than any of these.

[> [> Re: I was disappointed in the responses -- Rob, 18:43:25 05/16/03 Fri

"I wouldn't describe these letters as remotely similar to the posts here -- the posts here were more analytical, less conclusory, and free of writer-bashing. The show deserves, and has, far better defenders than any of these."

Actually, I completely agree with you, more than I agree with my own note at the top of my post. It's funny, but I wrote out that sentence basically referring to the fact that most of the posters didn't agree with the idea that Spike ruined the show but then decided, just after I clicked "Approve" that they weren't so similar after all, for the reasons you listed here. But it was too late. I wrote a response clarifying that I didn't agree with the writing styles and opinions of most the posters but for different reasons, but Voy kept saying "General Lock Error" or whatever 10 times in a row, so I just left it the way it was.

I do think that it's nice that so many people did rise to Spike's defense, although, I agree, the manner in which many did (instead tearing apart other aspects of the show) I did not like.

Rob

[> [> Completely agree. -- s'kat, 21:59:36 05/16/03 Fri


[> I posted some comments on the Trollop Board -- Rufus, 18:58:44 05/16/03 Fri

I just had to answer the Salon article by Jamie Weinman because he/she sounds like someone who is more fixated on the Spike character than any of the Redemptionist types out there. To compare a character like Spike to "Fonzie" shows the writer is only paying attention to the most superfical layer of the show. I like season seven very much, but I've been doing things like look for meaning in character development and look to the symbolism, literary, and pop culture references in the show...the writer of this piece seems to only see Spike.

But the problems with this season can be traced to a moment at the very end of the last good episode, "Conversations With Dead People." That's the
moment when Buffy found out that Spike, blond vampire, attempted rapist, and
current possessor of a soul, had somehow been killing people despite his
souled status. From that point on, the show has no longer been about Buffy
and her friends, or Buffy and her mission, or anything that used to be
interesting on this show. It's been about Buffy and Spike. And that's about
all.



This is where the writer totally loses me. As usual we get to see Spike (pre-soul) called an attempted rapist...a title these types of articles and posts continue to harp on. Problem with that is that they focus on one thing and fail to mention that the situation was a bit more detailed than that. Spike didn't go to Buffy's house intending to harm her.....he ended up trying to force himself on her in desperation....it was an attempted rape....but when Buffy fought him off he left, he then felt disgusted enough with himself he went and sought a soul. Now, if we are always and forever to address Spike as an attempted rapist then what do we do with Angel, call him an attempted murderer? Angel terrorized Buffy's friends, killed her teacher and Giles girlfriend, Jenny Calendar, he then tried to kill Buffy, he nearly did. That seems to be conveniently forgotten in every post or article that bashes Spike. I don't say what he did was right, but I don't insist that Angel is still better than Spike cause without a soul he ONLY tried to kill the woman he supposedly loved.

Look at the record. The next two episodes after "Conversations With Dead
People" involved Buffy trying to find out why Spike was killing again,
following which she spent two more episodes focusing her attention on
freeing Spike from a dungeon. Since then, we've discovered that a new
character (Principal Wood) has a vendetta against Spike, seen an entire
episode devoted to filling out Spike's back story, and sat through various
other plot threads about Spike. Even when Spike isn't on-screen, characters
are talking about him.


Again the writer has simplified the situation, and further reminds me how glad I am to have All things Philosophical to post about the characters. The writer seems to forget that the episode after "Conversations with Dead People", we find out that Spike is killing again, but he isn't doing it by choice, there is an issue of mind control that had me quoting the movie "Manchurian Candidate" and discussing mind control and what is the responsibility of the person controlled when they commit murder. Buffy answered that when she didn't kill Spike. Even Xander was helpful with all his War Movie knowledge....he told Buffy what a Sleeper was. The characters on the show are talking about Spike because he has done something, or something has been done to him. Being written in as a partner of a sort to Buffy, we are going to hear about Spike....the writer seems to forget that other characters have gotten episodes like "Selfless" and "Storyteller". But of course the writer can't see anything past Spike (I think they should get a room).

