Interpreting Spike
Jan. 12th, 2012 06:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
itsnotmymindSpike 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 10:02 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-14 01:14 am (UTC)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.