Why the huge Spike hate?

[white avenger]

Well, that wasn't what I was saying, so...

Also I didn't tell you it wasn't cool...why wouldn't it be cool? To be honest, I can't even find what you're talking about in the thread.

(Also, I don't have a problem being quoted. I have a problem when people use the tagging thing to page me to a thread. 🙂)

Just askin. (Message too short, so I'll just add: It'll be a cold day in the Hellmouth when Angel gets any cookies)

 

[Buffy Summers]

Well then explain what you're referencing...?

 

[Black Eye Guy]

^ He's talking about a thread were he directly told me to go calm down. The main difference between the two was that Buffy didn't say it directly to a person, and it was a joke. Whereas the "calm down" in the other thread, was condescending and rude, if it wasn't meant to be, it came across as condescending and rude, which is why people didn't see it as cool.

That seems very mild. The irony is that so many who are upset that they are being accused, then go on to accuse. Another circular conversation - no one listens or changes.

I'm not saying the wording wasn't mild but do you get that if you ask me why I dont like Spike and I give you the answer, and someone comes in and tells me I'm tearing apart a character, thats wrong? - firstly the are changing the topic of the thread, the topic of this thread is why you dont like Spike, anti-Spike comments and point about some fans are going to play a part, me saying something I dont like of a certain type of fan is just answering the question, someone telling me I'm tearing into a character aims the conversation at me and off the discussion and it dismisses any of my points.

Sometimes when you are anticipating one behavior because you are involved in a cycle it's hard to notice that you really are part of that cycle.

You're talking generally, and yes I agree. But as was the case with this thread, you asked a question, I answered, my answers were ignored and people threw out labels like "tearing apart a character" or questioned a point by saying "Really?", no backup of their thoughts, no discussion, nothing.

Anyone that answered the question got told "that was the writers fault", "that was a fault with the fans", you were asking for in show examples, I gave you a list (I think one of the few to give in show examples) and all of it was ignored and instead the topic of discussion is if I'm allowed to make comments on spike fans.

You've said you would love to see a Spike fan acknowledging the loony fringe. I did that, very early on in fact. I'm not sure if you've had time to read the whole thread. You complain that you were called a hater - I don't recall that happening at all. Do you have a link to that exchange?

Not in this thread, I've been called a hater LOADS of times, just search for my username and the word hater, you'll see the same names pop up and in the same format - I give a long list and all the points are ignored and I'm just called a hater in response.

The vast majority of the past 5 pages has been civil discourse about a touchy subject. I'd like to point out that there are current threads about why people hate Riley, and why all the negative feelings toward Cordelia in season 4 of ATS. So, no, Spike isn't the only subject of such threads. There are other similar threads not current that touch on other characters, so claiming this is only a Spike phenomena is wrong, even on this board.

No ones saying the threads about disliking a character doesn't happen with others, they are saying the rampant, "how dare you" type replies dont happen in those threads.
If I wrote a list saying why I didn't like Riley, it would either go unquestioned or the points would be replied to with answers, you dont get Riley fans replying to thread "You're just a Riley hater"

I don't know why you have a need to point out that I am a Spike fan - does that make my intent less than honourable or trustworthy? I didn't hide the fact, in fact I announced it in the OP, so I'm not sure why it bears repeating. The repetition does feel accusatory - as if you would have no trouble if I was an Angel fan who started this thread. Actually, I am an Angel fan - I ship Spangel.

I pointed out you were a spike fan, cuz they are the only fans I'm familiar with that question someone for not liking a character. The Riley or Cordelia threads are discussions, after someone makes a point they aren't hounded with replies telling them they are attacking the character.

Your first posts says to tell you why you dont like Spike, and you'll be asking questions of the answers. But look at your actual replies, [MENTION=12614]thetopher[/MENTION] replied giving you reasons, and you didn't ask follow up questions to the points he raised, you pointed out how he was (you felt) wrong, or how that particular point wasn't about Spike the characters fault but the writers or fans

I haven't been asked any questions on my dislike of Spike, my points were ignored and told that I'm seeing a "mild" comment aimed at me, after answering a question I was asked is just part of the go-around of fandom.

As for the ""we'll all agree to disagree" or "we can't all see it one way" - what other ending would you prefer. Does everyone have to completely agree with each other? Reality is seldom that kind - and trying to force it results in stifling the same free expression that makes the board work so well.

Sorry I should have been more clear, in other threads the agree to disagree is fine, but about halfway through this thread a member started saying it like the thread was over, yet they had been the one who derailed the conversation.
The flow of this conversation, as laid out in the original post was that I post what I dont like about Spike, others ask about why I think that. Instead it was I post what I think and get told I'm tearing into a character.
In this thread I'm allowed to "bash" the character, the original post asks me to unload all my negative points about Spike, someone can't replying telling me I'm tearing into a character, and then proceed to pretend like the thread is over.

