Interpreting Spike

[itsnotmymind]

Spike fans are a very diverse group of people--given the character's popularity, they probably make up most fans of Buffy. There's a lot of different interpretations of the character, but there is a certain interpretation of Spike that I've seen more than once from some of his more hardcore fans that doesn't really work for me.

I think the thing that makes me different from some Spike fans, is that part of what I loved about him is that, well, he’s a bad guy. And was for a very long time. A very long time. That’s a major part of who he is. And I see other Spike fans who want to give him credit for EVERY LITTLE GOOD THING he does, and take the most sympathetic interpretation of everything he does. And then if he does anything wrong, it’s not his fault, because no soul. He should get credit for the good he does, but not the bad, because he is soulless.

And, yes, obviously Spike doesn’t have a soul, and that’s not really his fault, and because of that, he may not be entirely responsible for the things he does. Especially the really evil things.

But…the very fact the soulless Spike is capable of good means that, to some extent, he is responsible for the bad (I have similar thoughts about Faith--yes, her life was very hard, and she was in a very bad situation when she made her decision to go evil in S3, but her life was even worse when she made the decision to redeem herself later. So she is capable of choosing not to kill people no matter how horrible her life is). And looking solely at the good side of Spike, seeing Spike as such a wonderful vampire because he loved Buffy and helped the Scoobies, I mean, that interests me, but not as much as seeing a Spike who was, really, just as evil in S6 as in S2, but also just as much love’s bitch in S6 as S2, and this time taking his identity from a slayer as opposed to another vampire. I think it’s more interesting, because instead of Spike being super-special and unique (although, obviously, he is very unusual; few vampires are that romantic, and that adaptable), it’s just stretching the definition of what it means to be soulless. We saw in “School Hard” that Spike was a devoted lover. We saw in “Lie To Me” that he was willing to give up his prey in order to protect his love. We saw in “Becoming, Part 2” that he was willing to betray his own kind and ally with his mortal enemy in order to get back to Drusilla (and also saw that his love for Dru, while at times selfless, could also be very selfish; he took her back against her will). What happens if someone like that falls in love, not with another vampire, but a human? A human hero? Could a soulless vampire, then, be good? What does it mean to be good? What if the human he loves starts to be less good, starts to become more like a vampire? What then?

And I don’t want Spike to get credit for every little good thing he does, because it makes it less meaningful. If Spike’s soullessness means that he is responsible only for the good he does, but not the bad, why should I care about either? Part of why I love Spike is because he was so evil, for so long.

But it’s strange—because I also get defensive of Spike, and even watching Evil Spike can make me uncomfortable at times, so maybe I’m overcompensating? Working so hard at accepting Spike’s evilness because I don’t like it? I don't know.

Comments

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

I love this post and I want to date it.

The issue of responsibility of souled vampires for what they did as soulless is complicated, but I don't think one can just give them a free pass for all they did. There's a reason why Angel's story was always one of redemption, and there's a reason why Spike's journey and transformation is so amazing. The former doesn't work if Angel isn't responsible for what he did without soul, and the latter doesn't work if Spike was always "good", which he clearly wasn't.

just as evil in S6 as in S2, but also just as much love’s bitch in S6 as S2, and this time taking his identity from a slayer as opposed to another vampire.

It's astounding how many people fail to notice this.

Like you said, the Spike fans are a very diverse bunch. The group you describe is one I really can't relate to and just keep disagreeing completely with. One of them is even a major write for IDW comics that had his Spike deliver a speech about how he was already good without a soul. :facepalm:

Then there's another, equally frustrating group of fans who only liked Spike in season 2 and maybe 3 and 4, "before the Villain Decay" and who say the later seasons ruined him when he became a "lovesick puppy" (as if he wasn't one in 2-3) or that they hated him when he tried to rape Buffy. (While I guess raping and killing hundreds of people we didn't know was OK.)

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

Thank you :)

I don't think one can just give them a free pass for all they did.

It's particularly strange when I see people argue that Spike should be given a free pass for his evil acts while soulless, but extra praise for his good acts while soulless, because he did them as a soulless vampire. I don't think you can have it both ways.

The group you describe is one I really can't relate to and just keep disagreeing completely with. One of them is even a major write for IDW comics that had his Spike deliver a speech about how he was already good without a soul.