In the words of "Sep," who recaps "Buffy" episodes for the famously snarky
Web site Television Without Pity, "Watching episode after episode about
Spike's journey when Giles has become a prick and I don't know a goddamn
thing about what Willow or Xander are thinking, or even who they are
anymore, and will likely never find out, breaks my heart."



Hmmm now we get to see Television Without Pity mentioned, not because it is a site that is home to deep thinkers, but "writers" who put together "snarky" reviews. I also disagree that Giles is a prick because of what he and Robin tried to pull off with Spike in Lies My Parents told Me.....seems Buffy has begun to get over it too.


At every turn, the "Buffy" staff has copped out on Spike's story, whitewashing his past (a flashback in a recent episode shows that even when he was turned into a vampire, he wasn't initially a vicious killer -- something that contradicts all the previous vampire
mythology on the show) and making no attempt to show that having a soul has
changed him one way or the other. By the evidence of this season's episodes,
Spike is still a wisecracking punk who likes to hit women (he's hit Buffy,
Anya and Faith so far this year) and isolate Buffy from her friends, yet
we're still somehow supposed to sympathize with him, because ... why?
Because he got a soul in the hope that Buffy would forgive his attempt to
rape her and sleep with him again. Except for a couple of throwaway lines,
Spike has never been made to seek redemption for his crimes; he doesn't even
apologize to Principal Wood for having murdered his mother. The assumption
appears to be that Spike doesn't need to atone because having a soul makes
him a different and better person. But the writers haven't shown us that;
all they've shown us is the same Fonzie figure from Seasons 5 and 6, only
without the viciousness that made him moderately interesting.


I don't know what show this person is watching because their focus on Spike is beginning to make me wonder about how much attention they pay to the other characters. I've been able to post only making short references to Spike. I have found the storylines this year to my liking but I don't only watch the show for Spike, I actually pay attention to what is going on. Things don't always happen in a linear way....and that also means atoning, or proof that a person has changed....sometimes we only get glimpses of change. Spike didn't apologize to Wood about his mother....I do wonder if Spike would have behaved differently if Wood hadn't trapped him, beat him with the intent to kill him. I think a beating, and attempted murder makes one a bit on the cranky side. In earlier episodes Spike has made it clear he can't take back what he has done as a soulless vampire, but he is willing to help fight the good fight. Neither Spike or Angel can give back exactly what they have taken when soulless vampires, what they can do is attempt to protect those they would formerly have tortured and killed. Jasmine told Angel that he wasn't human and he said "Workin on it"....I think Spike is working on it....Angel has just had a few, well many decades long head start.

The second episode of this season, "Beneath You," was originally supposed to end with a scene where Spike expresses guilt for his past crimes, admits that he got a soul
for selfish reasons (he thought Buffy would love him if he had a soul), and
arrives at the realization that having a soul hasn't made him good enough
for Buffy ("God hates me. You hate me. I hate myself more than ever"). But
creator Joss Whedon rewrote this scene so that Spike talked mostly about the
fact that Buffy "used" him for sex -- just another attempt to create
unearned sympathy for Spike and deemphasize his past role as a killer and
sexual predator.


I think there was a very different reason that the last bit in Beneath You was rewritten, and it wasn't to white-wash Spike, it was to make his status ambiguous enough that there would be dramatic tension. As originally written it told too much, and that would have taken away from the episode like Conversations with Dead People and Sleeper. I got it from what I saw in Beneath You that Spike was anguished by being able to feel the emotions that the lack of soul took away from him, the feelings of guilt and horror that he could be capable of such viciousness. My feeling is that no matter what Spike does this writer is never going to see past the label they have already decided on for the character.

