Living with Plot Contrivances: or how I learned to (mostly) stop worrying and love Spike's story

[maggie2]

So sometimes the plot has to bend around other things the writers are after.   In a seven year run on TV like the one BtVS enjoyed that has to happen a few times.  Seth Green decides to leave suddenly, and the story bends around his departure.   Sometimes the bends work.  Other times they are, shall we say, less than obviously natural to the flow of the story.

There are two that come to mind with regard to Spike's story.   The first is the non-staking of Spike in season 4 and especially in early season 5.  The second is Spike's non-phone call to Buffy in season 5 in Angel.    It's obvious why they had to happen.  In season 4, they wanted Spike on the show and him getting dusted would have interfered with the plan.  On AtS, they wanted Spike to stick around in LA, and they presumably didn't want a Buffy story line to stomp all over the fifth season of Angel's show.   I think both work better than most people think, but I'm not sure I'm entirely satisfied with them.

1.  Spike's non-stakage.  I think this hits on important themes that are already being raised in the show in general and in season 4 in particular.   The presence of the Initiative calls into question whether demons are flat out unprotected by any moral rules at all.  There's storyline pressure, especially around Oz, to say that demonic beings are not without moral standing simply because of their demonic nature.   A simple "kill all demons" rule is inadequte.   That simple rule was also under pressure over on season 1 of AtS.   Once Spike is rendered harmless, the story's own development would make killing him difficult. 

I'd add that there's a meta question floating around about what demons are supposed to be metaphors for.  I've argued this before in my meta on Lie to Me.  If demons stand in for our various traumas, dark emotions and angst, then a story about a girl slaying them is really a story about a girl struggling with life's darkness.  But once demons become persons, the question is raised about what distinguishes a slayer from a killer.  In our actual world, there are no persons who are subject to any kind of "kill at will' rule based solely on what they are.  Even bad guys that the audience might want to see get offed (like, say, Warren) can't be *slain* in a way that's as morally unproblematic as Buffy's routine dispatchment of vampires.  Spike is simply too much of a person to be staked.  And the scoobies don't stake him precisely because they do know him.    They use the rule about not staking unthreatening demons to skate around the hard question of what it would mean to stake a person they knew should he become threatening.

And that, of course, comes up explicitly in OOMM.  By their stated rules, Spike should be stakable the minute he shows that he's actually trying to get around the chip and that he fully intends to do harm the minute he does.  Yet the scoobies still don't stake him.  Nor do they even seriously engage the question.   I'm sure some wank is possible on why this doesn't even come up as a question -- but I think it's a pity, because it's at this point that there's a tension between the rule about non-threatening demons and the ookiness of having to stake someone that they know personally (however dangerous he is).  That does come back up, most notably in Selfless.  But the Scoobies  presumably sidestep it here because the show is more concerned with other themes at that point.

2.   The second that comes up a lot is that the real Spike should have called Buffy at some point in season 5 of AtS, and it's just OOC that he didn't.  I find that all straight-forward to explain.  Spike took some time before calling Buffy.  First he's a ghost and then he's just trying to avoid running straight back to her for a variety of reasons I find compelling.  But he tells Andrew in Damage that he intends to contact Buffy, and then in TGIQ he makes a clear move to contact Buffy.    Moreover, he's told (or at least it's broadly implied) that Buffy knows he's back and has made no move herself to contact him, and has further moved on with someone else with the thought that maybe she'd catch up with Spike at some point down the road.    Andrew doesn't give Spike any reason to think that Buffy feels miffed that Spike didn't manage to call her before Andrew himself spilled the beans.

Now none of these are obvious choices for Spike.  One might expect him to have tried to call sooner.  One might even think he'd be a bit less quick to take Andrew's word for Buffy's non-interest in his resurrection and her unconcern that he hadn't called her yet.   I'm fully persuaded that Spike 100% believes that Buffy doesn't love him.  But they were close enough at the end that he should have at least found it odd that she was 100% blase about his return... not interested enough to contact him or express anger at his failure to contact her.  Still, in the main, it makes enough sense for me to be puzzled when many people think it's really OOC for Spike to not have called, and to be especially puzzled by the fact that it's rarely acknowledged that Spike *did* try to contact her.

I wonder if my relative difficulty with the first plot contrivance and my relative lack of difficulty with the latter isn't pretty tied up with the themes I engage with.  I'm very interested in the line between demons and persons and the distinction between a slayer and a killer.  I find it one of the most fascinating aspects of the verse.  Spike's non-stakage sits on that issue, and it bothers me that the story bends around it most especially at OOMM.  By contrast, I'm a post-Spuffy fan who is post-Spuffy precisely because I don't think Buffy loved Spike, or at least was never going to love him in a way that was reciprocal.   I loved Spuffy in season 7, but precisely because Spike had stopped chasing after Buffy.  And so while I think the details are a bit goofy, I'm perfectly content with a season 5 AtS story line wherein Spike has stopped chasing after Buffy.

It's interesting to ponder what we make of the places where the story bends.  And especially what to do with it when the story bends in a way that does violence to the show.  My meta will always feel like there's a hole around OOMM.  Presumably for some there's a hole in season 5 of AtS.  There are other bends -- Angel's complete lack of assistance in season 5 despite his stated reason for giving up his humanity in IWRY comes to mind.  I like to treat the show as a well-written organic whole.  But there are a lot of places where it just isn't.  It's a TV show subject to lots of different demands and it just doesn't always add up.  Let's just say it makes the whole meta-game challenging!

