The Spike Thread (Buffy related and LONG)


JThunder, I think I have to ask, because I’ve lost track during these lengthy discourses, just what exactly are you getting at? We know he’s evil. We all doubt his being penitant. Though many hate him, they still admit he’s a fascinating character.

What presicely is the nub of your gist?

What is all this talk about penitence doing in a thread about Spike, fer chrissakes? All his prior murders, etc., are nothing for him to be ashamed of.

He’s a vampire. His nature is to kill people, drink their blood, and otherwise do naughty things. Why should he repent? Repentance implies a guilty conscience, and Spike has no conscience, much less a guilty one.

All of which is why, IMO, Spike’s few unselfish acts are particularly praiseworthy. I discount his fighting of demons. He does that because he can - in the ep where Harmony started a gang, he was going to kill them because it would be fun. Buffy wasn’t around and wouldn’t have known about it. I also discount his doing things for Buffy - he does them for love (or lust).

What I do praise him for is his guardianship of Dawn after Buffy died. He got no reward or potential reward for that. And he didn’t do it because he felt guilty about letting Buffy down - he had no conscience, thus no guilt (I think he rationalized it that way, but anyway). It was a good act.


i’m kind of new to the buffy phenomenon, really just getting into it this season, although i had seen episodes here and there for a few years.

spike is a vampire like a wolf is a wolf. he was pretty evil, but it’s the foodchain, man. he’s a carnivore and he killed people to live.

i personally wish he’d get rid of that damn chip, though. right now he’s frustrated and impotent, witch is interesting for awhile. but what if he didn’t have the chip and had to control his urges by himself? presumably he’d still have his love for buffy, if it is love. i think that would be even more interesting, and it would allow him to become more of a troubled character because he could willfully spare buffy, but he’d HAVE to kill others.

buffy and crew would be like those idiots who keep wild animals as pets.

“he’s such a nice kitty…”, and then, “…oops, is that my jugular?”

i dunno, just my two cents…

I think you’ve missed the boat. We DON’T all acknowledge that he’s evil. In this very thread, and in others, we’ve had people assert that Spike is “morally neutral,” or that he has reformed, or that he bad but not evil.

There have been various attempts to dismiss Spike’s evilness by saying “Oh, but he’s doing it for love!” or some other such nonsense. This demonstrates the extent to which people are willing to make excuses for his murderous behavior.

In fact, that is precisely the point raised in the OP. Trion lamented how so many are willing to defend Spike, based on the most flimsy evidence or the most outrageous reasoning. Spike is evil, vile, murderous, abusive and manipulative. All attempts to excuse this behavior have been facile and ridiculous. Why are so many people saying that Buffy should give him a chance?

Let us not forget the mythology, my friends. Spike is a demon, yet what remains of William is also in residence. The chip has acted as a sort of damper on the demon, which has allowed William to shine through, and it is William that is deserving of some slack.

I adore Spike for a couple dozen reasons, but it boils down to these: he’s a wildly sexy “bad-boy” who is actually a deeply vulnerable geek underneath, who also has all the best lines. How can you resist that?


Sorry, Trion, and thanks for starting this thread.

On an aesthetic level, Stoid, I can get the “bad boy” thing, but on a visceral level, it really creeps me out. I’ve had friends and relatives stay in semi-abusive relationships, because “he’s just misunderstood and he loves me!” Umm, no, hon, if he loved you, he wouldn’t isolate you from your friends and slap you around.

Mind you, Buffy is treating Spike shabbily, too. That whole relationship is seriously whacked.

i dont know if this has been brought up in any other thread but it ties in with the spike/redemption idea.

if at some point, as it must, the chip is removed, therefor removing its controlling influence and spike doesnt revert back into his former brutal self, what does that say about vampires and there natures?

and if a vampire can deny the killing urge all by themselves, change… become good, what does that say about buffy and her job?

many times we have seen buffy stake a vamp fresh from the grave, often not even waiting until they are half out of the ground. whats to say those vamps couldnt be redemed too?

spike redemed san chip really puts buffy in the position of the villian… a serial killer no less.

That’s an old discussion, furr – not to say that it isn’t germane, just that it’s a familiar topic of discussion in Buffy fandom, dating as far back as Angel’s revelation that there could be vampires who weren’t monsters.

Me, I don’t see the problem with Buffy killing them as soon as possible. No vampire has yet made his or her own ethical leap to “killing people is wrong.” Not one. Sure, it’s possible to force them into that situation, but how much in the way of resources and time is society expected to expend to bring them to that ethical decision?

I don’t agree furr, because we lack evidence that Spike isn’t an anomoly. Until there is real evidence that every vampire can deny their true nature (and in the past 6 years, Spike is the only vampire who has the chance to prove it is/is not possible) then Buffy should be expected to continue to go on patrol.

But Buffy saucily informed him earlier in the episode that she doesn’t care if he does tell her friends because she “tried to kill all of them last week and they still love me.” Buffy flat out told Spike that it wouldn’t hurt her if she told the SG. If she wanted him to keep his mouth shut (as he had been doing all this time) she shouldn’t have basically dared him to tell everybody.

That was before Xander’s I’m-disgusted-with-you-for-sleeping-with-an-evil-sleaze-like-Spike speech. Spike’s revelation came immediately after Xander’s bitter rant. Given the timing, it’s inconceivable that Spike did not intend to hurt Buffy.

No offense, but that sounds an awful lot like saying “He may be wicked, manipulative, cruel and corrupt, but there’s a good man underneath all that. That goodness is bound to surface someday, and I’m willing to wait.”

Doesn’t that perspective sound familiar? Does anyone else find it terribly, terribly disturbing?

oh im not saying at this stage in the series what buffy is doing is murder, im saying that if the writers go the route of chipless redemption then they are starting to raise questions, questions which could paint themselves into a corner.

