Bit of Both: Motivation in the ‘Verse

[maggie2]

Too many words in defense of the claim that people who say Spike never did any good deed  for good reasons are really stupid.

 

A few days ago,shapinglight offered up a (completely on the money) rant about people “slagging Spike off”. (I love the way the British language works). Anyway, she begins by pointing to the anti-Spike folks who basically say that Spike never did anything good because all of his apparently good deeds were done for selfish purposes. There are a couple of ways to respond to the charge. One could point out how much these people have to stretch the facts to make the charge stick. How could Spike’s choice to keep fighting the fight in Sunnydale after Buffy was dead have anything to do with wanting to get into her pants? Alternatively, one can argue that the standard of judgment is just wrong. People just don’t have pure motivations. Most of our choices are “overdetermined”, by which I mean that you can explain them in multiple ways, any one of which would have been sufficient to result in the choice, but all of which might well have been in play when the choice was made.  Am I writing this post because I have something to say, because I am hoping to get the strokes one gets when people respond to posts, or because I’d rather do this than work on the stuff I’m supposed to be working on? Well, truth be told, all of it is in play. Some of the motives might be perfectly good; others might be self-serving in a benign way; others might be downright ignoble, indefensible even. In a complex world that’s just how things are. 
 

One of the things I love about the ‘verse is that it frequently calls attention to the ambiguity of what motivates us. So Spike’s critics aren’t just wrong because they stretch the facts to fit their case; they’re wrong because they use a standard that the ‘verse itself calls into question. Here are two examples to illustrate the basic point.

At the end of The Gift, Buffy takes a beautiful swan dive into a mystical portal, saving the world at the expense of her own life. We get moving music, a long slow-motion view of her flight, and a final epitaph for the fallen hero who saved the world a lot. People have written insightful meta about how Buffy’s noble sacrifice pulls together so many of the threads of her life into one final triumphant act. But it really isn’t that simple. A big theme of the season was that slayers die when they get a death wish, which was developed not just by Spike’s assertions on the subject, but by the fact that Buffy is visibly worn down by the tragedies that befall her and the burden she bears. She loses her boyfriend, and her mother. She is confronted by an enemy who is substantially stronger than she is, and by the possibility that the price of saving the world might be sacrificing her sister. Buffy’s response to all this is to give up – she becomes catatonic for an entire episode. Pulled out of her catatonia, Buffy goes back into the battle, but she declares to Giles that she doesn’t want to live in a world that forces such hard choices. Although she seemingly finds a way around the harsh choice between sacrificing her sister and saving the world by sacrificing herself, her final inspiring words to her sister are that “the hardest thing in this world is to live in it.” Inspiring music and visuals might let us gloss over this statement but it’s quite subversive of the moment. If the brave and heroic thing is living in the world, just what kind of sacrifice is Buffy making by choosing to not live in it? That might just be a discordant note in a satisfying conclusion to the hero’s journey, but Whedon and company devoted all of season six to exploring just how dark Buffy’s ‘inspiring’ words really were.

 So was Buffy sacrificing her life to save the world? Or was she committing suicide leaving others braver than herself to cope with the real challenge which is living in this world? People argue about this as though it had to be one or the other. But really, isn’t it both? And isn’t the both-ness of it what makes it so great, so arresting?

Which takes me to my second example, where the question is made explicit in a scene involving Spike. In Destiny, Spike and Angel battle for the cup of torment, which is a battle about many things including who is the vampire of destiny. We could kill a forest talking about all the motives in play for both of them during that fight. It’s a great scene. But at the very end, right before Spike drinks from the cup, a defeated Angel tries to stop him:

“Spike, wait. Wait. That's not a prize you're holding. It's not a trophy. It's a burden. It's a cross. One you're gonna have to bear till it burns you to ashes. Believe me. I know. So ask yourself: Is this really the destiny that was meant for you? Do you even really want it? Or is it that you just want to take something away from me?”

And Spike pauses and then responds with a shrug:  “Bit of both”. 

Noble motives and ignoble motives. Not one or the other. Both. And not just both. A bit of both. There’s even more in the stew of motivation than those two motives. Language just never is adequate to what’s really going on with us.