And thats why some people questioned the intention, what happened in this thread wasn't what was laid out as intended in the initial post.

Finally - whenever I mention Spike fans the only ones I'm ever talking about are the irrational ones. That's kind of like me saying whenever I talk about Christians I mean Wesboro Baptist church.

No it's not, if your going to talk about the WBC why not use their name? Their overall label is Christians, their sub-label is WBC, why would you need to refer to them as Christians when you have a perfectly good label you can use that points directly to them?
What label do I use to refer to Spike fans that deny logic, use fake-canon as fact and ignore points to reply "hater" - please give me the label I'm supposed to use and I will gladly stop using "(some) Spike Fans"

 

[Silverspike]

Sorry I should have been more clear, in other threads the agree to disagree is fine, but about halfway through this thread a member started saying it like the thread was over,

I meant (because I'm sure you're referring to me as per) that the discussion was over for ME and that I was talking my leave.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Okay, why don't we all move on from this. If anyone wants to discuss the original topic, please do so, but otherwise I think it's time to drop the back and forth finger pointing - it's going nowhere.

So, comments on why there is, in general, dislike for Spike.

 

[white avenger]

^ He's talking about a thread were he directly told me to go calm down. The main difference between the two was that Buffy didn't say it directly to a person, and it was a joke. Whereas the "calm down" in the other thread, was condescending and rude, if it wasn't meant to be, it came across as condescending and rude, which is why people didn't see it as cool.

I believe that I also recommended a Walt Disney movie, "The Jungle Book," mostly because of a particular song by Phil Harris. In case you missed it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogQ0uge06o

and that was a sincere expression of concern for your health and well being. I would no more intentionally be rude or condescending to another Boards member than I would compare one of their posts to bovine excrement.

 

[ladydorotea]

I have found this thread an interesting read. It's always good to know why people like certain things and not others. I would point out that this statement isn't actually true though. Off the top of my head there are at least 3 other episodes where someone sexually attacks Buffy - The Pack, Reptile Boy and Go Fish. Spike isn't in any of them.

Neither of the three happens to be 'redeemed' by the action though. And in neither case there is a crowd of fans out there, waiting with pitchforks to defend the perpetrator and explain to you why it is OK. In the Go Fish and the Reptile Boy the perpetrators got punished right away. In the Pack the attack is portrayed as something outside of the possessed entity control and technically that being is also banished and vanished with exorcism of the gyena spirit. Yet the being who attacked Buffy in Seeing Red is never punished or banished ( the demon is still there, inside and many actually argue that that demon changed, became kinder, gentler kind of demon, and eventually 'wanted a soul'), and yet not liking this is seen as extremism and it is also 'amazingly divisive' .

 

[thetopher]

To get back to the point of the thread (which I've been following with interest) the main reason I dislike Spike the character, (I think we've had enough about the fans 😉.) is that he's quite content to take credit for all the good actions he did before he got a soul, while at the same time not taking real, tangable responsibility for all the bad he did/inflicted.

Plus there's Buffy in the background of S7 wailing 'He's got a soul now!'- which somehow what? Makes him automatically good?
Buffy's just been through years of some people very much with souls doing horrible, evil things (Andrew, Warren, Willow, Anya, Faith)
Hell, the viewer has seen Angel and Wesley (even Fred andf Gunn) do damn questionable things with a soul and we're all meant to sympathise with Buffy's viewpoint. Why is that?

 

[Silverspike]

is that he's quite content to take credit for all the good actions he did before he got a soul, while at the same time not taking real, tangable responsibility for all the bad he did/inflicted.

Not strictly true.

'Never leave me'

SPIKE
Do you have any idea what I'm capable of?

BUFFY
I was in the cellar with you. I saw what you did.

SPIKE
I'm not talking about the cellar. The people in the cellar got off easy. I'm talking about me. Buffy, you have never met the real me.

BUFFY
(crosses arms) Believe me, I'm well aware of what you're capable of.

SPIKE
No, you got off easy too. (stands) Do you know how much blood you can drink from a girl before she'll die? I do. You see, the trick is to drink just enough to know how to damage them just enough so that they'll still cry when you— (chokes up) 'cause it's not worth it if they don't cry.

BUFFY
It's not your fault. You're not the one doing this.

SPIKE
I already did it. It's already done. (paces, then steps purposefully toward Buffy) You wanna know what I've done to girls Dawn's age? (beat) This is me Buffy. You've got to kill me before I get out.

Although imo it really does sink home in AtS episode 'Damage'

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Not strictly true.