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/woman_of_/]

The non-stakage of Spike in Season four is a difficult one, with how the story was handled. I've seen better versions in old fanfic from the time to explain Spike's presence. Then I never liked the story arc in Season Four anyway, I thought it was ill thought out, and tried to bring too meny elements together which didn't always make for a satisfying story.

Spike not calling Buffy never really bothered me at all. He didn't believe she loved him, she had her slayer army and had always said she wanted a normal life. It seemed to be her chance to have that. Spike may have felt he would just get in her way, and she was better off without him. Then I was pretty much all for Spike moving on myself.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think our overall happiness with the general direction (in this case kind of wanting Spike to move on) helps with the part that doesn't make sense.

I like season 4 more than you do -- I think it's actually more coherent than most people think. Though the Adam story line itself is pretty darned lame!!

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

and to be especially puzzled by the fact that it's rarely acknowledged that Spike *did* try to contact her.

...but he didn't try to contact her in an, "Hey, I'm back from the dead" way. He rushed to Rome to see her in an, "Oh! She's with The Immortal, my arch-rival!" way. This makes his efforts to see her more about The Immortal than about Buffy (In fact, isn't that rather the point of the episode?).

Then he's satisfied hearing from Andrew, a not-entirely-reliable third party, that Buffy's moved on?

Spike's far too tenacious to leave it at that. I still expect a phone call from him, direct to the girl in question. The message can be whatever. "Hey, let's go our separate ways." "Hey, stay right there. I'm coming to shag you." "Hey, I'm madly in love with Angel. See ya'". Whatever. Just let the poor girl know he's alive, straight from the vampire's mouth. Spike knows better than to trust in Andrew to relay messages. He's not stupid.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Like I said, I don't think it's without problems. But I guess my reactions would still be as follows. Whatever the 'reason' for him trying to contact her, Spike *did* try to contact her. I find it pretty plausible that he'd find it easier to try to contact her with an excuse to do so. Especially when we add in a bit of lenience for the fact that the episode in question plays as broad comedy.

I agree that it's odd that Spike took Andrew at his word. Not so much because Andrew is unreliable (again, we've got the whole broad comedy thing going on there to make interpretation difficult), but rather because the story itself is implausible the other way around. I think Spike's sure she doesn't love him -- but it undermines what they did have at the end for him to naturally assume that she could know he's back and be totally blase about it. *That* I find implausible. Or if not implausible, it'd be disappointing that Spike's romantic pessimism caused him to miss the very real and tender friendship that was undeniably mutual, and which would render Andrew's presentation of the situation off in a way that should have gotten Spike's attention.

I part with you most on your last paragraph, mostly because I think Spike stopped with tenacious at Seeing Red. I think it's important to note that he never pushed for anything after that. He presented himself in Sunnydale to be helfpul. He signalled a willingness to move on if he wasn't helpful. Buffy kept him around on the grounds that he was still helpful. She even says she's not ready for him to not be there, which implies that she's getting ready for him to not be there (or at least that's how it would sound to a guy who is clearly getting himself ready for the day when she's ready for him to not be there). The argument about Spike's tenacity doesn't do justice to what I find to be an important development in their relationship.

Like I said, I think our ability to live with these contrivances has a lot to do with what we need from the story at a given juncture. I like the continuity with Spike's willingness to stop the pre-SR sort of tenacity enough to forgive the OOC part where he's too quick to believe she doesn't even care about the friendship part. But I do think the story isn't fully organic. That's why I put in the category of plot contrivance. In this case, it's just a contrivance I can live with.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Especially when we add in a bit of lenience for the fact that the episode in question plays as broad comedy.

I'd say that that's part of my dissatisfaction in that the moment where Spike seemingly attempts to contact Buffy is in a complete crack!episode.

But, then, I kinda dislike TGIQ (and I think I'm the only one in fandom who does).

I part with you most on your last paragraph, mostly because I think Spike stopped with tenacious at Seeing Red. I think it's important to note that he never pushed for anything after that.

No, not relationship-wise. However, he had the balls to go back to them in Beneath You to attempt to help, and he was pro-active in simply being there for Buffy (whether it be donning his old jacket in Get It Done or giving her a pep talk in Touched or spending the last night with her in Chosen). To leave Buffy in the theoretical lurch about his resurrection is at odds with the Spike who loved her unconditionally in S7. He respects her too much not to pick up the phone and talk to her, himself.

Again, I'm not talking about him trying to resume the relationship. But passing on the knowledge that he's alive? Not leaving it up to Andrew to play the middle man? Yeah, I expect better from Spike, so I find it pretty damn OOC.

Oddly, the non-staking of Spike doesn't bother me, though. Even though Buffy totally should have staked him after OOMM. :)

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

With you on disliking these all-important issues coming up in a crack!episode. Really with you on that.

To leave Buffy in the theoretical lurch about his resurrection is at odds with the Spike who loved her unconditionally in S7. He respects her too much not to pick up the phone and talk to her, himself.

I don't think he'd see it as leaving her in the lurch. I think he'd see it as letting her off the hook. It bothers me that he waits to renew the friendship because he's focusing on letting her off the hook romantically -- but I buy that he's still in a place where that'd make sense to him. And if he never tried to renew the friendship, I'd think it was really bad. But I think he tried in TGIQ, and all I'm left with is the hole in the plot where he finds it easy to believe Andrew's portrait of a Buffy who doesn't even care about the resurrection of a friend.

So I've still got a mild OOC against your pretty damn OOC.

