![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gwynI've responded a couple times to Ron, the guy who writes the Buffy and Angel reviews on Slayage.com, and have had a couple pleasant discourses regarding his reviews. Just becuase I'm bored and anxious (we're moving our offices after tomorrow, and sitting here in my increasingly empty space, knowing my doom is coming, makes me tense) waiting for tonight's Buffy, which so far people have said (without spoilering) that it was one of the best they've ever seen, I thought I'd post for the one or two people who might care what I sent to Ron yesterday. He wrote me a really nice reply and I haven't sat down and formulated one to him; we definitely see differently on the idea that doing good in order to be the kind of person who could deserve a good person's love doesn't count because you should do good for doing good's sake, which is okay, I see this a lot with people who either dislike Spike or think that being good just because you are good is the only thing that counts (and I just want to reiterate that this is all my opinion, mine alone, and I'm not trying to tell anyone what they have to believe about the characters just becuase it's how I feel). I disagreed with him, but here's what I said about why I disagree:
I just finished reading your Sleeper review and wanted to respond to a couple points, because you've brought up something I see a lot of and I'm both interested in and baffled by it. You mentioned that Spike got a soul and was doing good not because he wanted to, but because he was obsessed with someone (which sounds like you're in the camp that doesn't believe a vampire can feel honest love qua love), and brought up Tara's Quasimodo reasoning as parallelism. This is the thing that interests and baffles me -- why is it such a bad thing to change your ways and try to earn someone's love, to have them love you back by becoming the kind of person they could love? I'm never sure I understand this argument against Spike's feelings for Buffy.
Especially as regards the Quasi. argument, because to be honest, I kept wondering if the scriptwriter for Crush had actually ever *read* Hunchback. Tara's reasoning isn't really true to the book (unless it's some abridged version or whatever), and every time since I've heard fans use that argument, I'm certain they haven't read it (which is understandable, it's terribly dense, dull, and difficult to understand by our standards today). Quasi wasn't simply obsessed by Esmeralda, he saw her as the one pure, good thing he'd ever come across in his life, and he rescued her in the hopes that she would love him. But he'd been raised by the priest... gah, I cannot remember his name now! to be a fairly fearsome, brutal being, and there was little of the positive in his life. Esmeralda brought the only light into his life he'd ever known, and he went on a rampage of destruction because he loved her and could not help her (which the mob helped). It was the priest who was obsessed with her in an evil, sick way, and who wanted to use her, not Quasi, and Quasi tried to do the only thing he understood -- violence and revenge -- to keep her safe and also to hope she would love him (but of course she loved the crummy soldier whose name I also can't remember). Basically, Quasi was the only one of the three main males who didn't see Esmeralda as a thing to be had and used and thrown away, who didn't use and abuse others to have her, and who saw her as the true manifestation of good in his otherwise miserable life. Which, to me, sounds at times a bit like Spike. He was the only person who stood by Buffy in S6 and who tried to be her friend, unconditionally, but things changed when he got to the end of his rope. Buffy did admit to feelings for Spike before the attack (and I still don't accept the attack because to be honest, it was one of the cheesier, lamer deus ex machina devices that the show's ever used, and waaaay beneath them, as far as storytelling goes), so it's dishonest to say that Buffy couldn't have cared less if Spike did good for her. She was too caught up in her own issues, but she clearly did care underneath it all.
Spike doesn't have the emotional maturity to understand fully how to earn Buffy's love, but he was trying. And now he's trying in a different way, and I'm not sure I get why people are so dismissive of this. Quasi did the only thing *he* understood to have Esmeralda, to take care of her and love her and be loved in return. I'm not sure why everyone downgrades Spike's feelings into mere obsession (other than Spike-hating, which certainly a lot of fans are), or believes that what he was willing to sacrifice is largely meaningless because he wants to earn Buffy's love. Frankly? I'd be *honored* if someone was willing to sacrifice something for me. No, Buffy didn't ask for him to get a soul -- but she did tell him she cared for him, and she did constantly lead him into believing she *could* have greater feelings for him, and his response -- to find some way to be the kind of man she could want -- seems pretty sensible. He didn't have to do good. He did it because he knew that's what Buffy wanted, and he was willing to change to offer her what she wanted. It might not make me love the guy in return if they did that for me, but it'd be a pretty freaking huge start. I've never been able to get a boyfriend to even put the toilet seat down or not chew with their mouth open for me; I simply can't imagine someone changing their character to be the kind of person I would love.