The bond between these four characters was the heart of the show for
the first four seasons, more than anything else, even romance (there were
many episodes where Buffy's love interest, Angel, didn't appear or was
relegated to one or two token scenes). Every week, these characters proved
what we'd all like to believe when we're outcasts in high school: that the
uncool kids, the ones no one takes seriously, are really the coolest and
most heroic of all.


It seems to me that Spike has been relegated to a few scenes in many of this years eps. Specially at the beginning. So the writer doesn't make a great argument for a surfeit of Spike. Plus Angel was sent off to his own series at the end of season three, where surprisingly enough he is sans shirt in many episodes (that bastard Spike must be to blame). The fact that these characters always end up back together proves how strong a bond they have. Characters like Willow have made mistakes and she has been forgiven and taken back because of that bond. Also, Xander and Dawn had a great episode in Potential where we got to see the good fight from the perspective of the common man/girl. The bonds of friendship are always tested, it's in how the characters survive the test that we see how wonderful they are.


To make this clear, the monsters on the show were often portrayed as the
twisted embodiment of high school coolness. In the pilot, Xander's friend
Jesse goes from "an excruciating loser" to an effortlessly cool bad boy
after he is turned into a vampire. Another episode, "Reptile Boy," made frat
boys the villains. And Spike, when introduced in Season 2, was exactly the
kind of smartass punk who makes high school a miserable place for geeks:
Arrogant, cocky and contemptuous of anyone who wasn't equally cool, he was a
superficial, self-confident Fonzie type who deserved to get smacked down by
our awkward heroes.


I think the writer misses the point of this year's back to the beginning. The characters are reliving situations that remind us of past seasons but show their reactions to similar events as more mature adults. Xander is never going to be that kid that rolled to school on a skateboard in Welcome to the HellMouth. Of course I never saw evil Spike as cool but annoying, so I guess it's a subjective opinion on what is cool.

And it's not just Spike. Willow's new love
interest, Kennedy, is a confident loudmouth with a privileged upbringing,
who obnoxiously admires Willow not for her intelligence but for her power.
Spike's nemesis, Principal Wood, is described in one of the scripts as "The
Coolest Principal Ever." And Andrew, the show's answer to "The Simpsons'"
Comic Book Guy, is constantly mocked for his geekiness, because a show that
was once on the side of geeks now portrays them as buffoons or villains. And
whereas the early seasons usually showed the characters learning how to
defeat monsters by researching them in Giles' books, they now find
everything they need on the Internet -- a far cry from Giles' wonderful
first-season speech about the superiority of books over computers. It seems
that on a show where an unrepentant mass murdering monster can be a hero,
there's no more room for a celebration of the power of book learning, or the
nobility of uncool people.



Now, not content to bash Spike, the writer moves onto Kennedy and Principal Wood. If the writer had their way, maybe the core four could sit around a table every week and tell jokes. Different characters are going to surface or the show (any show) is over. Kennedy is nineteen years old and is drawn to Willow, but not just for her power. She honestly is attracted to the woman. How dare that bitch not comment about Willow's big brain. As for mocking Andrew....notice that while Andrew is mocked the characters reveal that they are closer to being like him than not. Xander's inner comic book geek surfaces, Buffy tolerates him, and slowly he begins to fit in. Then we have that turn-coat Giles who has found that the computer can be a useful adjunct to books...what a creep. The writer then finishes with yet another reference to Spike as a unrepentant, mass murdering, monster....but hey, maybe he/she is talking about Angel for a change......;)


Which brings us back to "Happy Days," and the Fonz. Just as "Happy Days"
went on for years with Fonzie even after Ron Howard left the show, there are
rumors that the character of Spike may go on after the end of "Buffy" --
perhaps moving to "Angel," or perhaps to a spinoff. The character is
popular; cool characters often are. But "Happy Days" was a better show in
the first two years, when it was just about the uncool Richie Cunningham.
And "Buffy" was a better show in the first four years, before Spike fell in
love with Buffy, before Spike started taking his shirt off in every episode,
and when the focus was on four uncool people and their quest to rid the
world of ... well, of characters like Spike.