::pauses to sigh at another great Spike moment, and to remind self to not write pages of side commentary on how it’s just perfect that it’s Spike who says this::

The show isn’t about heroes and villains. Not about good guys and bad guys. It’s about people who have some good motivations and some bad motivations and who are usually operating from both sets of motivations at the same time. Which set of motivations we focus on are overwhelmingly determined by our affection or lack thereof for the character. Do you love Spike? His good deeds are reflective of his noble motivations, of course. Do you insist on seeing him as a villain? Pull up every lesser motivation you can find and pretend that Spike, and Spike alone, is motivated by such motivations.   Such debates are pretty stupid. And annoying, of course, for those of us who really love the character who comes under such attacks. And really very much beside the point of the show itself.

Comments

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

I know, exactly what I think as well, and very well expressed. Each and every one of the characters had various motavations during each act, that is what gave the programme depth.

These arguements from the Spike detractors just simplify the message within the series, both BtVS and AtS.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I like to debate on the boards from time to time -- but at the end of the day it really detracts from everything that's great about the 'verse.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Big word.

From some conversations I've had with Spike detractors, they'd only consider him "redeemed" or "worthy" if he started volunteering at the local homeless shelter 24/7 while slapping himself upside the head with a spiked 2x4 at the same time the homeless people spit on him for his help.

"Well, the Glory thing doesn't count cause he was trying to get into Buffy's pants. He got a kiss from her, didn't her?"

"Fighting for Dawn at the end doesn't count cause he only did it cause Buffy asked him to."

"Staying in the interim between S5 and S6 doesn't really count because he was just following Buffy's wishes. He would have left once he'd gotten bored."

"His sacrifice in Chosen doesn't count because he knew he was coming back on Angel's series the next year."

It just gets ridiculous after a while, this fixation people have on Spike's motivations as being the be all and end all of his character's worth. As you said so well, everybody has conflicting and possibly disingenuous motivations. It doesn't negate the fact that Spike did good things.

And I honestly don't see why people are so dismissive of love being Spike's primary motivator prior to his getting a soul. To me, love is a perfectly noble reason to do things. Although I suppose Spike detractors feel it's less "love" and more "get in Buffy's pants" to which I just have to *headdesk* and wonder if we were watching the same show.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

From some conversations I've had with Spike detractors, they'd only consider him "redeemed" or "worthy" if he started volunteering at the local homeless shelter 24/7 while slapping himself upside the head with a spiked 2x4 at the same time the homeless people spit on him for his help.

That's a keeper.

At the end of the day we all act out of love. The only question is what is it that we love. Loving a hero and acting on her behalf or to win her esteem strikes me as one of the better types of love.

[pfeifferpack.livejournal.com]

Notice how they lose the line of fantasy/reality with the "he knew he was going to be on Angel," bit! I HAD that argument with someone once. *shakes head*.

These characters were three dimensional (except a few I won't mention). They have good and bad in them, both actions and motives.... JUST like in RL.

Many of those Spike haters hold his actions up to HUMAN standards though. He was a vampire. That he did ANY good was remarkable. The things he DIDN'T do without a soul were remarkable. That he GOT a soul (yeah, they say he wanted the chip out and the writers changed their minds. Nope....JOSS said the soul was the plan all along. Yes, some have said that JOSS'S commentary saying that didn't count because it wasn't on screen and so wasn't canon!) is astounding considering the only example was Angel who maintained he was a separate being from Angelus....that meant Spike was willing to "die" to be a better (new) man. They compare SOULED Angel to UNSOULED Spike and find fault. They won't even discuss Angelus because he isn't Angel (huh???).

Everyone does things for a reason even if that reason is that doing good makes you feel like a decent person for a moment. There is always payoff.

Excellent post. I could go on and on about this but I'm preaching to the choir. I finally had to just see the haters as those who could not get over Bangel. Often they will admit that the show "wasn't the same" after season 3. Spike was the spoiler to them, the guy who came in and took Angels goodies and so they will never forgive him.

Kathleen

[rahirah]

And all else aside, multiple motivations are a lot more fun.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Gives us so much to talk about.

[sueworld2003.livejournal.com]

"So was Buffy sacrificing her life to save the world? Or was she committing suicide leaving others braver than herself to cope with the real challenge which is living in this world? People argue about this as though it had to be one or the other. But really, isn’t it both? And isn’t the both-ness of it what makes it so great, so arresting?"