So I guess I'm still baffled by this sentiment that Spike was merely obsessed and doing good only to get in Buffy's pants (to my mind, earning someone's affections and getting in their pants are two different things, but I'm a girl, so maybe I'm just looking at it differently ;-) ), when I think we've seen he's willing to go through an awful lot for someone he loves, because he's love's bitch. He *is* man enough to change, and using the erroneous Quasimodo argument from Crush just baffles me further. The writers did a great job of bringing me to a place where I liked the idea of Spike and Buffy together, and I kind of feel like they're using some cheeseball excuses to stop it now. But it sounds like most of the audience wants it that way, so... maybe I'm must missing something.
And... you mentioned coming clean. While I agree that more could have been said, I was hallelujahing all over the place at the mere fact that for *once* these doofballs told each other *any*thing. They never do; whole arcs have been predicated on not telling stuff (such as Buffy not telling about Angel, etc.). This is the first time any of them have actually said, hey this weird thing happened to me, and then they could all say, hey, that happened to me too. Yeah, there's lots of holes, and geez, would it kill Buffy to admit Spike could hit her before? But overall, I'm still at least pleased they finally said something for once. There's no way they can get past something that can shapeshift if they don't talk, and I'm at least hopeful they will more.
(me again)
Anyways, it sounds like one other person wrote in to tell him that the Crush writers got Hunchback wrong (although not as pleasantly as I did -- everyone who knows me is probably laughing at the idea of me being considered more pleasant than someone else), and it's interesting to me that this has never really come up before in the places I play in. People just accept that it's the description of Spike's "doomed obsession," as Xander called it, even though it's an erroneous one, and it's something I think a lot of my fellow Spike/Buffy writers have battled against (and let's not get in to what else we battle against after last season!).
And he made some really good points back to me, about the other characters and about being good (particularly Angel), but I'm still baffled by a lot of the thinking behind it. I guess I'm just never going to actually understand why one has to be inherently good, for goodness's sake, to be... well, good. Changing for someone to be worthy of them has inspired countless amounts of literature, art, music...
And I look at the other characters and they may have been born good, or made good, but they frequently choose not to be and yet they're not denied status or love because of it. Angel made every effort not to get his soul back and be good; he certainly never asked for it and was only inspired to do and be good when Whistler came to him with the proposition that he should see Buffy and see if he wanted to become something better. Willow made a decision not to be good when she let grief and rage and her power addiction take over, yet, she's forgiven for her lapse, like Angel to Angelus. Xander frequently chooses the path of ungood, but isn't really called to task for those bad choices. Spike's made a conscious decision to be good, to be worthy, and yet... bupkus on the props for him because it was loving Buffy that inspired it, and I'm still just not getting why that's a bad thing.
But maybe it's just me. ;-)
I just finished reading your Sleeper review and wanted to respond to a couple points, because you've brought up something I see a lot of and I'm both interested in and baffled by it. You mentioned that Spike got a soul and was doing good not because he wanted to, but because he was obsessed with someone (which sounds like you're in the camp that doesn't believe a vampire can feel honest love qua love), and brought up Tara's Quasimodo reasoning as parallelism. This is the thing that interests and baffles me -- why is it such a bad thing to change your ways and try to earn someone's love, to have them love you back by becoming the kind of person they could love? I'm never sure I understand this argument against Spike's feelings for Buffy.