Love your last sentence. That's the whole point! It's when we have oxes to be gored that the plot contrivances bite. We just have different oxes. (Or better put, I'm so pessimisitic about the Spuffy ox that I just assume along with Spike that it's been long since gored, and deep down I'm kind of glad to have been spared the scene where she tells him that she really didn't mean it).

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Love your last sentence. That's the whole point! It's when we have oxes to be gored that the plot contrivances bite. We just have different oxes.

Indeed. :)

Course, I know that Spike had to stay on AtS and that Joss didn't want to resolve the Buffy/Spike thing (especially on another show), and having Spike directly contact her would lead to some resolution one way or another (and we just can't have that!). So he contrived and twisted and wheedled the plot to accommodate the ambiguous ending, and it ends up just not working for me (and leaving me cranky).

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Since when is trusting Andrew adequate to relay a message? To me, it's not. And especially not when relaying messages as important as "I'm back from the dead"--that's another reason why I thought he told Andrew to lie. One, Spike wasn't ready for Buffy to know. Two, Spike wanted to tell her himself. Because him telling her himself does honor to the deep connection they shared and to the way he discovered she was alive again--he saw it with his own eyes and it's one of the most powerful scenes ever. I sometimes rewind that scene to see the wonderful changes in his expression as he watches her climb down the stairs.

If anything, the fact that he's able to just let it go and let Andrew be the go-between speaks two things to me. One, he's still "terrified" of what it means to be loved by Buffy, something that he's never truly experienced because he's never been "close" to anyone before. Two, he doesn't care about Buffy anymore, he doesn't need to see her with his own eyes and hear her voice and know that she's happy and moved on. The fact that he trusts Andrew to tell him Buffy is happy with the Immortal when the last time they saw Andrew, Andrew was busy lying his ass off and pulling a fast one on them...? Yeah, not smart. You can't take what Andrew does at face value, which means Spike had to have his own reasons for buying a line that smacks of BS.

Buffy is the woman he loved who took his hand while his soul was burning up and felt the fire with him. Who was there for his most glorious moment. That connection doesn't fade away. That intimacy. And frankly, it's too sacred for Spike to be letting Andrew in on it. Buffy and Spike don't talk about their relationship--it's too private for them. Spike doesn't even really let on about how deeply connected he and Buffy came to Angel--he just lets Angel think it was all about sex "If you do it enough times" and never lets on to how Buffy depended on him. So I think it's more that Spike's insecurities let him believe Andrew's line; insecurities that Angel has been amping up all season. I think by then Spike doesn't believe Buffy ever loved him, not the way she loved Angel completely; all from being forced to view the world through Angel's (and AtS') viewpoint. Which is why him actually being back in Buffy's presence is essential to me. Because only when in her presence will there be truth to their connection--whether it's over or not. Angel's dismissal and Andrew's storytelling aren't adequate for a man of Spike's typical tenacity. Hence why I think he's "terrified" of what it means to be loved by Buffy.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Spike didn't expect Andrew to tell Buffy. He had to assume that Andrew *had* told based on what he was presented with in Rome. As for not taking Andrew's word at face value it's not just Spike who did. Angel did too. And frankly so did most of fandom until it got retconned in LWH. When Angel tried to NOT take Andrew's word for things in Damage he got presented with an army of slayers as proof. So I don't think canon supports the idea that Spike *should* have assumed Andrew was lying just because Andrew is Andrew.

I do agree that it's hard to see Spike readily buying the content of what Andrew says without at least being puzzled by it. But I put that down to the broad comedy. They're focusing on the romantic rivalry -- and Spike *would* be quick to believe that Buffy wasn't romantically interested in him. But the writers didn't take the time in a broad comedy to explore the nuance that while Spike expected romantic rejection, he should have been surprised that Andrew is portraying a Buffy who doesn't care that her dear friend is back.

But I'm not going to buy that Spike is in the wrong on any of this. Buffy left him with the one-two punch of their closeness not having to mean anything and a basking radiant smile for Angel that she never got even close to giving Spike. He's got feelings for her and I don't blame him for wanting a life of his own before reopening what could only be a friendship between them. Eowyn makes this point well in her comment. And now as far as he's concerned Buffy has implicitly thanked him for not trying to push her on the I love you that she didn't really mean by not reaching out to contact him either. That's Spike's POV, and I think he's entitled to it.

We'll be finding out soon where Buffy really is on all of this. If she really did love him, it's a tragedy that Andrew put up an information gap between them. I'd love that, cause it's the best we're going to get. But I'm pessimistic.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Here's where I'm at. I believe Buffy is hurting. I believe Andrew created an information gap. And I believe that Spike let his insecurities win him. He's not a bad guy. He's just insecure.

And I won't blame Buffy because she has no agency. Spike does; he got to make a choice. Sadly, his choice was based on insecurities and this results in Buffy remaining. Yes, it's tragic. But of the two, only Spike had the power to do anything about it and he didn't. So I can't help but think 'if only Spike hadn't succumbed to his insecurities', but it's also a part of their dance. That as Buffy grows in her confidence in Spike, Spike loses confidence in himself and his connection to her. I don't blame Spike for being "terrified", but I don't admire him for giving in to it when it leaves Buffy in a place of heartache. She has no way to do anything about it because she doesn't know. He does have agency and yet the tragedy stands. So while I mostly blame fate and miscommunication and Andrew, there's a small part of that that says results come from cause and Spike's insecurities are a part of that.

And if he gets credit in my mind for being heroic, for risking pain, all in the hopes of saving others from hurt; well then I do give him demerits for giving into his fears, for living "terrified" all leading to others remaining in pain.

