maggie2 | Bit of Both: Motivation in the ‘Verse

Bit of Both: Motivation in the ‘Verse

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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

First, I really was just mentioning the folks who really do say it's all about getting into her pants, even though there were obviously places in his story that can't be accounted for on those grounds.

Yeah, I get that now. When I first read your post, not knowing the source of the debate, I read it as more of a general argument against "selfish motives negate good deeds" than specifically directed at the haters. So it seemed like it was your argument that was weak - "Spike's good because he's not trying to get into Buffy's pants" - not theirs.

In other words, they are holding Spike to a different standard than the one they hold Buffy to or any other character whom they happen to admire.

That seems to happen a lot, even on the show. Instead of expecting Spike to be a vampire and being proud of him when he goes against his nature and does good, the characters often expect him to act like a human, and then look down on him when he screws up.

Was it really "ordinary human existence" though? Aside from the fact that he was sent a bogus vision from The Powers That Screw You, the senator wanted to do a spell of some kind that made her opponent out to be a child molester, so that she could win the race. The Fell Brethren prayed on that young woman (though admittedly, it was her choice) for the baby. Vail could manipulate reality with a spell...The problem with the power that sustained the world as it was, was that it was making it go in a rapid decline. The Black Thorn, in positions of human power (such as Senator), would undoubtedly tip the scales in their favor.

Angel (where Buffy did not), offered up a choice to his people to change the world, even if it was for a moment. "We are weak. The powerful control everything... except our will to choose... Heroes don't accept the way the world is...for one bright, shining moment, we can show them that they don't own us. You need to decide for yourselves if that's worth dying for."

They chose yes. I think the question for Angel became, what do you do with your free will? Is the change you believe in something worth fighting/dying for? For those reasons, and the fact that he didn't choose it alone, I won't single him out for blame. There's enough to go around, starting with the PTBs.

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.

That right there. I've tried explaining many times, and in many different ways, how I can think season 5 Spike didn't really need a soul but season 6 Spike did. And I think you just did it. :)

Yeah, it really was ordinary human existence. Lindsey says so explicitly. The apocalypse has already started. Look at the world around you. The "demons" that Angel takes out are all metaphors for the real-world players who do make ordinarly life not so good: corrupt politicians, greedy business men, ruthless lawyers. We never got any evidence that these problems were accelerating. Just that this is how it works, how it has always worked.

Whether or not Angel's choice on how to deal with ordinary human evil was a good one or not is open to debate. How far out on a limb should we go to combat the real evil that's in the world around us. I tend to be anti-revolutionary. So to me Angel's looking more like Pol Pot than makes me feel comfortable. Or perhaps better, more like a suicide bomber. But just playing along is not obviously a noble choice either. So while I tend to be negative on Angel's choice, I recognize that there are good arguments to be made on the other side.

But Buffy's apocalypse really was of the "world is going to end right now" variety. If there's a meteor about to hit the earth and destroy life as we know it, I think we're justified in taking some pretty risky meaasures to try to prevent it. Maybe even measures that in normal times would not be seen as good things to do.

Agreed. However, though Angel's plan was made of "Fail," his intent was good. The results of the act should not discount his intent. And this is almost an inverse of the Spike argument that started this post :P

In this case, you are a Kantian and I'm a Thomist.

Funny, I always thought of it as a Behaviorist versus Freudian issue more than Kant and Aquinas, but you do have a point.

Eh, I re-read the first paragraph and can see why it would be confusing. Post in haste, repent at leisure.

I can never decide whether the double-standard business in the show was unintentional or a lovely illustration of how preconceptions and social dynamics can pin people down. I go back and forth.

ha ha. We all divide the world in a way that's advantageous to our POV. And I'm never fair to the other half.

!! True.

But to be difficult, I think Angel's intentions are very mixed also. I read NFA as a classic example of "bit of both". In that case "a lot of both".

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!!

How so? He laid it out pretty clear at the end of "Power Play," not to mention he was mislead with a vision from the higher ups. I mean...what do you do with that kind of info?