Especially as regards the Quasi. argument, because to be honest, I kept wondering if the scriptwriter for Crush had actually ever *read* Hunchback. Tara's reasoning isn't really true to the book (unless it's some abridged version or whatever), and every time since I've heard fans use that argument, I'm certain they haven't read it (which is understandable, it's terribly dense, dull, and difficult to understand by our standards today). Quasi wasn't simply obsessed by Esmeralda, he saw her as the one pure, good thing he'd ever come across in his life, and he rescued her in the hopes that she would love him. But he'd been raised by the priest... gah, I cannot remember his name now! to be a fairly fearsome, brutal being, and there was little of the positive in his life. Esmeralda brought the only light into his life he'd ever known, and he went on a rampage of destruction because he loved her and could not help her (which the mob helped). It was the priest who was obsessed with her in an evil, sick way, and who wanted to use her, not Quasi, and Quasi tried to do the only thing he understood -- violence and revenge -- to keep her safe and also to hope she would love him (but of course she loved the crummy soldier whose name I also can't remember). Basically, Quasi was the only one of the three main males who didn't see Esmeralda as a thing to be had and used and thrown away, who didn't use and abuse others to have her, and who saw her as the true manifestation of good in his otherwise miserable life. Which, to me, sounds at times a bit like Spike. He was the only person who stood by Buffy in S6 and who tried to be her friend, unconditionally, but things changed when he got to the end of his rope. Buffy did admit to feelings for Spike before the attack (and I still don't accept the attack because to be honest, it was one of the cheesier, lamer deus ex machina devices that the show's ever used, and waaaay beneath them, as far as storytelling goes), so it's dishonest to say that Buffy couldn't have cared less if Spike did good for her. She was too caught up in her own issues, but she clearly did care underneath it all.
Spike doesn't have the emotional maturity to understand fully how to earn Buffy's love, but he was trying. And now he's trying in a different way, and I'm not sure I get why people are so dismissive of this. Quasi did the only thing *he* understood to have Esmeralda, to take care of her and love her and be loved in return. I'm not sure why everyone downgrades Spike's feelings into mere obsession (other than Spike-hating, which certainly a lot of fans are), or believes that what he was willing to sacrifice is largely meaningless because he wants to earn Buffy's love. Frankly? I'd be *honored* if someone was willing to sacrifice something for me. No, Buffy didn't ask for him to get a soul -- but she did tell him she cared for him, and she did constantly lead him into believing she *could* have greater feelings for him, and his response -- to find some way to be the kind of man she could want -- seems pretty sensible. He didn't have to do good. He did it because he knew that's what Buffy wanted, and he was willing to change to offer her what she wanted. It might not make me love the guy in return if they did that for me, but it'd be a pretty freaking huge start. I've never been able to get a boyfriend to even put the toilet seat down or not chew with their mouth open for me; I simply can't imagine someone changing their character to be the kind of person I would love.
So I guess I'm still baffled by this sentiment that Spike was merely obsessed and doing good only to get in Buffy's pants (to my mind, earning someone's affections and getting in their pants are two different things, but I'm a girl, so maybe I'm just looking at it differently ;-) ), when I think we've seen he's willing to go through an awful lot for someone he loves, because he's love's bitch. He *is* man enough to change, and using the erroneous Quasimodo argument from Crush just baffles me further. The writers did a great job of bringing me to a place where I liked the idea of Spike and Buffy together, and I kind of feel like they're using some cheeseball excuses to stop it now. But it sounds like most of the audience wants it that way, so... maybe I'm must missing something.
And... you mentioned coming clean. While I agree that more could have been said, I was hallelujahing all over the place at the mere fact that for *once* these doofballs told each other *any*thing. They never do; whole arcs have been predicated on not telling stuff (such as Buffy not telling about Angel, etc.). This is the first time any of them have actually said, hey this weird thing happened to me, and then they could all say, hey, that happened to me too. Yeah, there's lots of holes, and geez, would it kill Buffy to admit Spike could hit her before? But overall, I'm still at least pleased they finally said something for once. There's no way they can get past something that can shapeshift if they don't talk, and I'm at least hopeful they will more.
