Spike and Demons

[itsnotmymind]

If the writers wanted to make Spike in S5-S6 seem evil without putting Buffy in a position where she was forced to kill him, they could have had him be mean to demons. Instead, we have this exchange between Spike and demon collecting gambling debts (“Tabula Rasa”):

SHARK DEMON: You're an odd duck, Mister Spike. Fighting your own kind ... palling around with a Slayer. (Spike turns to face him) And whoa, that suit! Chutzpah must be your middle name. (chuckles weakly) Uh, hey, look, um ... about our little debt problem, it's okay, I don't need the kittens.

Spike grabs the demon by the front of his suit, pulls him close.

SPIKE: You'll get paid. I'm no welsher.
SHARK DEMON: Right, sure. (Spike lets him go) You're good for it, I know that. I'm just going to, uh ... yeah.

Why is it that he steals from Anya in “All the Way”, but won’t welsh on demon bets?

And then there’s the friendship with Clem, who is Mr. Sweetheart.

I actually think the way Spike treats demons is a better argument that he was good in S5-S6 then anything about his interactions with humans. After all, Spike can hurt demons, and yet he doesn't. Maybe there’s an element of self-preservation to it—we saw him get beat up by demons in S4, so maybe he’s trying to keep that from happening again—but it’s still a fairly decent argument. Yet it’s not one I’ve ever heard anyone but me make.

The argument I’ve heard is, “He watched Dawn faithfully!” To which I say, “Well, Spike was a devoted boyfriend in ‘School Hard’, remember? Back when he killed people for fun? Not convinced here!” I believe Spike loved Buffy, as much as a soulless vampire is capable of loving. But how does that make him good? I mean, I suppose it depends on how you define good, but how does that prove that he has any conscience? That he won’t go out and hurt non-Buffy people if given the chance? That he won’t hurt Buffy if she tries to leave him? It doesn’t.

And it’s odd because the people who defend Spike the most intensely are the ones complain about how the show favors the Scoobies over the non-human characters. They complain that the Scoobies are prejudiced against demons. But when they defend Spike, they only talk about how he treats human characters, not how he treats demon characters. What’s up with that?

Although it occurred to me…maybe Spike does get in fights with demons a lot. Wasn’t that implied in “Life Serial”? Maybe that would explain everyone’s non-reaction to Spike’s bruises in “Older and Far Away”. Maybe it happens a lot? Except we never see Spike with bruises any other time.

Comments

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Although, Spike admits in "Life Serial" that he *was* cheating in kitten poker.

I actually think this side of Spike is one we've seen before -- he followed through on his deal with Ford in "Lie to Me." I think the idea is, when Spike makes a deal he'll follow through on it. However, nothing says he won't go and steal from other people in the meantime, even friends. More about pride than ethics, I think?

I think that if we want to talk about bad treatment of demons or other vampires -- I think one can say that Spike's trying to frame those pathetic vamps in "Crush" for the train massacre in order to make time with Buffy was particularly bad.

In general, I think people do sometimes talk about Spike's mistreatment of evil-demon Harmony in discussing the ways in which s5 Spike is not so good -- and so I think it does come up. But there again it's only close personal relationships people are talking about, and not strangers. The Harmony thing really does show though how not all people Spike is close to get treated well in his s5-6 period.

That said, like, I think Spike still is awful to strangers into s6. I know that it's remarkable that Spike sort of pauses before trying to kill the girl in "Smashed" when he thinks the chip has stopped working -- he on some level is able to recognize it's wrong now, and doesn't want to do it entirely. But he still goes ahead because proving Buffy doesn't own him plus general commitment to evil is more important than his reticence. I think that the same type of rule applies to demons -- if soulless Spike is not already friends with somebody, or isn't forced to trust them and start to form a bond through circumstances, he *may* still make deals with them and then feel responsible for following through because of his mini-code of honour, but in general I think he'll still just treat them terribly.

And it’s odd because the people who defend Spike the most intensely are the ones complain about how the show favors the Scoobies over the non-human characters. They complain that the Scoobies are prejudiced against demons. But when they defend Spike, they only talk about how he treats human characters, not how he treats demon characters. What’s up with that?