Yes, it is and you're right. I've had tones of debates online about that with people who think to see it that way would be some kind of slight on Buffy's characters. Something I never saw it as.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

The whole idea that *either* it's one thing *or* the other fuels a lot of the debates on fanboards doesn't it? Of course, I participate often enough.

[enisy.livejournal.com]

Very aptly put, and thank you for drawing our attention to the correlation between Buffy's parting words in The Gift and her sacrifice -- that's one hell of a good example for that "bit of both". This is going to my memories. :)

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I love the "bit of both" moment. Spike cuts through the bs with so little effort.

[next_to_normal]

How could Spike’s choice to keep fighting the fight in Sunnydale after Buffy was dead have anything to do with wanting to get into her pants?

No, he wasn't trying to get into her pants, but that doesn't make his motives selfless. You yourself pointed out that there can be multiple motives, and I think Spike did benefit from staying and helping - he got an outlet for his grief (taking care of Dawn, doing what Buffy would want), and he got the comfort of being with others who were also grieving. Plus, he gained acceptance into the group, something he's been working toward for quite some time now. If he'd left town, he'd be alone, and that's something Spike has always seemed to dislike.

So I wouldn't say they're "stretching the facts," just that this is one more example of a situation where multiple motives are involved, and not all of them are selfless. But, as your post states, that doesn't make the good deeds less good. (I actually do agree with most of what you said, but dismissing this interpretation as "stretching the facts" undermines your argument, IMO, because you're only considering the motivation that makes Spike look good, just as Spike's detractors are only considering the motivation that makes him look bad.)

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

On your terms there are no selfless acts. We all are motivated by something. And that something inevitably attaches to us in some way, benefits us in some way. Mother Theresa gives of herself because it hurts her to see suffering. So she's benefitting herself right? Well, she really is. That's part of what's so great about what she does.

Anyway, as I said above, we all act out of some sort of love. The question is what it is that we love. Staying to honor a promise or to be part of a community sharing in its grief are not hardly bad motives. And the problem with the yahoos is that they blow past the actual "selfish" reasons that Spike has to the silly one like its all to get in Buffy's pants. (And yes, there are people who say that. Though they could well be trolls.)

[slaymesoftly.livejournal.com]

Nicely thought out and expressed. Not that it's going matter diddly to those who are anti-Spike, but it's spot on. IMHO

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Thanks! One has to pity those who won't let themselves see the blinding greatness of Spike. Not that I'm biased or anything. (More seriously, I do think it's always better to be a lover than a hater. Not that I don't do my fair share of hating. But I always feel small when I'm in that mode.)

[angearia.livejournal.com]

I just watched the last half of AtS Season 5 and here's two heroic standout moments for Spike:

Shells
ANGEL
(sits up, surprised)
You're not leaving?

SPIKE
This is what she would have wanted.
(looks at Angel)
It's what I want. I don't really like you. Suppose I never will. But this is important, what's happening here. Fred gave her life for it. The least I can do is give what's left of mine.
(looks out the window)
The fight's comin', Angel. We both feel it... and it's gonna be a hell of a lot bigger than Illyria. Things are gonna get ugly. That's where I live.

Spike stayed in order to help Angel and the good fight. Angel offered him a carefree life as a roving agent, but he stayed to help because he realized the import of the situation.

Power Play
Another moment that's sticking out in my mind is at the end of Power Play as Angel lays the plan on the line and tells everyone this is the kind of fight they're not going to walk away from. Spike is the first one to raise his hand, knowing that their plan will most likely lead to his permanent demise.

OT: If I had more time on my hands I'd count how many times Season 5 plays with jokes about men kissing men or holding hands. Watching the last 9 episodes in the past few days, I can tell you that men joking they might have to "kiss" each other happened three times. The joke even got carried over into AtF #16 when Spike mocks Angel for his gooey goodbye to Wesley.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Two good moments. But I also think the second one was one of the worst choices Spike ever made. (I don't think Angel's last stand was the right thing to do -- a huge example of mixed motives: very light and very dark all at once; but ultimately I'm not on board. But still admiring the heroic aspects of it. See? Fun back and forth.)