His insecurities lead him to believing Andrew. And that's really the problem. The fact that he believes anything from Andrew without questioning it or wondering 'hey, Andrew could be lying like he was last time...'

Spike made some bad decisions. It's less blameworthy than the outright manipulations of Andrew, absolutely. But I don't think it was a wise or a courageous decision, but one based on fear. And decisions based on fear aren't admirable to me. Which is to say if there is an admirable option, that is the one preferable to the one you do when cringing away. What makes Spike so admirable a character to me is that he was one who "risk[ed] the pain". Him losing that quality only makes me pity him. And his becoming a character I pity (as less than what he was) is so beyond what I want for him that I can't help but view it as a bad decision. Spike giving into his fears isn't a good time for him imo.

Breaking it down. Buffy has no agency in the situation. Spike does. Spike gives into his fears because he's "terrified" of what Buffy's love could mean. He's afraid to "risk the pain" now. He's giving into his fear. Giving into fear to me is always a bad decision, but he makes the choice to let his fear rule his actions. So yes, I do find him partially responsible for the situation. Because he has agency and is a player in the charade. He is culpable.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Romance and friendship often produces a pile of hurting all around, but I don't think in terms of culpability. Buffy and Spike danced a very long dance together that left Spike with the strong impression that she'd want him to move on when she was ready for him to not be there any more. Spike is acting on that. To assign culpability is to say that Spike had some obligation to try to maintain the relationship and I don't see that he did, any more than I think Buffy had any obligation in season 7 to signal to him that she didn't want him to move on when the battle was over. She gave what she could. Spike's now giving what he can. Between the two of them they've never managed to give enough to actually get them together. That happens sometimes, and it's nobody's fault if there's just not a huge magnet working to make things come together.

Also, I don't think I'd want to call Spike's main motive fear. I think he honestly thinks she'd want to move on, and it would be perfectly reasonable to interpret Andrew's portrait of the situation as consistent with a Buffy who is relieved that Spike's not tracking her down and making her retract the ILY. He could honestly think he's doing exactly what Buffy wants him to do.

My last word is just a reminder that Spike thinks Buffy has had some post-Chosen agency in the question of whether they should communicate. He's wrong about that. But it's important to remember when thinking about his POV. He's not just deciding for her in TGIQ. He thinks she's decided something on her own.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

I think the point where we divide is over Andrew. And it's what Gabs noted above. Andrew is an unreliable narrator. Spike trusting Andrew for any stated motivations, let alone vague implications is unwise. So yes, that's something I find faulty reasoning for. It was a bad decision. And Season 8 has shown it was the wrong decision. .

Because as the situation stands, Buffy does not know. Spike thinks she does. The only reason he thinks this is because of Andrew. Trusting Andrew has been shown to be unwise many, many times. So Spike made a bad decision largely based on the fact that he was worried about it being awkward (as you and Eowyn note) and that he in the past is "terrified" of the intimacy he felt with Buffy (End of Days).

I'd feel differently if it were Willow telling Spike that Buffy had moved on or Dawn as the writers had originally intended but couldn't get Michelle because she was unavailable. Then I'd of course be saying, yes he tried but she already knew and Dawn told him she'd moved on and was happy. And Spike trusts Dawn and wants Buffy to be happy, so he let it go. What's more, if it had been Dawn in the scene, then the retcon wouldn't have been so easy to swallow.

Basically, Spike got played two times by Andrew--in Damage and in TGIQ. Fool Spike once (in Damage), shame on Andrew. Fool Spike twice (in TGIQ), shame on Spike.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Still not fair, I don't think. The point of Damage was to confirm that Andrew *did* speak for the slayer organization. He had an army to back him up. We know Andrew's an unreliable narrator. But Spike has every reason to think he really does represent Buffy. It went down in Damage as though she did. We might all hope that Buffy has made a mistake in entrusting Andrew with a position of authority in the organization. But Spike is NOT wrong in thinking Andrew has that position, or in thinking that Buffy trusts him enough to have given him that position. Buffy's judgment may well be mistaken, but tagging Andrew as a watcher, which she did do, means that she's had a role in putting Andrew into a position where Spike would take him as a credible source about Buffy.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Buffy's love life is not the Slayer organization. And Andrew exaggerating on matters of the heart is essential to his character because Andrew doesn't get romantic love in a realistic sense. Would you go to Andrew for advice on your relationship? Would you trust him to accurately judge your relatioship status? No, I wouldn't. Because he doesn't get it.

Also note in Damage how Andrew says nobody in his camp trusts Angel (and Spike by association) anymore. Nothing has changed since then, so there's no reason for Andrew to trust Angel and Spike with the truth either and no reason for Spike and Angel to believe he would trust them with the truth. Andrew established in Damage that the trust between the two sides is gone--there is nothing to re-establish this trust in TGIQ. This is why Angel was spying on Buffy (aka the Decoy) and why the men he sent were summarily attacked and put out of business.

Andrew is an authority (thought not the best) on the Slayer organization. But it's been established multiple times that Andrew doesn't trust Angel and by association Spike with the truth about the Slayer organization.

There is no current trust. There is loads and loads of deceit that Spike decides to ignore and in doing so, he makes a wrong decision. He's believing a lie when there is a lot of evidence that it's a lie. The evidence that it's a lie is what makes it so easy for the retcon to fly.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't trust Andrew to have a position of authority in the slayer organization, either.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think it's special pleading to want to say that it's fine for Buffy to trust Andrew but not fine for Spike to trust Andrew. We've been shown he's an unreliable narrator both in romantic issues and in slayer business (see #23). But I can see that you are fierce in your opinion that Spike is at fault! Maybe we should have a duel or something to defend the honor of our respective beloved characters! Pistols or swords?