Yeah, I mean, for sure. It also means that Spike's continuing to fight demons and fighting other vamps post-soul would be questionable. Why is Spike fighting those vamps in the teaser to LMPTM -- why doesn't he recognize that they are all potential redemption stories waiting to happen? OR MAYBE THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE REDEEMED VAMPS HATE HUMANS HUMANS HATE VAMPS TWO SIDES SAME COIN OMG!!!!

...ahem. But no, I think you're right that IF we genuinely believe that mistreatment of demons and vamps is just as morally wrong as mistreatment of humans, then Spike's redemption ending in him killing other vampires and even him killing other Ubervamps is not really redemption, Spike just switched sides, became a traitor. And that is...something people should talk about, if they are going to take that premise.

I actually do think that mistreatment of demons on the part of the heroes is worth talking about -- but I think it can be exaggerated. I think it's too big a topic to get into for me right now.

On this topic itself, I mean, I think that on some level a late-term Spike recognizes that fighting demons is more legit than fighting humans because he has been a demon and he knows that the desire to KILL HUMANS AND SPREAD EVIL DESTRUCTION for him really was...like, a draw to evil and destruction. I don't think Spike's vampire self is as drawn to evil for the sake of evil as say Angelus, but he's definitely drawn to destruction and the fun of anarchic evil and of hurting people for fun. There are likely some humans who are into demonhunting for sport and for the pleasure of it -- sort of like Faith early on -- and Buffy has some of that along the way too, but that's not the primary reason for fighting, which is more self-protection.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

Although, Spike admits in "Life Serial" that he *was* cheating in kitten poker.

Oo, good point, I forgot about that.

I think that if we want to talk about bad treatment of demons or other vampires -- I think one can say that Spike's trying to frame those pathetic vamps in "Crush" for the train massacre in order to make time with Buffy was particularly bad.

That's true, although again, many people feel that Spike developed as a character after Crush and became more good.

I think that the same type of rule applies to demons -- if soulless Spike is not already friends with somebody, or isn't forced to trust them and start to form a bond through circumstances, he *may* still make deals with them and then feel responsible for following through because of his mini-code of honour, but in general I think he'll still just treat them terribly.

I feel like in S6 especially the writers really overlooked the opportunity to show Spike's evilness by having him be truly awful to some harmless demon. Because Buffy wouldn't kill him over that, but it might have convinced the audience Spike was still evil (it certainly would have been better than his ridiculous plot in As You Were).

But no, I think you're right that IF we genuinely believe that mistreatment of demons and vamps is just as morally wrong as mistreatment of humans, then Spike's redemption ending in him killing other vampires and even him killing other Ubervamps is not really redemption, Spike just switched sides, became a traitor. And that is...something people should talk about, if they are going to take that premise.

Yeah. I mean I've plenty of times heard people complain that Scoobies were prejudiced against Spike because he had no soul or Anya because she was a demon, but usually their arguments that prove the goodness of Spike and Anya are...they're acting like the Scoobies, and killing other demons and soulless vampires. What?

I actually do think that mistreatment of demons on the part of the heroes is worth talking about -- but I think it can be exaggerated. I think it's too big a topic to get into for me right now.

Yes to this.

[rahirah]

I assume Spike was fighting with demons the whole time -- he's got to steal stuff from somebody. I also think it takes a hell of a lot to bruise a vampire. Do we ever see him or Buffy bruised after a 'normal' fight? The only times we see Spike look that beat up is after Glory tortured him, and after Buffy beat him. (IIRC his post Buffy makeup was originally worse, but Joss made them re-do it because he said if Buffy hamburgerized Spike that badly the audience would never forgive her. Pity he wasn't thinking along the same lines in Seeing Red.)

I don't think Spike was 'good' in S5/6, but as Tara said, he did do some good things. It's the very fact that he's not 'good' in that time period that makes his desire to be good (regardless of why he desired it) interesting.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

Perhaps Spike was fighting with demons the whole time. I mean, obviously he was supporting Buffy in her fights against demons, so there was that.

Pity he wasn't thinking along the same lines in Seeing Red.)

Seeing Red is fascinating because we know in theory that Spike has done far worse, but because we actually see it before our eyes, it feels worse than all the things we didn't see.

I don't think Spike was 'good' in S5/6, but as Tara said, he did do some good things. It's the very fact that he's not 'good' in that time period that makes his desire to be good (regardless of why he desired it) interesting.

I do agree that it's interesting. But I got a little burnt out from reading all the fannish complaints on how Spike's good behavior was not adequately recognized by the other characters on the show. Now, the Scoobies did not always treat Spike well (the alley-beating was completely uncalled for, as was Xander's attempt to kill Spike in Entropy), but they had perfectly valid reasons for not falling over themselves to praise him. The need from some fans for that recognition, "Oh, Spike's not acting like a total asshole today! Amazing!" made me tired.

[rahirah]

I suspect people fail to take into account that characters don't see other characters in the same way that viewers do. Everyone feels that their own favorite character never gets enough validation, though. I've seen Willow fans and Xander fans and Buffy fans and Giles fans rant the exact same rants about how their woobie is under-appreciated and no one loves them the way they deserve to be loved, and each and every one of them complain bitterly about how unreasonable the fans of other characters are when they do the same thing.

My personal issues with SR are just that if you have an incredibly divisive character, and you want to keep that character on the show in a more or less amicable relationship with the heroes and incidentally not set half your fan base at war with the other half, having him try to rape the main character is a very bad idea. I also dislike the way they portrayed Buffy as a helpless victim. I have seen people say that it was to emphasize that any woman can be subject to sexual violence, but Buffy is not everywoman, she's the motherfuckin' Slayer. There are certain kinds of realism I would rather not have in my female power fantasy characters, thanks Joss. There's a well-known trope in soap operas where, if a powerful, 'bitchy' female character is unpopular, they have her raped in order to make the audience feel sympathetic to her. Seeing Red smacks a little too much of that to me. (As well as the BtVS-specific trope that Buffy often gets punished by the narrative for having sex, period.)

And as you say, Spike HAS done far, far worse. He actually killed, maimed, and raped thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people without giving a hoot, but it's failing to rape Buffy and then feeling bad about it that people seem to feel is his one unforgivable crime. It's natural to find something we witness more powerful than something we're just told about, but perspective, people. (Granted, most of the fans who hate Spike because of Seeing Red already hated him, and would have continued to hate him regardless.)

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

Everyone feels that their own favorite character never gets enough validation, though. I've seen Willow fans and Xander fans and Buffy fans and Giles fans rant the exact same rants about how their woobie is under-appreciated and no one loves them the way they deserve to be loved, and each and every one of them complain bitterly about how unreasonable the fans of other characters are when they do the same thing.

You're right, all fans do that. People see things from their favorite's point of view, and struggle with other perspectives. I think it just bothers me more with Spike because Spike has done things that were so bad--and I mean, the fact that he was soulless does muddy the waters as to how much we should blame him for the things he's done, but those things still happened and the people involved were still hurt.

I think Buffy's reaction in Seeing Red was within the realm of plausible characterization, but it would also have been within the realm of plausible characterization for her to keep her head and kick him off right away. The writers made a deliberate choice, and I don't think it was the best one they could have made. As I've said before, I think it was perfect for Spike's storyline, but I'm less thrilled with how it plays into Buffy's storyline.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

The argument I’ve heard is, “He watched Dawn faithfully!” To which I say, “Well, Spike was a devoted boyfriend in ‘School Hard’, remember? Back when he killed people for fun? Not convinced here!” I believe Spike loved Buffy, as much as a soulless vampire is capable of loving. But how does that make him good? I mean, I suppose it depends on how you define good, but how does that prove that he has any conscience? That he won’t go out and hurt non-Buffy people if given the chance? That he won’t hurt Buffy if she tries to leave him? It doesn’t.

I have nothing to add to this but a thousand gallons of "YES".

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

:)