I've read somewhere the meta that the reason why Joss has Spike say "no you don't but thanks for saying it" is to polish off Spike's credentials as selfless hero. He died in her battle even though he fully believes she didn't love him back.

[louise39.livejournal.com]

There’s even more in the stew of motivation than those two motives. Or three or more.

Thanks for the reminders. Spike and Buffy were never written as one-dimensional characters.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

That's why we are still talking about them!

[ms-scarletibis.livejournal.com]

Personally I feel that whole "trying to get in her pants" deal is a stupid argument any way you slice it. He honestly believed he had no chance with her, hence why he had the Bot made in the first place. Spike ends up doing the right thing because he realizes it's the right thing. Saying every single solitary "good" thing he did (which is so relative--his motivations, good, bad, or other, don't exist in the realm of what humans perceive to be good or bad, and as a vampire, the more "good" he became could have been viewed as "bad" or "evil" by vampire standards, which is why I don't care to use redeemed or reformed in regards to Spike, but evolved) was about Buffy and her pants (or skirt) is stupid, especially since she is actually the one who puts him up there at the end of the day. Also, the friendship he has with the Scoobies in her absence--if he was just staying cause Buffy asked him to, that doesn't mean he had to hang out with them. He could have been Mr. Loner like Angel was the first three seasons. Not that I'm knocking Angel really--I think he's great (on his own show).

Also, Angel's decision in "Power Play" and "Not Fade Away" was mirroring Buffy's decision in "Chosen." The only real difference is that he lost. Buffy went charging in half cocked as well. There was no guarantee that Willow's spell would work, and if Joss hadn't ignored canon, the slayers still wouldn't have been strong enough to fight the Uber Vamps (who ended up not being so uber or in the thousands upon thousands range in the Hellmouth for some weird reason), so it was a huge chance of getting everyone killed. She lucked up (with huge tweaking from Joss) on that one, and Angel gets stuck in a hell dimension for his trouble. And I can't lay the blame at Angel's door--there were too many intelligent people in that room to tell him he was bug shagging crazy (namely Spike, cause he's usually first in line to tell anyone that they're stupidly wrong) for that plan.

And sorry for the super long reply :P

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Agree with you about the people who want to short sell Spike at all turns.

I actually think there's a material difference between Angel's final battle and Buffy's. Buffy is fighting a power that threatens to destroy the world as it is. Whether she's thought it through or not, what else can she do but try to stop it? Angel is fighting the power that sustains the world as it is. (Defining the apocalypse as ordinary human existence is the big bold move of the series). That changes all of the equations about what's worth risking in order to fight the battle at all. NFA is a much darker affair than is The Chosen.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

The thing is, I am one of the people who say that until Spike got a soul, all his actions were fundamentally selfish at their core. "Getting into Buffy's pants" might be part of it, but feeding and maintaining his own self-image was even more important. And yes, part of his self-image was that he always kept his promises.

Does that make me one of these "Spike-haters"? I don't hate him. I think he's a fascinating and complex character.

And part of that fascination is seeing how Spike's actions - motivated by the desire to get what he wanted - could end up being more heroic than the humans with actual souls. And how, as he fought alongside Buffy and spent time looking after Dawn and all the rest of it, the conflict between his essential nature and the things he learned to find fulfilment in became so intense, that eventually the only way to resolve it was to go and get a soul - to break out of the trap he'd described a year earlier, that he could be neither a monster nor a man.

Once he had a soul, he was capable of actual altruism. I think pre-souled Spike might still have sacrificed himself in the Hellmouth, out of sheer bloody-minded pride and stubborness; but I can't see him giving Buffy the strength and affirmation she needed to be strong on her own without him.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Some day I might reveal (even more than I do already) my total inner nerdiness by talking about how a lot of these conversations never converge because people are using very different paradigms for their moral reflections. In this case, you are a Kantian and I'm a Thomist. (BTW, if it means anything to you, I'm ALWAYS a Thomist).

I think my basic point is that a lot of the board discussions (which admittedly are not meant to be lofty) are mired by the false notion that there is one and only one motivation for a given act. That's not true to the story. It's not true to real life. Like Rahirah, I find it very cool that both the story and life are like that.