(me again)
Anyways, it sounds like one other person wrote in to tell him that the Crush writers got Hunchback wrong (although not as pleasantly as I did -- everyone who knows me is probably laughing at the idea of me being considered more pleasant than someone else), and it's interesting to me that this has never really come up before in the places I play in. People just accept that it's the description of Spike's "doomed obsession," as Xander called it, even though it's an erroneous one, and it's something I think a lot of my fellow Spike/Buffy writers have battled against (and let's not get in to what else we battle against after last season!).
And he made some really good points back to me, about the other characters and about being good (particularly Angel), but I'm still baffled by a lot of the thinking behind it. I guess I'm just never going to actually understand why one has to be inherently good, for goodness's sake, to be... well, good. Changing for someone to be worthy of them has inspired countless amounts of literature, art, music...
And I look at the other characters and they may have been born good, or made good, but they frequently choose not to be and yet they're not denied status or love because of it. Angel made every effort not to get his soul back and be good; he certainly never asked for it and was only inspired to do and be good when Whistler came to him with the proposition that he should see Buffy and see if he wanted to become something better. Willow made a decision not to be good when she let grief and rage and her power addiction take over, yet, she's forgiven for her lapse, like Angel to Angelus. Xander frequently chooses the path of ungood, but isn't really called to task for those bad choices. Spike's made a conscious decision to be good, to be worthy, and yet... bupkus on the props for him because it was loving Buffy that inspired it, and I'm still just not getting why that's a bad thing.
But maybe it's just me. ;-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
right there with you.
Date: 2002-11-26 12:10 pm (UTC)I agree with, on all levels. And you put it so eloquently, too! Angel went from useless to good when he saw Buffy, and Spike went from evil to good (a much harder fight) when he fell for Buffy.
Like you, I don't see the problem here. I'm a major romantic (I would think anyone who watches this show be, because its an extremely romantic show, in how the characters behave because of feelings), and the idea that someone would hcange their existence, thier life, on a death/rebirth scale just to be wrothy enough to love me-- like you, it might not make me love them, but it sure as hell would earn my attention and my respect.
I'm as confused as you n this argument--if love isn't a strong enough reason to change your life for better, what possible reason SHOULD you have? All the books and poetry we read, all the movies and plays we watch--- they say that love is everything, and its larger & more important than life. So how is Spike's journey any different?
And even Jane Epeneson(sp?), Buffy writer, said that she shought it was romantic that they had Spike go win his soul to be worthy of Buffy. ::waves hand in the air:: I think its romantic too!
And its an old philsophical argument-- is doing good for the wrong reasons still count as doing good?
My answer: hell yes. And if someone disagrees, well they're pretty ungrateful of their luck in my opinion. If in the summer post-gift, the scoobies kill a vampire whose attacking a
little kid (I'm sure this happened a lot), do you think the kid is gonna are that Spike staked the vamp out of loyalty to the memory of the woman he loved [or even...was obsessed with], and not just because he's a nice guy? No. The kid's just happy to be a live. Is the kid gonna insult him for it, and say "you suck cause you're only doing this for a girl!" No, that's Xander's line. The kid would probably thank him profusely for saving his brat life, and if he happened to hear about the girl, probably think it was cool and tragic and romantic and stuff.
If a person does good for the wrong reasons it doesn't necessarily mean you trust them, but it doesn't mean you dismiss what they did, either. A deed that helps others, whoever does it for whatever reason, is a good deed. That's all there is to it.
And like I STILL don't understand how doing good out of love is a wrong reason.
Re: right there with you.