[nmcil12.livejournal.com]

Plus you have to add that in the mos significant, IMO, character episode about Spike and Angel/Angelus, "Destiny" - he won that struggle, both physically and symbolic. He makes the choice, and Angel/Angelus even tells Spike that Europe will still be there after they have taken care of their immediate emergency.

But I have to say that one of the things that I always wanted for this character is to be able to live as a hero/champion/man without his awesome love for Buffy - and his expression of that status was given in a whisper in Angel. One of the most significant developments of his entire journey and it is acknowledged almost by no one - and possibly by no other character. It's been a while since I have watched Angel Season 5 - but as I remember Spike is almost speaking to himself.

Can't wait to see where Joss Whedon is going to take his characters for the ending of the comic book season.

It's such a pity, IMVHO, that the Buffy-Angel kissing scene was ever used in the finale - I don't see that it had anything to do with the current storyline of the series.
Especially the ending of that scene and Buffy's line about still thinking about them as a potential couple - it was like hooking her right back into her past instead of letting her move on as a strong and independent woman on her own life path. If it was time for Spike to move on, it was even more time for Buffy to move on as well.

[jamalov29.livejournal.com]

Jumping in to say how much I adored your last paragraph starting at :Buffy is the woman he loved who took his hand while his soul was burning up and felt the fire with him.

I so totally agree.

[elisi]

Don't have anything to say about the non-staking, but when it comes to did-she-love-him?, and why didn't he call etc, the thing that always strikes me is that as soon as he becomes solid he *immediately* wants to go to Buffy. No hesitation, no 'Will she want to see me?', no worries. Angel convinces him to stay for the sake of the shanshu-thing, and it's only *after* that incident that he suddenly changes his mind. (Which is Spike all over - rushing off, until forcibly stopped and made to think a bit more.)

But - I wrote meta about it once (which made most of the Spuffy shippers on my flist cry, which wasn't the intention, me being as Spuffy as you can get...) Anyway, it's there if you're curious.

As for whether she loved him or not, then this short fic is the most perfect answer I've ever come across:

Forget-me-not by the_royal_anna.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I read and enjoyed your meta a good while back. (I've read all your meta!!!) The piece by The Royal Anna is great.

I've been all over the map emotionally on this stuff. But I think I've come down very firmly on the point that Spike really doesn't think Buffy loves him. He thinks that any chance he might have had for that ended in Seeing Red. He only came back to help. He doesn't want anything from her. They both know that she doesn't love him. Early late and middle, through season 7 there's just a drum beat on the subject: Spike thinks she doesn't love him.

He gets his hopes up twice. When Buffy's not ready for him to not be there, he asks about the principal. And he wants to know if that night meant anything. Both times, Buffy takes back whatever crumbs prompted the hope. She answers Spike's question about the principal with silence rather than any assurance that there's no romance there. Feeling close doesn't have to mean anything. To cap off the last, Spike next sees her basking in Angel's glow with the sort of smile she has never ever bestowed on Spike.

I can see Spike going back to hopeful with the "I love you" and that informing the moves he makes towards going to find Buffy. But I think a lot of his comments about Buffy being there for him is bluster for Angel's benefit... don't forget, Spike SAW the basking. That's why Angel's assertion in Destiny hit home. Angel has no basis for saying what he says, but Spike has plenty of basis for believing him.

I think the hope is what motors him to the ticketing agent. But I think his actions tell us exactly how deep that hope goes. He postpones the brush off until he's got a start on his new life. That's why he waits until TGIQ. He's very quick to accept the news of the brush off. Too quick for someone who really expected something else.

I'm glad for people who can believe that Spike believed. I do think that Spike's delay is ALSO due to the decision to establish his own mission as a hero apart from Buffy. It's just for me it's a combo deal.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think it's more that those moments of belief come and go. And that his sojourn with Angel kept chipping away at his confidence without any correlating interaction with Buffy. While he may have believed in Chosen, I think that belief fades away every moment he's away from her and with Angel telling him he doesn't matter.

[elisi]

(I've read all your meta!!!)
Goodness. *is very flattered*

The piece by The Royal Anna is great.
Isn't it just? It manages to have its cake and eat it! :)

Aaaanyway - to me it's *obvious* that she loves him, which means that it should be obvious to him too, since he's been able to read Buffy's true feelings since day 1, pretty much. OTOH he has massive, massive issues re. Buffy, and so was probably hugely insecure.

Also, I think he believes Buffy deserves better.

So... dunno. It's impossible to come to a single 'truth' since the character is incredibly complex, and everyone sees him differently. :)

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

1.I'd add that there's a meta question floating around about what demons are supposed to be metaphors for. I've argued this before in my meta on Lie to Me. If demons stand in for our various traumas, dark emotions and angst, then a story about a girl slaying them is really a story about a girl struggling with life's darkness. But once demons become persons, the question is raised about what distinguishes a slayer from a killer.

I think they can be both. It works that way for the human characters. Dawn can be said to represent Buffy’s human side but is still her own person and often quite unlike Buffy personality wise. Giles is her wisdom (it says so in Restless) but does some very unwise things, Xander is her heart but can be both rational and cruel. I’m not sure quite what the opposite of spirit is but I’m sure Willow’s been pretty mundane on occasion.