Well, I would find it terribly, terribly disturbing if Stoid was discussing her SO with the board, and this was the type of behaivor he was exhibiting, perhaps. However, believe it or not, women can have “dark fantasies” without desiring some sort of abusive relationship.
Spike is scarey…a nice, safe, scary, because, after all, he’s fake.

And I really have no reason to believe that he would have said anything if Buffy hadn’t told him he could. After all, he’s had ample oppurtunity in the past to announce it…and he never did. I think if he was trying to hurt anybody, it was Xander, not Buffy. If he wanted to hurt Buffy, he could have gone skipping over to the SG the night she dumped him, or at the wedding, or when she was going through her “crazy spell” in Normal Again.

I don’t see why everyone is bickering over why Spike hurt Buffy with that line revealing his sexual realtions with her. She was using him, people! She admitted as much: she didn’t love him, he loved her, and she kept stringing him along knowing full well it could never come to anything. then she dumps him. Tell me you wouldn’t make some hurtful remark if you were in the same situation.

As for Spike’s evilness, I want to reference “Red Dwarf”. In the episode “The Inquisitor”, all the characters are asked to “justify their existence” - prove that they have led worthwhile lives. When the inquisitor points out that Kryten’s life is replete with good works, Kryten responds that any good he does is the result of his programming, and is not of his own free will. The only way for a robot to lead a worthwhile life would be to break programming and accomplish good deeds voluntarily.

I see definite parallels between robots and vampires. Most vampires do not have complete voluntary informed consent when they are converted - I’m sure not all of them know exactly what they’re jumping into. A SuaSponte said, it is their nature to be evil. It’s not a voluntary choice to kill humans and drink blood. Sorta like angels, they have no free will.

Spike’s chip prevents him from harming others, but it DOES NOT make him do good things like helping out Buffy or taking care of Dawn. He doesn’t need to hang with the Scoobies - he’s a big boy, and can take care of himself. He must put up with Buffy’s pals - and their often self-righteous moralizing and almost desperate insistence that he’s evil - for more than just poontang. He’s sexy enough to be able to get that anywhere. We must conclude that Spike has broken programming (without the help of a gypsy curse) and opted to be good. He has chosen to “conduct his life according to a set of values he arrived at independently”. He loves, and therefore deserves to be loved. He is no longer completely evil. As a matter of fact, he’s essentially on the same moral ground as humans if he’s attained this measure of free will.I want that chip to go bye-ye so we can see just how far Spike has come. I agree with furr that the writers are raising tricky questions with the matter of chipless change (I wouldn’t go so far as to say Spike’s redeemed himself). Let’s see if they have the guts to follow this line, remove th chip, and see what developes…

THANK you! For heaven’s sake, people, all this talk about how “disturbing” Spike is because he reminds you of real - life abusive assholes and the women who are their doormats is really ridiculous. This is a * television show, * not a guide to relationships!

In the context of the Buffyverse and Spuffy, if anyone is being abusive, it’s ** her.** Spike is a lovesick twit, really.

Here, here! Exactly!

I’ve long felt that between the two kinda-redeemed vampires, Spike is more impressive and deserving of forgiveness, because he has achieved love and compassion and goodness (in his imperfect way) while a soulless demon. (And did so long before Buffy, with Dru) Angel, on the other hand, when de-souled, and therefore the equivalent of Spike, is a raging maniac without a kind thought, word, or deed for anyone, human or demon, alive or dead. He is incapable of the kind of love that Spike has demonstrated.

I’ll take Spike every time. (Plus Marsters is 10 times the actor that Boreanaz is).

Spike is evil, despite the good things he does out of his love for Buffy. He revels in causing pain for no other reason that…well, it’s fun. He loves Buffy, yes, and that prompts him to help her, and to look out for Dawn (who he seems to have some affection for, too.). But he’d still happily rip Xander’s throat out, string Willow up, throw Giles off a cliff and do some very naughty things to Anya’s corpse, if he could do so without causing himself serious pain, and royally pissing off Buffy.

He’s evil, and he doesn’t care about redemption, except insofar as it can get him what he wants.

And as far as feeling love is concerned…The attrocities he commited when he was with Dru were for love of her, just as the good things he does now are for love of Buffy. Love makes him want to please the object thereof, nothing more, nothing less.

He doesn’t aspire to be a better person, he aspires to have Buffy, and that’s all.

Well, I’ve already said that I believe that he does love Buffy in a weird kinda way. I’m willing to include Dawn in that equation. But Spike has demonstrated a willingness to kill other people and an ability to find schemes that result in pain, suffering and death to others who are not Dawn and Buffy. The defence “He’s nice to his mother” doesn’t get you much in a court of law and it doesn’t get you very far with me either.

From Stoid

Yes, but it’s a television show that uses metaphors to deal with real-life issues. If some people are bothered by what they see in the show, then the metaphor has hit home for them. If it hasn’t hit home for you, that’s fine. But I’m not going to discount the reactions of the viewers it has affected.

Well, I said that, but I probably don’t count. I’m not fascinated by Spike. I thought he made a very nice bad guy. I don’t like him as part of the gang and I don’t want to see him every episode. I am tired of him. I used to like him a lot, but he’s been so watered down I don’t find him nearly as interesting.

Now, is he the most interesting character in the group now? Well, considering the group now consists of a normal guy, a girl selling hamburgers, a girl who doesn’t do magic, a girl who likes money, and a girl who pouts, yeah, he’s probably the most interesting. But it ain’t saying much. Of course, I haven’t even bothered to watch the last two episodes because I just don’t care anymore, so I’m not sure what Anya’s up to or who Pacey is sleeping with.