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

[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?