maggie2: (Default)
maggie2 ([personal profile] maggie2) wrote2009-01-26 03:46 pm

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,[livejournal.com profile] 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.


[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/woman_of_/ 2009-01-26 09:06 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 09:20 pm (UTC)(link)
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.
rahirah: (Default)

[personal profile] rahirah 2009-01-26 09:24 pm (UTC)(link)
And all else aside, multiple motivations are a lot more fun.

[identity profile] sueworld2003.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 09:33 pm (UTC)(link)
"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.

[identity profile] enisy.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 09:57 pm (UTC)(link)
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. :)
next_to_normal: (Default)

[personal profile] next_to_normal 2009-01-26 10:03 pm (UTC)(link)
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.)

[identity profile] slaymesoftly.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 10:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Nicely thought out and expressed. Not that it's going matter diddly to those who are anti-Spike, but it's spot on. IMHO

[identity profile] angearia.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 10:57 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] louise39.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:04 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Exactly. Gives us so much to talk about.

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:05 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:06 pm (UTC)(link)
I love the "bit of both" moment. Spike cuts through the bs with so little effort.

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:10 pm (UTC)(link)
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.)

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:11 pm (UTC)(link)
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.)

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:14 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:15 pm (UTC)(link)
That's why we are still talking about them!

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:15 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] pfeifferpack.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:26 pm (UTC)(link)
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

[identity profile] ms-scarletibis.livejournal.com 2009-01-26 11:52 pm (UTC)(link)
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
next_to_normal: (Default)

[personal profile] next_to_normal 2009-01-26 11:53 pm (UTC)(link)
On your terms there are no selfless acts.

I wouldn't say "on my terms," since that wasn't what I was trying to say, but it is true to some extent. However, if that's the assumption you're going to make, then why bother engaging detractors in a debate about Spike's motivation at all? If there is no selfless motivation, then it doesn't matter whether Spike's motive was love, or trying to make himself feel better, or even to get in Buffy's pants (which, I'll agree, doesn't make sense), because the result is still the same.

However, I would say that motivation does matter. Even if nothing is purely selfless, there are good motives and bad motives, as you illustrated with your examples. And I think without the good motive to balance out the bad one, it's hard to see something as a good deed, even if the result is a positive one.
ext_15284: a wreath of lightning against a dark, stormy sky (buffy-all alone)

[identity profile] stormwreath.livejournal.com 2009-01-27 12:05 am (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-27 12:31 am (UTC)(link)
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!!

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-27 12:42 am (UTC)(link)
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. In other words, the folks who could well be trolls for all the sense their arguments make. It was just a set-up to blow into the real point, which is the second one I make.

The general point is that if the Spike-haters strategy is to say "if I can find one lower motive, or one potential motive that's lower, I can disqualify the goodness of the act entirely", they are missing the point that EVERYONE has multiple motives, and pretty much all of us could be disqualified if those are the grounds by which you want to judge. 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.

I agree with you that the real conversation should be about the quality of the motivations, the type of 'selfishness' involved. Mother Theresa is "selfish" in the sense that she does what benefits her. But she's a saint because what benefits her is alleviating the suffering of others. Spike's taking torture because it would hurt him to see Buffy suffer is not as high up the scale as Mother Theresa, but it's pretty darned good. Spike's choice to stay and associate with people who are fighting the good fight is pretty good -- better than choosing to hang out with the lowlifes. etc. etc.

I still like the getting of the soul. But for reasons that are more complicated than the notion that a soulless person (oxymoron though that is) can't perform good acts.

[identity profile] 2maggie2.livejournal.com 2009-01-27 12:50 am (UTC)(link)
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.

Page 1 of 3