'Never leave me'



Although imo it really does sink home in AtS episode 'Damage'

I agree about Damages, but you have left out the second half of that part in NLM, where Buffy shuts down all that "I'm so bad" crap.

He's not showing remorse in this scene, he's saying look how bad I am and she basically replies "Lets be honest, you were a crap baddie, even as a baddie your good side fought back"

The biggest thing she credits him with is GETTING the soul, and technically he didn't do that.

 

[Silverspike]

Weirdly enough I don't see it that way at all. 🙂

Also he did seek the soul according to Whedon.

God you don't want to cut him even the tiniest bit of slack do you. 😀

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Weirdly enough I don't see it that way at all. 🙂

Also he did seek the soul according to Whedon.

God you don't want to cut him even the tiniest bit of slack do you. 😀

I know he went there intending to get the soul. But technically unsouled spike did that, souled spike shouldn't get credit for that, he had no more control over it then Angel did getting cursed, which was one of the annoyances on my list, Spike gets to take credit for seeking out the soul, but then the bad stuff can be squashed away as "unsouled spike did that"

I can't wrap my head round that way of thinking.

 

[Silverspike]

But technically unsouled spike did that, souled spike shouldn't get credit for that, he had no more control over it then Angel did getting cursed, which was one of the annoyances on my list, Spike gets to take credit for seeking out the soul, but then the bad stuff can be squashed away as "unsouled spike did that"

*sigh* Of course he had control. To me their the same entity good and bad. He did bad things without a soul (and admits it) as well as some good. I mean did you read the above or are you too busy overwriting your own version onto the script?

Angel was cursed by an outside force, Spike sought out a soul of his own volition without any external help, unless you count his love for Buffy, as unpopular as that may seem on here.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Okay, please settle down. If this thread can't continue respectfully it will be closed.

 

[Silverspike]

*sigh* I thought I was being respectful but evidently just like my views on Spike I was wrong. kel surprise lol

 

[thetopher]

This exchange is from 'Dirty Girls' when Faith meets Spike and they fight.


SPIKE (cont'd): Bloody hell! What are you doing --I'm on your side!

FAITH: Yeah?

She attacks, hitting him again.

FAITH (cont'd): Maybe you haven't heard. I'm reformed.

SPIKE: So am I!

He blocks her attack and CRACK hits her square in the face.

SPIKE (cont'd): I reformed way before you did.


So, according to soulled Spike, he reformed as soon as the chip was put in- he considers everything after that event to be part of his reforming. He must be refering to this otherwise it makes no sense.

(I mean, he's still utterly wrong, this is Spike after all- Faith reformed in 'Sanctuary' Angel S1 when she saved Angel from that weird spider/assassin demon than then turned herself in. Spike in S4 of Buffy, worked with Adam against the Scoobies, then went on to put Riley's life in danger in S5, kidnapped Buffy with Dru's help, tied her up and threatened her...I won't even touch on all the stuff he did in S6.)

But Spike consides all those actions a natural part of his reformation. He expects credit for them and yet feels no real remorse for his evil actions, (he even feels pride with some of them.) not until Angel S5 anyway.

 

[Buffy Summers]

*sigh* I thought I was being respectful but evidently just like my views on Spike I was wrong. kel surprise lol

Please check the condescension and sarcasm at the door. Derailing this thread at every turn does no good to anyone.

Find (and respect) the topic or stay out of the thread.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

*sigh* Of course he had control. To me their the same entity good and bad. He did bad things without a soul (and admits it) as well as some good. I mean did you read the above or are you too busy overwriting your own version onto the script?

Angel was cursed by an outside force, Spike sought out a soul of his own volition without any external help, unless you count his love for Buffy, as unpopular as that may seem on here.

Thats not my version of the script, thats THE version of the script.

According to the script, Vampires pre and post soul are two completely separate entities, no overlap, no responsibility, no connection beyond being build from the personality of the person it takes over.

If you think Spike is the one entity, your enter own-personal-canon areas.

I actually 100% agree with you, but we are not in the majority on this one. I think most people abide by the two separate entities, no responsibility for his actions path.

I dont, I agree with you. I think he's one person, I am a believer in that Spike in special thing, that Spike retained part of his humanity as a vampire (or something), which allowed him to be good and allowed him to come to the realisation he should get a soul.

Which also means the Spike got his soul and is responsible for all the bad things.

Which simplifies my rational for disliking Spike exponentially because it means the person capable of going to get a soul and the one that snuggles up to Buffy in Touched is the same person that is responsible for trying to rape her.
The fact that he is capable of doing good, wants to do good and does good makes him MORE responsible for the evil becasue he had more of a choice.
Angelus, Darla, Dru etc weren't capable of doing good as humans they shouldn't bare the same responsibility Spike should bare, yet he dismisses that with it Shaggy shout out "it wasn't me!"