Date: 2002-11-26 01:46 pm (UTC)One thing I keep thinking about in terms of lifestyle changes for love is something like one person converting their faith to be with another person. I've know three people who married someone outside their faith, or who were agnostics and who became religiously faithful, in order to keep the love of the person they fell for. I'm not entirely certain why that might be considered noble and honorable, but loving someone, realizing you're not what they wanted, and changing to be what they wanted, is much different. I've known people who moved, gave up their whole lives, because their partners took jobs elsewhere -- they made the sacrifice to keep their partnership. People do change and sacrifice in order to keep love -- we've been doing it for centuries. But somehow Spike's supposed to ... I guess, just be good because he wants to just for that reason, and not because he fell in love with someone who was against what he represented. He's smart, he's changed his ways so he can earn her. To me, that's the most romantic stuff around, and certainly the stuff of literature for centuries.
And I love your icon! Mon petite chou -- I miss Mulder so much!
Re: right there with you.
Date: 2002-11-26 02:29 pm (UTC)I hadn't thought of the religion comparison, but it really is a good point, because that matters so strongly to most people.
But somehow Spike's supposed to ... I guess, just be good because he wants to just for that reason...
It's that thing which I find weird rihgt there-- according to Buffyverse, human are inherently good, and a vampire is incapable of being a good person because they're not human, and they don't have the connection to humanity-- compassion for fellow humans-- that leds to guilt when you deliberately hurt someone else. And season six was supposed to prove that it was true, in a sense--- Spike could love and feel, but he couldn't be good without a soul. However, season 6 also told us that a creature who loves could be "redeemable"--- because he possessed the ability (soul trials) and desire (born out of love) to change [to someone who can be good].
SO, let's agree with the anti-spike people... he can't be good wihtout a soul. So if its impossible for him to be "good", then by what other methods do they expect him to grow or improve? For a vampire, doing good "for itself" is impossible, by JossLogic. And yet, when there's a another (quite wonderful) motivation, they disparage him for not doing the first one-- when even they agree that the first way is literally impossible. And if he goes the second route [love as motivator]-- deliberately-- and it leads to the same result [good person], without harming others in doing so... how is this bad?
Spike's on the same route Angel is-- redemption & salvation. He's just taking a different method. And important to note (and I don't see why anti-spike people ignore this cause its obvious) is that Spike's path began from the first step--- from a completely evil base. Angel's path began in the middle-- he was dropped down onto the raod halfway along, whereas Spike had to "walk" miles to get to where Angel is now. Maybe post-soul is more painful for the vampire in question, and thus more worthy of notice for what it costs him, but real progress is made not when one has nothing to lose, but when one has everything to lose, and chooses the right path anyway.
Hm... I think I'm gonna copy some of this in my Lj, and refine it into a mini-essay...
no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 02:29 pm (UTC)The example I heard someone use was (pre-soul, of course)"If a baby was getting hit by a bus would Spike save it?" Answer: Only if Buffy was around to see, otherwise he'd have it for lunch. When Buffy was not around, Spike helped her little sister try to raise Joyce from the dead, sold demonic eggs (granted, lame ass plot device, but one cannot ignore canon just because it doesn't fit in with the way one would like a character to behave) and committed various other acts of at least a questionable moral nature.
In addition, Buffy gave him NO indication she cared for him, I have no idea where anyone gets this from except from fanon. She told him *repeatedly* she was using him. That she felt "degraded" by their sex. Spike chose to see what he wanted to see, which was "she doesn't kill me, she fucks me, must be love." I don't disagree that to a vampire this makes sense. And I don't disagree that Buffy should have known better. What I *do* disagree with is seeing their relationship as some sweeping, romantic coupling. If a guy was only able to be nice *to me*, but thoroughly unable to interact with society in any other kind of meaningful way, I would not be honored. I'd be worried. And if *after I broke up with said guy* he persisted in proclaiming undying affection, I would feel nothing but stalked. I can't find the romance here.