That said, as a Thomist I deny that there's any sharp distinction between altruistic and non-altruistic acts. We all act in pursuit of the good we perceive. We just have better or worse understandings of what that good is. I agree that Spike's soul helps him have better understandings of what the good is. But even without the soul he's identified his well-being with the well-being of others (I couldn't stand it to see her in so much pain). That's a move up the ladder of love that lots of people with souls fail to make. I think the soul strengthens the higher motivations and makes it more likelythat he'll withstand various temptations to swing back down and pursue lower loves.

I do think you have to work hard to deny that Spike wasn't behaving nobly from the Glory torture incident through Buffy's return. You describe that to anyone outside the verse and they're not going to say "well, it's obvious that that guy has a glass ceiling he's never going to get through if he can't stop being so inherently selfish." Even if you give it the characterization Eowyn gives it above, most people would think that was good or noble behavior. Good or noble loves.

Where the soul comes to matter is that when Buffy comes back, it's revealed that his possession of her is a stronger love than some of the loves that are actually more noble (honoring promises, wanting to be the sort of person who could be treated as a man). His loves are ranked improperly. His good loves are there, and are really good. But he wants a lesser good more than the higher good. But it's still a mistake to say that he wasn't operating out of good motivations earlier. They just aren't the whole truth about him. As he learns. And seeks to remedy with the getting of the soul.

If we were to do this as Kantians we'd say that we NEVER know if someone has good motives, because what matters is what they do when they face a test where they are tempted to privilege their own good (happiness, well-being) over what's right. You can pass a hundred such tests, but still not know if there's not one big temptation out there specific to you that would cause you to fail. In this case, Spike's looking pretty good until he hits the test he fails (he has a shot at possessing Buffy and all the rest takes a distant back seat). But on Kant's view, pretty much all of us have a test out there that we're going to fail. Or at least none of us has any reason to think that there's NOT a test out there that we'd fail. Angel fails when his son is at risk, or when he despairs of achieving "redemption". Buffy temporarily failed when she didn't kill Angel in the middle of season 2. But I think the rest of Buffy's story is a pretty good meditation on just how dessicating it is to actually try to live life as a Kantian hero. Which is why I'm a Thomist. Buffy didn't need to learn how to be strong enough to privilege the right over the good or others over herself. She needed to learn how to love life enough that she could find some unity between the good and the right, where she could identify her own well-being with higher causes than just herself, but in a way that's life-giving and not life-draining.

And that was my inner nerd. Shutting it up now.

Of course you're not a Spike hater! And you know the sorts of folks I'm talking about!!

[green-maia.livejournal.com]

So was Buffy sacrificing her life to save the world? Or was she committing suicide leaving others braver than herself to cope with the real challenge which is living in this world? People argue about this as though it had to be one or the other. But really, isn’t it both? And isn’t the both-ness of it what makes it so great, so arresting?

Yes.


Excellent post!

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[tibialisant.livejournal.com]

WOOT! Nicely said!

For me it is as simple as this: he got his soul back to "give the bitch what she deserves". Yes, he was angry, called her a bad name and all that, but he said what she "deserved". He WAS an "evil soulless thing": he opted to change that in an attempt to be what she deserved, not knowing at all if she would accept him. He went through torture just to BE that, just to try. Helluva motivation, I say.

And then it drove him mad.

This makes his character all the more WOW to me, all the more unpredictable and complex and interesting to watch. No Mary-Jane easy to peg guy that Spike. Yeahy!!

[ms-scarletibis.livejournal.com]

Not to be purposely contrary, but he wasn't an "evil soulless thing." And he went a bit mad before going on a soul search...

Evil's relative.

[shapinglight]

Great post, Maggie. Plus, your comment to stormwreath below really impresses me, as a way of describing the differences between seasons 5&6 Spike. He chose the lesser love. I like that very much.

And you're right when you say he felt he never had a chance with Buffy, and in fact accepting that after Crush/IWMTLY had a rather radical effect on his behaviour. Pre-Crush, it's plain that every not-evil thing he's doing is done to try to impress Buffy. Post-Crush, when he knows he's blown it with her, and especially post The Body, his actions IMO can be interpreted as, if not selflessly motivated, then certainly based on more concern about Buffy than on getting what he wants (or thinks he wants) from her, Buffybot or no Buffybot (and he was still technically evil after all).