That aside I think the implicit rule that demons are only staked when actively threatening works rather well and goes back to at least S3 when Buffy and Faith attacking a sleeping nest of vampires in the daytime is depicted as not a good thing even though it would be a more effective strategy if the idea were simply to eliminate all possible threats. Slayers may be killers but they’re not terminators. As to not staking Spike specifically, I think the more difficult question is why she doesn’t stake Harmony, who isn’t chipped and (we the audience know) is actively killing and turning the citizens of Sunnydale. I think to some extent the reason she doesn’t is the same as for Spike, she just doesn’t take Harmony seriously. As she actually says about Spike in AYW, Harmony (in Buffy’s mind) is too incompetent to cause a significant problem even if Harmony has the intent to do so. With Spike it’s a little more complicated because not only is his ability to do evil compromised but he is a source of information etc that can work for them whether he intends it or not. He tried to betray them all to Adam but ended up alerting them to Adam’s plan. He tried to get his chip out but failed and was wrong about the Doctor’s ability to perform said operation so even were he to try again the result would be the same. Shortly after that we have the FFL scene and whether she recognizes the actual cause or not it’s pretty clear that Spike has his reasons for not wanting to cross her.

2.I think I agree about the non-contact. Partly because I don't much care for AtS so nothing that happens in S5 really matters. Partly because Spike became less interesting to me after he left Sunnydale - I don't really care about him becoming his own man. And partly because I'm post-Spuffy because when push came to shove Spike showed himself not ready to relinquish his idea of himself as the unrequited lover and accept that the effulgence might actually love him back. Which is scarier in some ways, as long as they don't care you can't hurt them, you're in complete control of the emotional landscape.

[deird1]

I think the more difficult question is why she doesn’t stake Harmony, who isn’t chipped and (we the audience know) is actively killing and turning the citizens of Sunnydale.

Mostly, she doesn't really get a chance to. I mean, the few times they encounter each other, Harmony manages to run away. And I don't think Buffy knows where she is between times...

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I think Buffy was aware that Harmony and Spike were an item and she (Harmony) doesn't exactly 'run' away in Crush. More flounces off slowly while monologuing. But it's a general thing in S5, Buffy doesn't operate a simple stake on sight policy to any vamps. If they keep out of her way and don't come snarling up and game facing at her she doesn't seek them out. If they run (with or without flouncing) she lets them run. When she doesn't it's clearly labelled a bad thing as with the huntee in BvsD or Riley's Vamp Ho in Into the Woods.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I think they are both persons and metaphors, that's what makes the dynamic so interesting. The difference between Spike and the other human characters, though, is that Spike is in principle stakable and the others aren't. And that difference requires that we place some weight on the demon-as-personal-evil metaphor on pain of seeing Buffy as a vigilante who gets to gun down branded outlaws.

Buffy stakes newly risen vampires all the time, often before they make any threatening move. Buffy letting vampires flee from time to time doesn't add up to an explanation for her persistent choice to let a vampire she knows personally to walk repeatedly. I think Harmony's ongoing existence (beyond the sheer plot contrivance) is also down to the fact that she's a person to Buffy. I recall two times Buffy has staked people -- Ford, who she stakes immediately to keep from really seeing what she's doing; and Holden -- which is a staking meant to make us feel squicky about the borderline between metaphor and person that vampires inhabit.

I think it's possible Spike wouldn't have accepted the idea of being a requited lover. But I also think that Spike didn't believe Buffy, so I don't think Chosen answers the question of whether he would or would not have accepted it. See my reply to Elisi for a sketch of why I really don't think Spike believed her.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Buffy seems to act more like a boundary guard in a (civil?) war than a vigilante. A bilaterally acknowledged war, even Anya says Buffy's just doing her job. Spike is stakeable when he's perceived as an active threat. Chipped Spike is not stakeable. Warren who is a threat is not stakeable but Warren's a soldier in a different war, human person on human person not demon person on human people.

Buffy stakes newly risen vampires all the time, often before they make any threatening move.
Staking them before they rise up and attack her is vanishingly rare. I can think of two, the one she hears growling while still underground at the beginning of OOMM and the one who declares herself not peaceful in the funeral home opener to Help. Partly it's a consequence of the decision to use game face to show "I want to eat you" aggression and thus avoid imagery of human people with human faces being stabbed to death by our hero. Nevertheless they do avoid and in show explanations have to look elsewhere. As a biologist I rather like the realpolitik elsewhere that the strategy of letting those who run in terror run allows the slayer's fearsome reputation to be spread by them.

I really don't think Spike believed her.
Then I have issues with him clinging to his own preconceptions in the face of her outright declaration. Like Riley! The poor guy can't win :)

[deird1]

I can think of two, the one she hears growling while still underground at the beginning of OOMM and the one who declares herself not peaceful in the funeral home opener to Help.

Also, the very start of season 5, and the woman at the end of Sleeper...

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I already mentioned the one from the beginning of S5 as an example of Buffy doing something we're intended to see as against her own rules (also the ITW vamp ho). Also that one isn't staked while rising but after a chase and an extended fight back. The woman at the end of Sleeper is the last of a whole series of Spike victims who've al been driven to attack her en mass. It's not something she does all the time. It's something that's rare enough to be worthy of note given that you'd think it would be the most efficient way to get the job done. An absence that any theory that Buffy regards all vampires as stakeable regardless of how they behave, needs to account for.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

It's not something she does all the time. It's something that's rare enough to be worthy of note given that you'd think it would be the most efficient way to get the job done. An absence that any theory that Buffy regards all vampires as stakeable regardless of how they behave, needs to account for.