Forgive my ignorance. What are IDW Comics?

I suppose you could argue that Spike was "good" without a soul, depending on your definition of "good". He was selflessly fighting for the good side, after all. However, since he seemed to feel no remorse whatsoever for his past evil, I would not consider him good.

I wonder what would have happened if Spike and the Scoobies had encountered someone like Robin Wood, someone who had lost family to Spike, in S4, S5, or S6, before Spike had the soul.

Then there's another, equally frustrating group of fans who only liked Spike in season 2 and maybe 3 and 4, "before the Villain Decay" and who say the later seasons ruined him when he became a "lovesick puppy"

I get why someone would like early season Spike and not later season Spike (since he does change a lot), but I don't see how you can deny that the changes weren't true to his established character.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

You don't read the Buffyverse comics, or you just don't know about the IDW ones? Well, IDW Publishing is the comics publisher that used to have the right to the comics adaptations and continuations of "Angel", while Dark Horse had (and still has) the right to "Buffy". Dark Horse only finally acquired the rights to "Angel" characters this year, so Angel now has his title, which he shares with Faith, under the Dark Horse season 9 roof, and AtS-specific characters like Illyria or Connor are supposed to appear in the new season. Under the old rules, Spike was one of the IDW characters and appeared in their comics - they released a lot of Spike mini series, in addition to his appearances in the main titles like "Angel: After the Fall" and others under the name of "Angel" as well mini-series under the name of "Illyria", for instance. he last Spike comic was an 8-issue comic called "Spike", written by Brian Lynch. Brian Lynch is the main IDW Buffyverse writer, who wrote most of "Angel: After the Fall" and "Spike: After the Fall", direct continuation of "Not Fade Away", which was based on Joss's basic outline - but other than that, didn't follow his ideas too closely. "After the Fall" is usually considered canon but has never been confirmed as such, and most of IDW's comics are in the "murky canon" territory: Joss won't say either way, that they're canon or that they're not, probably because he is trying to be nice to the IDW colleagues, whatever he may think of their ideas. Calling the new series "Angel & Faith" was a perfect solution to avoid calling it either "Angel season 6" and de-canonizing the IDW comics, or "Angel season 7" and canonizing them.

cont.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

A lot of people I know aren't, well, too happy with IDW portrayals of Spike, or their portrayals of Angel, for that matter, while of course there are others who love it. Brian Lynch's version of Angel is very idealized, he considers him an epitome of nobility, and he loves Spike but IMO his Spike is way simplified and not a complex character I like. I didn't read many IDW comics, but I have read the "Spike" miniseries, and Lynch inserted several of his own interpretations of canon into that one. Starting with the first pages of #1, where Spike describes Angel as the epitome of nobility he aspires to, complete with an "evolutionary" sequence that shows Angel as the last stage (10 out 10) while Spike is "8.5 out of 10"), which shows two things: despite being an AtS fan, Lynch must have missed the part in "Destiny" where Spike says what he actually thinks about Angel; and, Lynch either isn't aware of Joss's interview where he called Spike "more evolved than Angel, because he sought his soul", or was deliberately pissing off Joss by literally contradicting him.

That's just the beginning: the whole miniseries, as we soon learn, is based on the concept of "soul for a soul": some human serial killer called John is after Spike (and used by Wolfram & Hart) because Wolfram & Hart took away his soul, to restore the balance when Spike lost his. (The catch is that John was always a psycho killer, but he doesn't feel as much pleasure in killing as he did when he had a soul.) Say what?! So would that mean that every time someone is sired, someone else has to gain a soul? Who keeps the balance? Nonsense. Some people think that the miniseries is canon because one plot ties into season 8, and because Willow was a guest star and Joss oversaw her dialogue, but the whole exchange of souls is surely never going to be pronounced canon.