Yea, Spike went out and got a soul on purpose (which I buy only because ME told me so, and I follow my own advice of accepting canon even when it's wonky as piss)after he tried to rape her. And yea, he should get a free pass on his pre-souled behavior, same as Angel. And he is. She didn't *kill him* when he came back. She didn't kill him last week after *he killed ten people*. That's all she owes him at this point. At least Angel had the sense to LEAVE when he saw what he was costing Buffy. Spike got a soul, then came back "hi! deal with me! ME!" I don't particularly view that as an unselfish act.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 03:02 pm (UTC)I don't argue that Spike tried to behave like "What would Buffy do" , and that this was a problem obviously--- 1) because it meant he lacked his own self-control, and 2) because in season 6 Buffy wasn't setting a good example for ANYONE, much less Spike.
But, for argument's sake, if Spike would only to good acts to impress Buffy, then how do you explain Spike's behavior after Buffy's second death, when the only person --by your argument--that he was interested in wasn't around to see it?
(granted, lame ass plot device, but one cannot ignore canon just because it doesn't fit in with the way one would like a character to behave)
Oh, the ways in which I feel your pain right there.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 03:43 pm (UTC)Honestly? I think Spike would have been a "better man" had Buffy STAYED dead. His behavior toward her and about her was much less human than his behavior toward her freinds and family when she was gone.
Re:
Date: 2002-11-26 04:10 pm (UTC)Yes, he was better behaved then, but I think the bad things he did in season six began after they slept together (or even after they kissed), and not really when Buffy was brought back. Before OMwF, Spike had sort regulated himself into the "love from a distance" category, but it was after their relationship changed that the badness on all sides started--Buffy's fault for starting it and Spike's fault for letting it happen & continueing it.
I thought of something else that I wanted to comment on in my previous post-- you said that there were no signs taht Buffy "loved" Spike back in season 6. That's arguable, but can be true. But Buffy returning Spike's feelings doesn't really affect how Spike changes for her--- his changing & choosing to get a soul for her is about his love for her, not the love she may or may not have for him. He wanted to be something she could love, yeah, but Spike's bettering himself (if you dislike the word redemption) is about what he does for love, not what Buffy does.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 04:15 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-11-26 04:33 pm (UTC):chucke:
Well, no, I wouldn't either. I'd be like Nancy (Beneath You) in that regard-- 'these people are fucked up, and so not worth the pain & torment. Leaving now.'
Heck, the only people among the Scooby Gang I'd ever date would be Giles, Tara, or Dawn-- and the last two only if I was a guy or gay.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 04:36 pm (UTC)Tara, yes. Hell, she's lovely enough to make alot of straight women try other women.
Dawn annoys me to no end. Whiny. And shiny monk hair. *G*
I'm probably also stupid enough to date Angel irl, because I'm a sucker for doomed, mysterious, broody dark types. But at least I know it'd be a dumb fucking choice.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 04:31 pm (UTC)I guess it just comes down to looking at things differently. I really don't see the motivations as selfish and self-interested, but it's just how I've been seeing Spike. Everyone's mileage seems to vary with regards to him; I've rarely seen a character who so polarizes people. Except maybe Buffy herself. ;-)
I do think his willingness to change was romantic in that Gothic kind of way, but then I also think that you only really truly love someone when you have to kill them, and my most sublime moment in Buffy came when she ran Angel through with a sword. So I'm odd. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 04:38 pm (UTC)No, I'm right there with ya. That, and when he nearly drank her dry in Becoming rank right up there with most GUH moment ever. Well, not counting all the times Angel was chained up and tortured. Cause I'm not made of wood, people.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-27 10:47 pm (UTC)Hah! Hard to resist the lure of a man in chains. So now we've had both Spike and Angel chained up by Buffy. Whee!
I meant to catch up on this yesterday and got sidetracked with the new episode. I meant to say that I really appreciate hearing different opinions on this issue and Spike's motivations -- I have my own opnions, definitely, but I love discussion and analyzation and argumentation when it's respectful, like this. I think I'm flinchy on the Spike's motivation thing, as well as just... well, Spike and S/B lately in general because I've been battling the scorn of friends and a few other negatives lately in the fandom, but it's getting better. There are so many cool characters in this universe and so many different ways to look at it, that I really enjoy talking about it.