Buffy routinely patrols in cemetaries. My natural inference has always been that it's easiest to dispatch the newly risen. That we don't see the actual staking much could, I suppose, be taken to mean that it's rare. But it's alternatively possible that we aren't shown it because it's meant to be seen as so totally normal it's not worth spending time on. To me the latter most naturally fits with the idea that Buffy's routine is to patrol cemeteries.

[next_to_normal]

There's also more than one instance of Buffy (and sometimes Giles, and at least on one occasion, Willow) literally camped out at a grave, waiting for the vampire to rise so she can stake it.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Yes but my point is they wait for it to rise. To rise and chose to attack the waiting girl. Not to slither away from, not make small talk with, to rip the throat out of. We see an extended version of the process with Holden. While he's talking to her she makes conversation. When he attacks her (and he makes it absolutely clear that this is what he intends the whole time) she reacts. From the examples we see vampire nature is such that very few of the cemetery types are prepared to forgo a happy meal but those we have seen running or just hanging out in demon bars get a pass from Buffy. Even when visiting the bar is a training exercise designed to show future Slayers how to behave.

[next_to_normal]

I think they wait for it to rise simply because it's less work than trying to dig it up first. Not so much that she's giving it a chance to attack her before she kills it. I don't recall ever seeing Buffy let a vampire go in that situation (except the one that snuck past her and she didn't notice), so we can't really say whether she'd let one go if it didn't attack her.

Have we ever seen Buffy choose not to stake a vampire, other than the ones we know as people? Not ones that got away from her, just that she let them go?

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

She has the ability to stake them while they're still soil bound so why not use it more often given that letting them up to fight means she's putting her life on the line every night. That's one of the points made in the S5 commentary on the meaning of "Death is your gift>" She's nearly been killed more than once on routine patrols (FFL and Helpless).

She chose not to go after the two nesting vamps in Crush despite Spike's encouraging her to. Moreover, in ITW the show and Xander make a big deal about the wrongess of her finally deciding to harpoon Riley's unambiguously retreating 'friend.' She was letting that vampire go but then her less good qualities got the better of her.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Spike is a long way from newly risen but still fits the hangs out in cemeteries description. Cemeteries have the advantage of being places demons habitually lurk, emerge from or return to but humans are unlikely to be found in after dark.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

I'm intrigued: would you say that you care more about themes than you do about character development? That the former trumps the latter? Because this piece seems to focus on one being more important than the other.

I'm the opposite. I like thematic stuff, but it can be fudged as long as the character development remains consistent and compelling.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I do care a lot about character development. I think it just doesn't bother me so much in season 5 AtS, because while I think it's off, it catches the aspect I think is more important (Spike no longer in hot pursuit to the exclusion of all else). Granted, it's implausible that he buys Buffy dancing in Rome (and her complete unconcern about the resurrection of her dear friend) -- but most of us went with that until season 8 retconned it, so Spike's not the only one.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't mean to say you didn't care about it; I just wondered if one trumps the other for you. Character development trumps theme for me, if it comes to that, though in an ideal world, they'd be in sync. ;)

There seem to be two schools of thought amongst Spike fans about AtS S5: those who think Spike needed to get his stones back and those who think he pretty much had gotten them back in BtVS S7 anyway. Personally, I think Spike was his own man in S7, and I don't think S7 is all about his relationship with Buffy. Obviously, it's vital, but he's got his own issues--in LMPTM, significantly, in Get It Done, etc.--confronts those, and Buffy backs him. I don't really see his story as only being in service of Buffy's so significantly that he needed to escape that.

Spike no longer in hot pursuit to the exclusion of all else I guess that's where we're fundamentally different: I don't think he is in hot pursuit to the exclusion of all else in S7, so I don't need to see him not be once again in S5.

Is that coherent at all?

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Totally coherent. And I agree Spike wasn't in pursuit of Buffy to the exclusion of all else in season 7. I'm just trying to find a way to explain why I'm not in a hurry to criticize Spike for not doing enough to try to contact Buffy in AtS. For me it's because season 7 Spike was already moving on (in the full belief that she wanted him to move on eventually) that it makes sense that he's ready to accept Andrew's portrait of Buffy having unproblematically moved on romantically. It is off, though, that Spike is so hooked into the romantic pessimism that he doesn't notice that it's weird that Buffy isn't interested in talking to her resurrected friend or miffed that newly resurrected friend didn't contact her directly.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

Okay, I think we agree more than I thought we did.

I'm fine with Spike moving on romantically (well, not really, because I'm a shipper, but you know what I mean ;) ). But I can't believe he didn't think at least his friendship was profoundly important to her in S7. They were best friends. She was closer to him than anyone else. That is why I can't buy that he doesn't get in touch with her.

Honestly, I'd more readily believe that he moved on if he did call her up and say, "Hey, I'm alive; I know you don't want to be with me, but I also know our friendship is important, so I wanted you to know." To me, the fact that he doesn't get in touch with her--presumably out of some sort of low self-esteem that's all torn up that she doesn't love him--means that he really hasn't moved on. If he had, he'd have zero problem getting in touch with her.

[next_to_normal]

Agreed. I think Spike has moved on in the sense that he's given up expecting Buffy to love him back. He's not actively pursuing her anymore, and hasn't been since he got the soul. But I don't think he's actually gotten over her in the sense that those romantic issues aren't still in his mind.