And then in issue 6 or 7, I don't remember, John takes out Spike's soul but Spike manages to keep John from getting it, and he decides to give it temporarily to someone else - Drusilla, who was just in the process of biting Spike's human friend Jeremy, so it was mostly a pragmatic decision. (Don't ask why Drusilla was in the comic...long story.) Of course, Spike gets his soul back shortly afterwards, but the moment he lost it, he gives a speech about how it doesn't matter because he was already good without a soul, when he loved Buffy and was helping the Scoobies, and the soul just made it official. Obviously, another instance of Lynch blatantly using Spike as the spokesperson for his own views.
Some Spike fans loved that, others, like me, really hated it. Ironically, somme Spike haters also loved it and jumped all over that, because in their view, if Spike was already able to be good without a soul, that means that was even worse and much more responsible for the bad things he did than Angel was (Bangels are particularly fond of this view). Spike was more evil than Angel because he was less evil; get it? It makes the kind of sense that's not.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

I get why someone would like early season Spike and not later season Spike (since he does change a lot), but I don't see how you can deny that the changes weren't true to his established character.

But their explanations why don't make sense. He changes, but he doesn't change the way they say he does. I can see, for instance, why one fan dislikes the fact that he wasn't as snarky and funny in season 6 and 7, with all the angst. But, the most popular complaints are perplexing. One is that he became "a lovesick puppy" - as if he wasn't one in seasons 2 and 3? How is being "Buffy's lovesick puppy" worse than being "Drusilla's lovesick puppy"? Another very popular one is that he was so "badass" as a villain and then underwent "badass decay" and again, they blame it on his falling in love with Buffy. Except that 1) any badass decay he underwent was actually caused by the chip - but those same people usually have little problem with season 4 Spike who's at his most pathetic and non-badass, and 2) if anything, Spike became a lot more "badass" as a good guy - especially since he wasn't really all that badass as a villain in season 2 - running away from Joyce, running away from Buffy, not really accomplishing much as a villain; compared with later seasons and things like withstanding Glory's torture, fighting for his soul, withstanding the First's torture, sacrificing himself and saving the world, not being afraid to go against much more powerful opponents like Caleb or TwAngel. Not to mention that he kicks Angel's ass in Destiny, while in season 2 he had to ally with Buffy and beat him with a stick from behind.

And then there's the "I loved him until he tried to rape Buffy" argument. But they loved him as a villain when he was killing, raping and torturing lots and lots of people and didn't feel any guilt over it? I can see why someone could stop liking Willow once she wiped Tara's mind, killed Warren and Rack and tried to destroy the world - because Willow was at first a nice, sweet character. But Spike was introduced as a mass-murdering vampire with a strong sexually predatory vibe that's all over School Hard and Halloween. Not to mention the scene in The Initiative when he tries to kill Willow, which plays as a metaphorical attempted rape with the impotence jokes. (Creepy.) So what the heck is the deal with that? It's only bad when it's on screen and with someone we care about and portrayed realistically?

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

I think I meant to say "were true" to his established character, not "weren't true". Too many negatives in there. I think the changes in Spike's character in later seasons were true to his character as already established.

I was aware that there are such a thing as Buffy comics, but I haven't read them, and hadn't heard of IDW Publishing.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'm in a really weird position regarding Spike in that I like the character but I was never a "Spike fan" in the sense of him being the main reason why I watch the show. Nor did I think the show got warped because of his popularity, which is the other extreme of attitude. So that left me with spoofing the Spike Wars with the Educated Fangirls Guide to same, and venting my frustration with the very bunch of fans you describe via writing "Five By Five", aka the tale of five of Spike's victims.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

Spike seems to be a very polarizing character.

I read your Five in One fic, and I loved it, because it gets the point across without falling back on any "How could fans like a MASS MURDERER" type moral hysteria. Instead, you just show the truth.

And on an entirely different note, in regards to our conversation about John Lennon's jealousy of Mal Evan's friendship with Paul McCartney, I found a visual.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

OMG, I didn't know Mal had a Pepper mustache as well during that time. (Later in the 70s, yes.) Ha, and the photo doesn't make it any clearer which one he's jealous of. This being John, probably both. In thanks, I offer another pictorial triangle:

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Err, the first picture doesn't seem to be visible completely? Let's try again:

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

I can see the picture clearly in my inbox, so the problem must be my journal theme. I'll have to find a different one at some point.

John just wanted everyone to focus on him all the time, didn't he?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

As long as you can see it somewhere. And yes, John did, partly, I guess, out of neurotic fear that if they weren't he'd get dumped and abandoned.