And you are of course right that people seem to hold Unsouled Spike to a higher standard than they do the human characters on the show. Or they compare him with Angel (not Angelus, but Angel) and find him wanting for that reason.

In fact, as you've no doubt long ago realised, there's no point arguing with some of these people. If you try, they just move the goalposts and then deny that they have.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Yeah -- they do move their goalposts, don't they? It was worth arguing with them once just to see if there was any there there. But there's not and so there you go.

I agree with you that realizing he had no shot at Buffy was crucial at Crush/IWMTLY. But I'd add in that his first reaction was to go for possession of the not real Buffy. On that account Intervention is the decisive episode where he learns that he'd rather be respected by the real Buffy than have possession of the fake Buffy. But alas, he forgets that in season 6 when he has possession of the real, but badly off-track, Buffy. (Intervention is hugely important. Elisi did a lot with that, but I think there's even more that can be said. Plus, funny.)

The Angel/unsouled Spike comparisons crack me up. But even better is when they start arguing that if we insist on comparing apples to apples, unsouled Angel is better than unsouled Spike because he's so much better at being evil!!!! We should make a collection of stupid arguments that we have come across.

[moscow-watcher.livejournal.com]

I think that these people who love to bash Spike see BtVS characters as a set of archetypes. Buffy => hero; Spike => villain, etc. Simplicity is easier to absorb. The majority on TV shows have clear-cut heroes and villains. People who got used to simple rules, got confused and frustrated. Hence, rants and attempts to prove that a character can't have complex motivations.

[annegables.livejournal.com]

Good grief. Read all this last night and posted something on my journal about it. Turns out that you were on the same wavelength.

[annegables.livejournal.com]

Found your comments as well as all those following to be so interesting that it got me on sort of a rant which I just posted on my journal. Congrats on starting us all up on a new rant!

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And a good continuation of the rant it was!!

[servus-a-manu.livejournal.com]

This is awesome! The Kant vs. Aquinas talk in the comment thread was a little over my head, but I think I got the gist of it.

Multiple motivators IS the defining element to the longevity of the show, the story, and the fandom. Otherwise, we'd have had them all figured out long ago and there'd be nothing to talk about. In fact, I worry about the people who refuse to see the multi-dimensioned aspects, yet are still obsessing about the show. Tilt at windmills much?

I was going to say something about how it's Spike's "evil" side that makes him such a fun character for me to obsess think about, but find I can't really argue with your "more or less noble loves" point. I think the salient point is that I can't help but use my own morality ruler when ranking those loves and find some of the less ones MUCH less than a typical all-out Spike fan. Yet, it's for precisely that reason that I find his "higher" (again, by my own ruler) loves so ennobling.

Also, I've just always had a thing for bad boys, and my libido prefers it when Spike plays naughty.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I preferred the effulgent Spike going up in flames in The Chosen -- but the greatness of his character is that there's a Spike for everyone.

Thanks for the kind words.

[jackarono.livejournal.com]

Of course, I find it MORE interesting that he's not someone purely altruistic. As always, he's the most human person on the show... mixed motives but pure intent. He might not know why he wants something, but he sure knows what he wants.

As you say, it's the complexity that makes him lovable!

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Totally. But I think I'd add that it's not so much that he's the most complex guy on the show. It's that he's the most honest about his complexity. There are lots of ignoble motives running around the verse, but the "good" guys are much less likely to own up to them.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of numerous and somewhat heated debates I used to have over sushi with a friend of mine while the series was on - way back in 2002 before Spike sought his soul. We were debating the difference between soul and non-soul, as well as between Angel and Spike. It was in a way an extension of equally heated debates I used to have or watch on the All Things Philosophical About Buffy and Angel Board - or ATPO back at that time. Specifically between Spike fan - Sophist and Spike hater - Malandaza. Sophist was a lawyer who had presented numerous times to the US Supreme Court - so usually had the upper hand. He was also a huge defender of Willow.

The argument was that Spike put those he cared about first. And only cared about others to the extent that those he cared deeply about did. Or were associated with them.
(We had the argument around the airing of "Dead Things".)

I found the logic of this highly amusing not to mention hypocritical. I've yet to meet someone who does not put friends and family above everyone else. Does not do charitable or kind things usually to impress them or gets something in exchange. People are inherently selfish creatures - it is ingrained in our DNA, we do occassionally do selfless acts - but they usually are linked to something we want, someone we care about, or some issue that bothers us due to a past experience. Like you state above our motivations are complicated. People aren't good or evil, they are a mixture. Characters - the interesting ones - aren't either. It's what Whedon did so well - he created complex characters.

I remember in an exchange with Seth Green on Buffy DVD for Wild at Heart - Whedon told Seth that when he created a villian, any villian, he didn't look at the character as a villian - because the character generally doesn't see himself in that light. The character sees himself as the protagonist or hero. So he looked at the character from the character's perspective. Not bad writing advice. Black and white or one-dimensional characters are predictable and boring - aka The Master. While characters like Willow, Xander, Giles, Buffy, OZ, Anya, Spike, and Angel are far more interesting.

Hee, I'm preaching to the choir here. Thanks for the post.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I'm mostly grateful that I'm a latecomer to the 'verse because, excessively attached to Spike as I am, I doubt I could have survived season six and the summer after with any sort of peace of mind. OTOH, it's plain that a lot of interesting folk have already departed from the fandom, and that a lot of the best conversations have already been had.

But your position against the Spike-hater is exactly what I think. And I wouldn't even characterize it as inherent 'selfishness' with the selfishness understood as pejorative. It would be inhuman to try to treat your kid as being interchangeable with random other kids if you were in the middle of an emergency. We are finite beings. There's a finite amount we can do. Giving special care to the people in our circle of concern is proper. The issue of pejorative type selfishness arises when that special concern becomes excessive. But it requires wisdom to discern the difference between proper special concern for others and improprer special concern. Which might be why so many people fall back on the simple rule that we should treat all others equally. It gives solid answers. They're just impractible at best and inhuman at worst.

Sorry -- end rant. And yeah, there's just lots and lots of double standard imposed on Spike. I think Stormwreath up above gave the best articulation of why fair minded people might still be vested in finding something "evil" or intrinsically selfish and limited in Spike's behavior before the ensouling. It's just that such claims can't possibly withstand actual scrutiny. For the reason you say. If you didn't already think Spike is evil, there's NOTHING in his act of letting himself be tortured nearly to death to prevent a child from coming to harm that would persuade you that he was. It's absurd.

[candleanfeather.livejournal.com]

Interesting post and brilliant exchanges with the people who commented.

There's nothing much for me to add, except that I agree with your analysis of Btvs as a polysemic show. The concepts it uses are fluid, changing, multilayered. It isn't a show which is made for rigid methods of readings. It's effectively made of multiple stories which follow their own internal logic: that's why for example using the Angel's lens to look at Spike's story isn't a good method to understand it, I'd even say that looking at Angel in Ats with Btvs Angel's story in mind isn't efficient either (even though there are threads and resonnances between the two of course). Such a way of writing creates inevitably inconsistencies and ruptures, but these are not really a major concern for JW, I would even say these consequences are an aesthetic mark in Btvs. In Spike's case, as you say, you need to really stretch the facts and your interpretation of his behaviour during the period between Intervention and the beginning of season to see it as proof of his evil nature and inherent selfishness. That's what I call a rigid reading, because it consists into taking new facts and reducing them in a way, however contorted they end up, to make them fit with what you think you know about the character. For my part I prefer to go with the idea that if elements don't fit with ancient established pieces, it's because we're learning something new about the character, we are are discovering another of his layer.

As for the selfishness/altruism being the only valid criter of judging the goodness of an act, we certainly can dismiss any world saving made by Buffy, as she has evident self interest in the continuation of HER world, where HER friends and HER family happen to live. Paradoxically, the only way she could act to be purely altruistic,would be to give the world to the demons. :)

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Polysemic is a great word. And I agree with you that the "ruptures" are not necessarily a flaw. I've got another piece to post about that at some point.

And to your last paragraph: heh. Brilliantly heh.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

*stands up and cheers* Yes! A bit of both. Well said.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[framefolly.livejournal.com]

Here by way of green_maia.

BRILLIANTLY PUT.

May I add to memories? And friend you?

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And friends are always welcome.