Again the writer longs for the good old days. Well people and characters change, and I'm sure the writer can buy the first four seasons on DVD if they just can't deal with the evolving nature of the characters on the show. I love Buffy just as much now as I did in season one....I expect change, and face it you can't stop change. Spike is more than that Black Duster, he is more than the amount of skin he has been forced to show. Characters may evolve in Buffy, it's too bad that some people are incapable of evolving as well.


With tongue firmly in cheek.....Rufus

[> [> Now that's well done. -- s'kat, 22:22:50 05/16/03 Fri

And reminds me of why I love this board, well thought out analysis, point by point with back up. Also a focus on other things not just one topic.

I agree with this comment :

just had to answer the Salon article by Jamie Weinman because he/she sounds like someone who is more fixated on the Spike character than any of the Redemptionist types out there.

This I find incredibly ironic. If someone despises a character - why do they spend all their time posting on it?
Particularly for tv shows that have numerous other things to focus on? I'd think if you were tired of a character or didn't like them - you'd post on everything else and not waste your time on it?

Like you I prefer to post on numerous things not just one thing. There's so much richness in these shows to write about. To focus entirely on one seems a bit short-sighted.

Sometimes I think the anti-shippers are more fixated on the character they hate then the pro-shippers.

Again the writer has simplified the situation, and further reminds me how glad I am to have All things Philosophical to post about the characters.

Ditto. When people criticize the show on this board - we do it on a far more constructive level. Did you read matching moles recent posts or Darbys? And we also get far more interesting posts on literary allusions and film metaphors.
The people on this board have obviously spent their lives on more interesting pursuits than watching re-runs of old situation comedies on Nick at Night and TV-Land. It's sad that posts like your's Rufus and others on this board, such as matching mole's criticism or Masq's analysis or TCH's Angel essays - don't get the same type of publicity and mass readership as an article such as this. That enrages me.
Because it's so unfair and says so much about our popular/mainstream news and entertainment media/culture.

sk

[> [> [> Re: Now that's well done. -- Miss Edith, 08:52:28 05/17/03 Sat

I lurk on TWoP (a site which attracts Spike haters) and that is so true. There are posters saying Xander summoning Sweet was All About Spike. Willow's killing spree was All About Spike. Anya's massacre in Sefless was All About Spike. Andrew having taken a life was All About Spike. Apparently ME are using all the other characters to make Spike's past look better, there would be no killers among the regular cast if it weren't for Spike. Even Anya being horny is All About Spike, and making him look noble for turning her down. Some of the anti-Spike folk relate nearly everything to Spike I've noticed. There are characters I depsise *coughKennedyandWoodcough* I therefore don't waste my energy posting on them all that often. I'm surprised that a lot of the people claiming to despise Spike, and finding him a flat empty character with a soul, do talk about him quite as much as they do. Just an observation.

[> [> [> [> They all need to get a room, but it's looking to be a real big room now....;) -- Rufus, 15:57:09 05/17/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> LMAO!!! MAybe we should do mud wrestling tournaments -- s'kat, 19:57:14 05/17/03 Sat

Here's the line-up:

Spikeshippers(etc) vs. Spikehaters

OR better yet a tournament like Jbones contest:

1. B/R vs. B/W

the winner goes against

B/X

the winner goes up against

B/S

the winner goes up against reigning champ

B/A

2. W/X vs. W/O

the winner goes up against

W/K

the winner goes up against reigning champ

W/T

3. X/W vs. X/B

the winner goes up against reigning champ

X/A

and we can keep going...

Uhm I was assuming you meant shippers.

Now I think of it maybe you meant Spike and the Anti's??;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> I think there is room for all of them.....;) -- Rufus, 00:49:53 05/18/03 Sun


[> [> Superlative- I love point-by-point deconstructions of gibberish! -- TCH- genuflecting Rufus, 01:23:21 05/17/03 Sat



Current board | More May 2003