I think it'd be a lot easier for Spike to renew their friendship if Buffy hadn't said she loved him. The "I love you" has put them in an awkward position. What are they going to do, pretend it never happened? Either Buffy admits that yes, she just said it because he was dying, or she stands by it and (in Spike's mind, since he didn't believe it) is forced to continue lying to him. Spike can't let her know he's alive "just as friends" without her being put on the spot to either renounce or reaffirm her declaration of love.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Very nicely put. ITA.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Yes. This. So much. It's not just about romance. It's about friendship. Just because the romance ends doesn't mean that Buffy stops caring deeply and even hurting over his death. And that's what gets me--because I believe that Buffy is carrying his death with her. That even as she's proud, she's still torn up over his death and being "too late" the way that Echo was over Paul.

[next_to_normal]

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am on both issues. With S4, I do think it's OOC that nobody even seriously suggested staking Spike, but it doesn't really bother me, because I do understand the need for the contrivance.

AtS S5, on the other hand, doesn't strike me as particularly OOC, so I'm even more willing to excuse the contrivance. Would I have preferred to see some resolution to the Spuffy relationship, even if it's not a happy one? Sure. But I'm with you in thinking that Spike had perfectly good reasons for not wanting that to happen.

There are other bends -- Angel's complete lack of assistance in season 5 despite his stated reason for giving up his humanity in IWRY comes to mind.

This never bothered me, either, since I'm not sure how Angel was supposed to know his help was needed. He showed up in "Forever" - if Buffy wanted his help, surely that was the time to ask for it. I'm sure if Angel knew he could prevent Buffy's death, he'd have tried, but aside from the fact that he wasn't even in this dimension at the time, no one informed him his help was required.

I've also seen it suggested that Angel saving Buffy wasn't about her death in S5 - it was about her victory over the First. If Angel had stayed human, he'd never have been offered the deal with W&H, meaning he'd never have gotten the amulet, which closed the Hellmouth. The rise of the First was the darkness that was coming, and that's what Angel was trying to prevent by becoming a vampire again (although he didn't know it at the time).

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Interesting speculation about the First... but it would seem to require that Buffy's resurrection was predicted. Not impossible, but if I needed to stretch like that to preserve something that mattered to me, I'd feel like I was cheating.

Re: Angel, how he was he supposed to know? There's this funny invention called a telephone. You're right that nobody used it, but that's the point. They are so out of touch that it's not instinctive for Buffy to reach out to him when she's in the fight of her life, or for him to have followed up on her obviously dire situation that he learned about in Forever. OTOH, they're in touch enough for Angel to know about Joyce's death. So who knows? It goes on in season 6. They see each other, but either Buffy keeps her depression and (especially) her dire financial situation from Angel or he knows and doesn't act to help her.

I think Bangel's can put the rough edges down to plot contrivance. But I also think that the story can be used by an anti-Bangel like myself to argue that by season 5, Angel and Buffy are more about their ideals of each other than anything else.

[next_to_normal]

I think my point here is just that a lot of people seem to blame Angel, holding him accountable for not somehow instinctively knowing that Buffy needed his help and coming to the rescue to prevent her death. If Buffy didn't reach out to him, if the PTB didn't send another vision to let him know she needed help, then in my mind he's off the hook for not preventing her death.

I agree with you that their relationship is pretty distant at that point, and it's a serious fanwank to try to say they still love each other the way they did in S1-3. But I also don't think that Buffy's death is somehow Angel's failure just because he made the choice in IWRY to prevent her death.

OTOH, they're in touch enough for Angel to know about Joyce's death. So who knows?

Well, it's interesting to me that it's Willow who contacts Angel, both to let him know Buffy died and that she's alive again. (Okay, obviously Buffy's not going to let him know she's dead, but she could've let him know she was alive again.) So maybe Willow's also the one who told him about Joyce.

And I don't think I've ever thought about it before, but that is an interesting parallel between Buffy in S6 and Spike in AtS S5. Buffy comes back from the dead and doesn't contact Angel. He finds out through an intermediary and then reaches out to her. Likewise, Spike comes back from the dead and doesn't contact Buffy. He later assumes she found out through an intermediary (Andrew) and didn't bother to get in touch with him, except to pass on the "move on" message.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Interesting parallel!

I wouldn't blame Angel for Buffy's death in season 5. I am more about just saying there's distance. But I also think that Angel's reason for giving up his humanity in IWRY was a bunch of hooey. The idea that part of his mission is to keep Buffy alive is just never an element in *his* story, whatever we want to do with the BtVS/AtS continuity issues.

[next_to_normal]

Funny - the Spike issue is a contrivance that pissed off Spuffy shippers, whereas this contrivance seems like it was done as a sop to the Bangel ship.

There are completely valid reasons that Angel would give up his humanity - namely that he wants to keep fighting, and can do that better as a vampire. (Also possibly guilt, that he doesn't feel he deserves the reward yet.) They almost sort of go there in the episode, but that would mean Angel was choosing being a hero over being with Buffy. (Again, parallel to Spike in S5.) So, instead, they make his choice about Buffy, even though it doesn't make any sense to make his mission about saving Buffy.

[jamalov29.livejournal.com]

I've deeply enjoyed reading your post and the following comments : what a very interesting thread ! I have nothing to add to all the insightful and brilliantly expressed thoughts , I didn't always agree with what I've read but it is always enlightening to see where other people stand . Thank you for your entry that inspired such a great discussion.

[nmcil12.livejournal.com]

BtVS in very important ways, did not deal with killing - In OMWF people are burned alive clearly shown on screen - yet the character responsible never is required to deal with his causing these deaths to completely innocent victims. Same with Willow and her killing of Warren, Buffy stabs Faith to offer her as sacrifice.

At least with Spike, his chip allows for a way around the "killing issue" and the social/ethic/morals of holding him responsible for the deaths he did cause. Xander particularly is a huge morality and plot device in conflict.

Great discussion -