He was able to do evil, while capable of good, that makes him one of the most sadistic characters on the show, and I see no reason to see why he wouldn't be capable of the same evil once he gets the soul. His behaviour is the same; pre-soul everything was Buffy. The motivation for everything was Buffy, that is the same post-soul, Buffy can do no wrong and he has to follow everything she says like an order. He has no opinions of his own, well he has them but Buffys opinions come first.

when I made my original list of dislikes, I pretty much left reasons for season 5 and 6 off the list, canonly there is no reason to use the mountain of disgusting stuff he did, as most people ask for Spike to be given a clean slate from season 7 on, which I can totally see their reasoning for, I still have issues with season 7 Spike, but if we're counting him as the one entity, that opens up a whole back catalog of reasons to dislike him.

 

[Silverspike]

Which also means the Spike got his soul and is responsible for all the bad things.

Yes, and? I already accepted what he did and was capable of doing. But then I don't view Angel as being two completely separate identities when he's 'Angelus'. Angel seems unique in this. You don't have 'Darlaicious' when Darla became a vampire. Only Angel lol

But then the show often used to muddy the waters when it came to this whole area. It's one of it's weakness imo.

He was able to do evil, while capable of good, that makes him one of the most sadistic characters on the show

And yet I still found him an engaging character. Sorry. 🙂

But then he had a redemption arc written for him and so he has to have done great evil to contrast him walking the path of redemption. Slowly and shakily, and yes, different to how Angel handled it, but redemption all the same.

Anyhoo, continue to have fun. My poor old imac is overheating and quite frankly so am I so methinks It's time I gave this subject a rest. 🙂

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Yes, and? But then I don't view Angel as being two completely separate identities when he's 'Angelus'. Angel seems unique in this. You don't have 'Darlaicious' when Darla became a vampire. Only Angel lol

I agree, I dont understand people that think of Angel and Angelus as two completely 100% separate entities, Angels whole mission is about redemption, it's unnecessary if Angelus is a completely different entity.
But where we probably differ, and to answer the "Yes, and?" part - Angelus isn't capable of doing good, Angel/Angelus isn't capable of good till he gets a soul, he literly can't do good without it, we know for a fact that Angel/Angelus without that soul has absolutely NO humanity.
Which is why I dont like Spike. He was capable of good, but didn't do it, evil was more of an active choice and he should hold more blame for that, he should feel more guilt for what he's done, and not only does he not show more guilt, he shows less guilt. Which is all just part of the one entity idea, he is just as capable of being a bad guy and not caring as a good guy.

For me the series does lend itself to suggest that it isn't actually Spike thats the special one, it's Angel.
We see Darla human and she still takes pleasure in messing with Angel, Dru has humanity, Spikes goes to get a soul as an unsouled vampire, we see other vampires deeply in love etc.
It does seem to suggest that Angel is the special one, and is the only one that is two completely separate people.
Which is just even more reason to leave any reasoning of what applies to Angel shouldn't just be applied to Spike.

Really? Larks! lol And guess what, I still found him an engaging character. Sorry. 🙂

The Mayor was sadistic, as was Glory I still found both of them engaging, but that doesn't mean I think they could ever do enough to redeem themselves, or that they should ever be in a position of a romantic relationship with the main character.

Your reply wasn't entirely clear, do you also believe that he was capable of good while evil, which makes him more evil?

Thats fine, of course, an evil character can still be liked by fans cuz they are fun. But I really dont understand how Spike can be made up to be such a hero, when if you believe he's that deeply evil he's done anywhere near enough to be redeemed, if you were embracing his evil, I'd understand, but it always seemed like his evil is excused to amplify the good and I can't connect the two - if you think he's capable of that kind of evil, why should be regarded as such a hero?

But then he had a redemption arc written for him and so he has to have done great evil to contrast him walking the path of redemption. Slowly and shakily, and yes, different to how Angel handled it, but redemption all the same.

I can understand saying he's started a redemption arc, I believe he started an arc by dying in the hellmouth, and really started to build that arc on Angel, but he threw that opportunity out, to go back to a place he was at in season 6, before an arc started.

I agree that both Angel and Spikes arcs are shakey, but the difference is the evil Angel does is thought about, he doesn't just do it, it's a calculated decision. Killing Drogyn, wasn't good, but overall it was for good, it's a very flawed good, but it was a decision he thought about, assessed and determined a best course of outcome on.

Spikes shakey moments seem to just be part of his character, like how I was saying I think he's still capable of the kind of evil he did before as a good character, his shakey decisions aren't thought through, they are his first thought. So it's a very different shakey.