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.

"And he went a bit mad before going on a soul search" Oh indeed he did. Again, makes him more interesting. Hmm, Vampire with some sort of conscience... hmmm, interesting.

And the "evil soulless thing" I used is in reference to the scene where Buffy beats him senseless in the alley, trying to assert that there is nothing good in him - when he was trying to altruistically protect her from her self. hmm Evil Vampires do whut now? yeah. :)

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.

Yes! I so dislike (see, I didn't say hate!) that feeling when I drink the haterade. :)

*loves Spike*

There are always (or usually) multiple motives in play. We usually tell ourselves or others that we are acting on a good motivation. But maybe something else is driving us. And maybe its driving us so much so that we deceive ourselves about why we are doing what we are doing.

Angel is in despair. Angel's back is against the wall. Angel's understanding of himself as a champion is compromised both by his own choices and by the sheer fact of Spike (the soul-getting, world-saving hero). Angel likes to think of himself as someone who makes a difference. Somehow I'm thinking it's not hard to think that that stuff had an influence both on how he interpreted the vision and on how he decided to act on it. NFA gives us an alternative answer to the question of how we should respond to unconquerable evil in the guise of Anne, who just loves the people she encounters ever day as best she can. But that's small and quiet and not really the classic picture of a champion whose destiny is to play a decisive role in the apocalypse.

But however dark some of that is, there's that shining commitment to opposing evil. The ambition to be a champion is not hardly a bad ambition. The willingness to die for the cause demands respect. Ergo: mixed motives. My theme of the week is just how great it is that NFA is both totally inspiring and totally horrifying. At the same time.

Well, he wasn't in despair after Cordy's visit, and he really wasn't against the wall. That (what I think to be bogus) vision changed his whole way of thinking and what he planned to do. Had it not happened, his interpretation or lack thereof, there's no way he would have went after The Black Thorn the way he did. So I think...I feel like he was purposely mislead. Cordy's visions were meant to show those in danger and who was causing the danger ahead of time, and Angel and the gang were supposed to stop it, right? That's what Angel did for years. So when he got that one, I feel like at *that* point he truly had his back against the wall--like that was what had to be done. Otherwise, why bother showing him that? It would be like "Here's the bad guys, but keep doing the good work. Just keep them on your peripheral," which is the exact opposite of what they'd been doing with the visions for all those years.

Also, that was Cordy's very last vision--it was like a way of honoring her and her (and Doyle's) gift, and their sacrifices, for all of the fallen AI soldiers.

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

By that logic, Buffy sacrificing herself to save the world doesn't count because she knew she was coming back in Season 6.

I expect that people who make that argument really believe that Angel "signalled her with his eyes" in 'Becoming Part 2'.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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!

if it means anything to you

I'm afraid I've only studied Aquinas for his influence on political thought, not pure philosophy or ethics, and I know nothing about Kant. So your post was fascinating but using unfamiliar concepts for me...

And my usual first port-of-call in such cases - Wikipedia's pages on Thomism and Kant - were worse than useless because instead of giving a nice, clear layman's summary of their theories they launchesd into the most abstruse and long-winded details imaginable, using terminology and concepts that only a philosophy graduate could understand. It was much the same when I tried to get my head round Existentialism after Joss wrote 'The Chain'.

But anyway...

That's a move up the ladder of love that lots of people with souls fail to make

I think my problem here is that your argument depends on the soul not really mattering. That it helps Spike to be good, by letting him get his priorities straight, but it's not essential. Now, in real life, I think that's a perfectly good philosophy and if it weren't for the fact that I don't believe in the soul I'd agree with you 100%. :-)

But in the Buffyverse, souls have an objective reality - we actually see Angel's disembodied soul on screen a few times - and I simply think it would be bad storytelling if it had no significant effect on the owner after all. My preferred reading of Spike's soulquest in S6 and his self-sacrifice in S7 are that they were a triumphant and heroic part of his character arc, not an ironic irrelevance...

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 3

Bit of Both: Motivation in the ‘Verse

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject