(no subject)

[butterfly]

Still have the rest of VividCon to write up (I have notes for every vidshow that I managed to see, so, yeah, there's quite a bit more), but I've been distracted by (what else?) Stargate SG-1, which is such a shiny show.

I'm working today, but I have tomorrow off and currently have no plans, so I'll be working much on fannish and personal things on Wednesday.

In boniblithe's recent entry, you can find links to some vids from the premieres that are already up. I haven't gotten to it yet on my list, but I'd just like to recommend the vid for The Others, at least if you've seen the movie. Not sure it spoils the biggest thing (since I, well, already knew), but it spoils one of the very big things. It's a beautiful vid, though.

And this is random and Angel-related, but Lilah was not Wesley's healthiest relationship. Anyone else remember a very pretty woman named Virginia? With whom Wesley got together with and eventually parted from because they both realized that she couldn't take the violence of his lifestyle (and, give her points, consider where it took him)? And how very mature both sides were about the dissolution of their relationship? And the sweetness of the relationship and the cuteness with which it started? Did the poor woman fall into a black hole?

Comments

Re: Part Two: Lilah

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

However even if I take that at face value, her having a good reason not to be shocked really just proves my point that she's a healthy choice, if -- as I still think -- what was needed was someone unshockable.

I don't know. I can't see where she was good for him. I'm trying and I sorta get your points, but there's a wall. As River said, "She understands but she doesn't comprehend." There's a certain point where my brain stops and starts saying 'tilt'.

He needed the reminder that he still knew how to make the right choices, and he also needed the reminder that he had choices, 'cause he's awfully prone to that "there's only one thing to do, and I know because it's the one that hurts most" heroic flaw.

Well, he doesn't ever stop being that. I don't recall him ever embracing his choices. He just does what he feels he has to do to accomplish what he needs to accomplish.

I count where it ended up a lot more heavily.

I'd go more with the sum total of the relationship. Not the beginning and not the end, but both and the middle included. Wes and Lilah had a very interesting relationship. In the end, though, their personal goals remained unreconcilable. However much they cared, it couldn't bridge that gap, and they both knew it.

I wouldn't have seen it as healthy to stay there -- but he didn't. Or for her to let him get away with it -- but she didn't. But to go through it as a stage of pulling himself up from the gutter, and by doing it, learning in his gut how oversimplified his black and white was in the process.

But I don't knew if he ever does learn that. He loses a sense of certainty, but at the same time, much of that previous attitude is still there. As you say at some point, that ruthlessness has always been a part of Wesley. Even at his lowest, in fourth season, Wesley still makes decisive decisions based on his sense of what is right and now. The boundaries may have shifted a little, but I don't see a significant change in his morality in season four. Maybe I just need to watch the season again.

Not a part that I particularly admire, but a necessary step nonetheless. Healing is often not pretty, especially when there's no helper, just the damaged wrestling their demons in the form of each other.

But I didn't see Lilah doing that. She wasn't always happy with what she had to do, but she did it with no hesitation. I never saw her struggling. Maybe that's a big difference between how we see their relationship, because I think that Lilah always knew how it would end, she just didn't realize how much Wesley would come to care for her and that he'd think she could be saved.

I thought it could have been very healthy for Buffy, too, had the dynamic been allowed to move on. But for whatever reasons, it kept being yanked back there and defined as purely that, even when both of them were acting differently. I agree that was very unhealthy. But it's my turn to say I think that was circumstance and not inevitable.

Except that Buffy isn't built that way. Every time that she hit Spike, she was hurting herself, too. As she says when she does break things off, "This is killing me." It does that from the very beginning. I'm not seeing how healing could ever happen in that situation, where the two parties are so incredibly far apart on the moral scale. It was only when Buffy pulled back and realized that destroying someone else wasn't helping anyone and that Spike realized that all he was capable of without a soul was destruction that they could move on. I guess I just see that moral choice as an essential element.

I didn't see either of those things as so clear cut. I agree he cared for her, but he told her dead body that he'd never know now if he could have loved her.

Yes, he cared about her. 'Caring' is a far cry from 'love'. He can know that he cared for her deeply and still wonder if he ever could have loved her. Buffy says of Spike, "I feel for him." That's not love, which she does end up reaching and then saying in Chosen.

Re: Part Two: Lilah

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think I'm at that "there's a wall" place in the opposite direction. We just don't see these characters the same way.

I don't see a Lilah who knew it wouldn't work, because I don't think Lilah saw them being on the same side as essential to it working. Nor did I see a Lilah who would have been completely unopen to the idea of making a third side for the narrow band of overlap they did agree on.

I saw a Lilah who right up to the end thought it could work and in fact, was working, if only Wesley would realize/admit it. And I saw a Wesley who was considering it more than his words sometimes let on, and regretted her death as taking from him the real chance that it might have worked.

You see a Buffy who just isn't built that way, I see a Buffy who gave a lot of indications by her actions that she was, except when she announced in so many words that she wasn't, and then Marti went on about it in interviews. And I see a Wesley who just is built that way where you see his circumstances changing him.

I agree that the element of moral choice is very important, but I'm not sure I agree with you about what is a moral choice. To me, loving someone bad can *be* the more moral choice than rejecting the person because of all their past actions. Forgiveness, hope, trust, second chances -- those are all moral things to me.

Especially in Spike's case, where the bad actions were in the past and he was showing substantial signs of willingness to amend his behavior if she would give him just a sliver of help and encouragement. That kind of essentialism and belief that people can't and won't change strikes me as a moral bad in itself.

I don't have as much to say for Lilah, who had no interest in being redeemed. But I do think there's something to be said for loving who you love, and not taking on the responsibility for their actions.

But then, I also don't think that it's true that all Spike was capable of without a soul was destruction. He saved Dawn. He tried to save Buffy. He took care of the Scoobies and Sunnydale after Buffy's death with no thought of reward, because it's what she would have wanted. He liked Joyce, and mourned for her, and tried to save her. He helped Dawn and made her promise not to tell Buffy, so we know it wasn't with an ulterior motive. Hell, way back in the day he helped Tara with her family before he even *liked* Buffy.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not sure there's such a thing as good people and bad people, as opposed to good actions and bad actions. And that casts the dilemma somewhat differently. In that case, whatever you can do to encourage people to act rightly and stop acting wrongly is better than declaring that they're past hope, which does the opposite.

Yes, he cared about her. 'Caring' is a far cry from 'love'. He can know that he cared for her deeply and still wonder if he ever could have loved her.

Yes, of course he can. But my point is that wondering if he ever could have loved her is a far cry from knowing the answer is no. I took his wondering as his first admission (moving, because too late) that their relationship had had a real chance at working, and I'm not sure where you're getting the interpretation that he knew it never could.

Re: Part Two: Lilah

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I don't see a Lilah who knew it wouldn't work, because I don't think Lilah saw them being on the same side as essential to it working. Nor did I see a Lilah who would have been completely unopen to the idea of making a third side for the narrow band of overlap they did agree on.

I think that she hoped that they could keep on with what they were doing, but I also think that she could see that it was essentially unstable. A villian working in shades of grey is very different from a hero doing the same. You know, now I'm wondering if this disagreement doesn't come down to how we view good and evil and the shades in between. We may just have a fundamental disjuction in our worldviews.

I saw a Lilah who right up to the end thought it could work and in fact, was working, if only Wesley would realize/admit it. And I saw a Wesley who was considering it more than his words sometimes let on, and regretted her death as taking from him the real chance that it might have worked.

I guess I saw Lilah as more... I don't know if perceptive is the word that I'm going for. I think that she knew that for Wesley to get to that point, he'd have to be broken to the point of not truly being Wesley anymore and that she didn't really want that, which is why she acted as she did in the sewer. She knew that he couldn't, but part of her still wanted him to.

You see a Buffy who just isn't built that way, I see a Buffy who gave a lot of indications by her actions that she was, except when she announced in so many words that she wasn't, and then Marti went on about it in interviews. And I see a Wesley who just is built that way where you see his circumstances changing him.

I place weight on things like Buffy cowering on her bed, surrounded by garlic, holding a cross, knowing that it's her own fear that has her trapped there. Her numbness after beating up Spike and her absolute horror in Dead Things when she's 'not wrong'. That moment there, with Tara, is actually the clincher for me. She is so utterly broken in that moment that I can't see anything that gets her there as anything that can approach good. I don't want Buffy to cry. Hurting Spike made Buffy cry. Therefore...

I agree that the element of moral choice is very important, but I'm not sure I agree with you about what is a moral choice. To me, loving someone bad can *be* the more moral choice than rejecting the person because of all their past actions. Forgiveness, hope, trust, second chances -- those are all moral things to me.

I don't see love as a choice. Accepting love and acting on it, yes, but love itself I don't see as controllable that way. If Buffy didn't love Spike, then she didn't love him. She can't just choose to love him. And hell, she gives him all of those things, far more than most people would be capable of in that situation. She's willing to trust him with Dawn even after he's tried to rape her.

Especially in Spike's case, where the bad actions were in the past and he was showing substantial signs of willingness to amend his behavior if she would give him just a sliver of help and encouragement. That kind of essentialism and belief that people can't and won't change strikes me as a moral bad in itself.

The problem, I guess, lies in whether or not you think that the soul matters. In the context of the Buffyverse, I do think that the soul matters, absolutely. Before the soul, Spike's actions were selfish (and selfish doesn't end at the skin, it does extend to helping those that you like). After he acquires a soul, he's capable of caring about people that he doesn't like. The changes that he goes through after he gets the soul only served to point out, to me, how essential it was.

Re: Part Two: Lilah

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

We may just have a fundamental disjuction in our worldviews.

*nods* I think so.

I don't want Buffy to cry. Hurting Spike made Buffy cry. Therefore...

Makes sense. For me, that cry was long overdue and the start of her healing. I'd have liked to see her get there some other way, but she wasn't. Spike gave her what she needed, however unpretty; was able to take it and not blame her for it, and be more concerned with what she was feeling. That made him, for me, the perfect partner for her at that moment. The only one she didn't have to protect or hold back with.

I'd have liked to see her have that cathartic cry with him -- talk to him like she used to, on the back porch when Joyce got sick or in the alley when she came back from heaven. If she could have done that -- made him the confidente and not just the scapegoat -- they could have had a different, and much healthier, relationship.

I put weight on the under rug intimate chit chat, the awkward and deeply felt conversation at the wedding -- all the parts of that relationship that made me feel like it wasn't just a matter of her hurting him on her side, even if she couldn't admit that.

I don't see love as a choice. Accepting love and acting on it, yes

Me neither. I put that badly. But I did feel, watching, that Buffy had, if not love, then at least romantic caring and the possibility of love for Spike in season 6. That it was her horror at being able to feel that for a soulless, evil vampire that she was taking out on him and hiding.

And hell, she gives him all of those things, far more than most people would be capable of in that situation.

I didn't think so.

She's willing to trust him with Dawn even after he's tried to rape her.

Yes, that was impressive. But that's about the only case of it I can think of pre-soul, and doesn't, to me, make up for all the times where she shut him out and refused to give him a chance. Though, fair disclaimer, I feel about Spike much the way you feel about Buffy.

In the context of the Buffyverse, I do think that the soul matters, absolutely.

I guess that's the problem. I think it matters, but not absolutely. We have proof by humans that a soul is not enough. Up until seasons 4-6, I'd assumed because of Angel that the soul was necessary, though not sufficient.

But in those seasons I saw Spike showing a widening circle of empathy and caring, from just Dru to Buffy for selfish reasons to Buffy even when it hurt him to the people Buffy cared about, even after she was gone and even when he didn't like them himself.

At that point, he was behaving more altruistically than much of the human race.

The fact that he chose to get the soul while he was soulless was the clincher for me that soulless vampires, while handicapped, can learn to choose to live as non-evil, and maybe even somewhat good.

Before the soul, Spike's actions were selfish (and selfish doesn't end at the skin, it does extend to helping those that you like). After he acquires a soul, he's capable of caring about people that he doesn't like.

To me, fighting beside and rescuing Xander and Giles after Buffy's death contradicts the former, and on BTVS I didn't see much if any difference, post soul. (ATS, yes.)

Who did he care for in season 7 that he wasn't in seasons 5 and 6? The potentials? He barely put up with them for Buffy. I thought him hesitating and having to talk himself into attacking a girl in an alley when he thought the chip wasn't working, and over the girl Dru killed, were just as notable.

Craziness, sure, but that was chalked up to the First. Remorse for hurting Buffy, sure, but he already felt that. It was remarkable how much he didn't show remorse to Wood.

The changes that he goes through after he gets the soul only served to point out, to me, how essential it was.

What changes? Once he came out of the basement, I didn't see any very concrete changes in him, as opposed to in Buffy's attitude towards him. I didn't see anything much that he did in season seven that he couldn't have or didn't do without the soul. Even sacrificing himself, which he didn't do knowingly, wasn't so different from what he'd have done to save Buffy in the Gift.

Re: Part Two: Lilah

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Makes sense. For me, that cry was long overdue and the start of her healing. I'd have liked to see her get there some other way, but she wasn't. Spike gave her what she needed, however unpretty; was able to take it and not blame her for it, and be more concerned with what she was feeling. That made him, for me, the perfect partner for her at that moment. The only one she didn't have to protect or hold back with.

Except I don't see her as healing much during that time period. Dead Things is her lowest point and it is not beating up Spike that gives her her moment of change, but crying to Tara about the entire situation later. I suppose that... I do see Buffy as a protector, at her heart. I see it as against her nature to be so intensely hurtful.

I'd have liked to see her have that cathartic cry with him -- talk to him like she used to, on the back porch when Joyce got sick or in the alley when she came back from heaven. If she could have done that -- made him the confidente and not just the scapegoat -- they could have had a different, and much healthier, relationship.

Did you see the same episode that I did, re: Joyce? Honest question, not intended as an attack. Because I saw Buffy crying before he got there, then demanding why he was there, and just being too damn tired to make him go away. And he pinpointed in Once More, With Feeling just why she confided to him in After Life -- "Whisper in a dead man's ear, doesn't make it real."

I put weight on the under rug intimate chit chat, the awkward and deeply felt conversation at the wedding -- all the parts of that relationship that made me feel like it wasn't just a matter of her hurting him on her side, even if she couldn't admit that.

Oh, the conversation at the wedding. That does make me want to hug them both, instead of just Buffy (but it's telling that Spike does take the opportunity of the wedding to try to hurt Buffy in order to suss out her feelings -- it's also telling that he feels bad about it. Good for him on the second bit.). Doesn't make me think that they were at all healthy together, but it does make me think that yeah, there was some feeling on her side. But since the rug conversation is just Buffy saying that occasionally, she actually likes him, instead of just wanting to fuck... well, it isn't a statement of love and devotion.

I guess that's the problem. I think it matters, but not absolutely. We have proof by humans that a soul is not enough. Up until seasons 4-6, I'd assumed because of Angel that the soul was necessary, though not sufficient.

I actually meant 'absolutely' as in 'definitely important', not as 'the only important thing'. Bad wording on my part.

The fact that he chose to get the soul while he was soulless was the clincher for me that soulless vampires, while handicapped, can learn to choose to live as non-evil, and maybe even somewhat good.

Except that I don't think he knew what he was getting into (basing this mostly on his rambling monologue in Beneath You). He just figured soul=Buffy's love. What she wanted, she would get. Because he couldn't force it onto her. She had to choose. So, he had to make it more likely to choose him.

Re: Part Two: Lilah

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Dead Things is her lowest point

Right. She hit bottom. Which is the precondition for & beginning of recovery. She could only do that because of beating up Spike. Before that she was in a bad holding pattern, not letting out the feelings & therefore never getting quite to the bottom so she could start to get better.

it is not beating up Spike that gives her her moment of change, but crying to Tara

I don't agree. I think the crisis point you're feeling about is as much the moment of change as the safe place where you show it.

I do see Buffy as a protector, at her heart. I see it as against her nature to be so intensely hurtful.

*nods* Whereas I think the name is Slayer & not Protector for a reason. She's got a strong drive to protect, but she's also got a dark side of pleasure in killing & demonic powers. She has a history of not acknowledging it & projecting onto someone else (like Faith).

I think she was doing that with Spike. Especially when she came back from heaven, where she was free of it. Dealing with that darkness again was incredibly upsetting.

Her protecting her friends from the consequences of what they'd done, while kind, was good for no one. It was bad for the friends who didn't have to face & learn from their mistakes. It was bad for Buffy who had to deal with this scary, depressing truth alone.

Because Spike understood that darkness, would never judge her, was so much worse than her, & she didn't have to protect him, she could show him the truth and not be alone any more.

and just being too damn tired to make him go away.

Then no, I guess we didn't. Because I saw her being touched by his concern, acting comfortable with him in her body language. Being too tired to keep up her usual facade of disdain & distance, but finding that without it she wanted to confide in him & got relief from doing so. Probably because he was outside the inferiority/superiority dynamic. I saw them becoming friends.

"Whisper in a dead man's ear, doesn't make it real."

Right. Because he's outside her protect/keep them innocent thing. She can't ever stop protecting humans. With Spike she can put that burden down for a while & just be Buffy.

But that seems to me to be the beginning of a very promising intimacy of equals instead of protector and protected. Something she could never really let herself have with someone she considered her responsibility. I see that it didn't go that way, but I don't see why it never could have.

it's telling that Spike does take the opportunity of the wedding to try to hurt Buffy in order to suss out her feelings

Yes. Though souled humans often do much worse things after breakups.

Doesn't make me think that they were at all healthy together

It doesn't make me think they were, but that they could have been if Buffy had let them be. Instead of panicking whenever she had a second of feeling for him & then taking it out on him.

just Buffy saying that occasionally, she actually likes him, instead of just wanting to fuck... well, it isn't a statement of love and devotion.

No, but as you pointed out elsewhere, most relationships don't begin there. I saw it as the start down that road, not the end. When she forgets to hate him they look a lot like Wes & Virginia. A dating couple, having fun. Where could that have gone if she had let it develop? Maybe someplace good.

Except that I don't think he knew what he was getting into (basing this mostly on his rambling monologue in Beneath You).

I don't think he knew exactly. I don't think you can, until you've experienced it. But I don't think that meant he knew nothing. He knew it would be a quest just to get there, & literal torture to win it. He knew the soul was a curse for Angel, so it couldn't be a walk in the park.

He had to know it would take away much of his joy in what he'd been & loved for so long. It's a big sacrifice.

He just figured soul=Buffy's love.

I don't think that either. He knew she said she couldn't love him without it, but he didn't rush off & get it when she said so. I don't think he thought she could love him after the attempted rape. I think he got it so he would never hurt her like that again.

Talking 'bout Spike

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Who did he care for in season 7 that he wasn't in seasons 5 and 6? The potentials? He barely put up with them for Buffy. I thought him hesitating and having to talk himself into attacking a girl in an alley when he thought the chip wasn't working, and over the girl Dru killed, were just as notable.

Honestly, I always thought he was trying to work himself up to the idea because he'd been getting massive pain over just that sort of action. They probably wrote it that way just so that it could read both ways.

To me, fighting beside and rescuing Xander and Giles after Buffy's death contradicts the former, and on BTVS I didn't see much if any difference, post soul.

But he's a jerk about it. He's clearly only there to protect Buffy's memory. In S7, he works alongside Xander without being a snarky asshole.

Craziness, sure, but that was chalked up to the First. Remorse for hurting Buffy, sure, but he already felt that. It was remarkable how much he didn't show remorse to Wood.

Except that a pre-soul Spike would have killed Wood if he'd been able to. Or rather, that's what I see. It's really fascinating how much how we see the character affect how we see his motives. I'm finding this entire discussion enlightening. This is what Spike fen see when they look at him pre-soul. It does make a lot of sense, if you agree with the premise.

What changes? Once he came out of the basement, I didn't see any very concrete changes in him, as opposed to in Buffy's attitude towards him. I didn't see anything much that he did in season seven that he couldn't have or didn't do without the soul. Even sacrificing himself, which he didn't do knowingly, wasn't so different from what he'd have done to save Buffy in the Gift.

Honestly, the biggest change to me was the "not an asshole" thing. In S7, he doesn't say (or says much less often) the casually cruel observations that were his trademark, pre-soul.

Re: Talking 'bout Spike

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

They probably wrote it that way just so that it could read both ways.

I'm sure you're right. They're sneaksy, those ME people. :)

But he's a jerk about it. He's clearly only there to protect Buffy's memory.

Ah, I didn't think either of those things. I thought he was no more of a jerk than Xander was to him, and often less. Snarky humor, but no worse than souled Cordelia was. Not mean, not until he found out what the others did to Buffy.

And I didn't think he was there to protect Buffy's memory at all, because I didn't think (or think he thought) that it needed protecting. I thought he was there to protect first, Dawn, and second, everything that Buffy would have wanted to protect. Mostly because she would have wanted it, but secondarily because he'd developed a reluctant but real respect and some fondness for the Scoobies and their cause.

Remember that scene with Xander lighting Spike's cigarette after his hands got cut up running from Glory? I thought from then on, there was a distinct camraderie between the two of them that only got ruined when Spike found out about the Scoobies bringing Buffy back. Which, frankly, was them being much more selfish than he was. He was prepared to give her up. It was the souled Scoobies who wanted her back more than they wanted what was best for her.

In S7, he works alongside Xander without being a snarky asshole.

In season 7, it seemed to me, he only really related to Buffy. Nobody else was quite real to him until they forced themselves on his attention (Giles, Wood, Faith.) I actually thought that was a huge step back for him, in terms of empathy and relating to the world outside of his romantic interest.

He wasn't snarky to Xander because he looked right through Xander in season 7. I chalked that up to being broken and preoccupied, not a better person, especially after Buffy told him she wanted the old Spike attitude back. (I have to say his snark on ATS confirms this view for me. Spike, souled or unsouled, is snarky unless he's too deeply hurt to do anything but lick his wounds.)

Except that a pre-soul Spike would have killed Wood if he'd been able to. Or rather, that's what I see.

*nods* And I don't. He didn't kill Willow and Xander when they were in his power, or even rape her when she said no. He might have killed Wood, if he'd felt like it, except that he knew Buffy wouldn't like it and that she needed all the help she could get. I think even pre-souled Spike would have known that and held back. And I'm not so sure post-souled Spike would have not killed him if it weren't for those same factors.

It's really fascinating how much how we see the character affect how we see his motives. I'm finding this entire discussion enlightening.

Yes, me too. Although I still get flashes of guilt for monopolizing your journal.

This is what Spike fen see when they look at him pre-soul. It does make a lot of sense, if you agree with the premise.

*nods* Yup. And this -- your this -- is what non-Spike fen see when they think we're all on crack. Good to know. *grin*

Honestly, the biggest change to me was the "not an asshole" thing. In S7, he doesn't say (or says much less often) the casually cruel observations that were his trademark, pre-soul.

Ah, that makes sense. Wherease I didn't think what he said was cruel or assholey to begin with. (What he did, the off-screen murders and tortures and rapes, yes. Beyond question.) But I found his comments more refreshing than anything else.

To me, cruelty is where you hit people's fears and old wounds. Whereas Spike's comments hit their blind spots. He made them see the stuff they didn't want to see, and their own hypocrisies. They said the emperor has no clothes. They made people look at themselves and each other as they looked from the outside, not as they wanted to look to each other.

And with the exception of the Yoko Factor, I think he did a lot of good thereby, however inadvertantly. I missed those comments dearly in season seven, and found Spike without them either boring or broken, not better.

Yet another division

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

But then, I also don't think that it's true that all Spike was capable of without a soul was destruction. He saved Dawn. He tried to save Buffy. He took care of the Scoobies and Sunnydale after Buffy's death with no thought of reward, because it's what she would have wanted. He liked Joyce, and mourned for her, and tried to save her. He helped Dawn and made her promise not to tell Buffy, so we know it wasn't with an ulterior motive. Hell, way back in the day he helped Tara with her family before he even *liked* Buffy.

Well, I don't know about that last bit. I think that he was pretty much always attracted to her. But yes, always destructive is inaccurate. I was in the moment. What I should have said is 'selfish' -- he helps when it helps him or the people that he likes and the rest of the world can get sucked into hell.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not sure there's such a thing as good people and bad people, as opposed to good actions and bad actions. And that casts the dilemma somewhat differently. In that case, whatever you can do to encourage people to act rightly and stop acting wrongly is better than declaring that they're past hope, which does the opposite.

I think that the weight of culmative actions can make it hard for a person to shift directions, though I do agree that there's no cut-off point, no time in which someone can change directions. Anyone can make a 'good' choice or an 'evil' one. But I also think that intent matters and that you can't... pavlov someone into being good. They have to actually want to do good for the act to be any good for them and their moral direction. Spike made a choice in season six, a choice to become a man, but it was an inherently selfish choice -- he wanted Buffy, wanted her, not a shadow of her. And he had no clue what he was getting himself into. And because of that choice, that choice to change instead of trying to force the world to, he was given the chance to make other choices.

Yes, of course he can. But my point is that wondering if he ever could have loved her is a far cry from knowing the answer is no. I took his wondering as his first admission (moving, because too late) that their relationship had had a real chance at working, and I'm not sure where you're getting the interpretation that he knew it never could.

But I don't see him wondering if he could have loved her the same as him wondering if their relationship could have worked. I think that it would have failed, regardless of love, and that's what I see Wesley as knowing.

Re: Yet another division

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

But I also think that intent matters and that you can't... pavlov someone into being good.

I agree you can't Pavlov it. I don't think the chip by itself would have made Spike be good, though it did make his actions less evil.

But I do think you can *teach* it. I think that's exactly how humans learn it, and why sociopaths are often those who did not get the right kind of attention, affection, and lessons at the right stage in their development.

Pavlov is a reductionist, avoid pain/get pleasure kind of programming, where a single stimulus produces a single response. Teaching is about reward and punishment, but it's also about understanding and developing empathy, and using reward and punishment -- and analogy, and providing new experiences which can be used for analogy -- to lead someone to a new perspective.

That's not always successful -- you can lead a kid to morals but you can't make him drink -- but it's usually a lot more successful than *not* doing it, or we could just dump our kids in a room full of books and have them come out socialized at 18.

Spike, to me, is a sociopath. All soulless vampires are. It's normal for them. But that doesn't mean to me that he's hopeless. It's possible, even likely, that vampires, like kids who missed that developmental window, will never be able to feel the same as normal humans do.

But I know two people -- dear friends -- who consider themselves sociopathic with good reason. They don't feel inhibitions on hurting others the same way that I do. So they've painstakingly taught themselves ethics and social rules, and are very careful to apply them, because they know they can't trust their own instincts to do the right thing.

Does that make them not good, because like Spike their instincts are selfish and they can't feel it the way we do? Or does that, as I think, make them even more impressively good, because they're willing to fight their instincts to do what is right?

I am pretty sure they do it not purely, or even mostly, out of noble altruism but because it is enlightened self-interest -- they understand intellectually that doing good for others will be better for them. For that matter, you could argue that all altruists do the same thing.

At a certain point, to me, intentions don't matter as much as actions. If someone is behaving well out of the fear of going to hell, that's just as selfish as Spike wanting Buffy to like him. But they're still behaving well. If someone is committing murder in the belief that he's making the world a better place, I don't care, he's still committing murder.

The first is good and the second bad as far as I'm concerned. And I see ample reason to think that a soulless vampire could be, and was well on the way to be, becoming at least as good as the man who fears hell. Maybe not a hero or a saint, but a decent guy who does a little more good in the world than he does harm, for the very common reason that he wants to live up to the expectations of the people who believe in him. Hell Angel, for all his soul, became a good guy for exactly that reason.

but it was an inherently selfish choice -- he wanted Buffy, wanted her, not a shadow of her.

Ah, I don't agree. I think he made that choice for her as much as for himself, if not more. Ever since Glory we've seen him have the capacity.

And he had no clue what he was getting himself into.

I don't agree with that either. He'd seen Angel. He had as good an idea as anyone.

And because of that choice, that choice to change instead of trying to force the world to, he was given the chance to make other choices.

That I agree with. But I think making that choice in the first place indicated how much he'd already changed.

But I don't see him wondering if he could have loved her the same as him wondering if their relationship could have worked.

I get that in theory, but in that context and tone that's what it meant to me.

I think that it would have failed, regardless of love, and that's what I see Wesley as knowing.

I'm not so sure of that, and whatever he thought along the way, once she was dead I read Wesley as not so sure either. We just read the lines differently. There's no way to resolve that.

Re: Vampires and goodness

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

But I do think you can *teach* it. I think that's exactly how humans learn it, and why sociopaths are often those who did not get the right kind of attention, affection, and lessons at the right stage in their development.

Except that vampires already know the rules. They have a demon that makes them not follow the rules, but they do know them. It's not a natural ignorance, but a forced choice into ignoring them.

If someone is behaving well out of the fear of going to hell, that's just as selfish as Spike wanting Buffy to like him. But they're still behaving well. If someone is committing murder in the belief that he's making the world a better place, I don't care, he's still committing murder.

Well, yes, but the second person is insane. And the first person... if you only act out of fear, then the second that you stop fearing whatever it may be, there's no reason to keep doing good. Whereas someone who does good because it is good will continue to do so regardless of the stimuli. Good out of fear isn't sustainable.

Maybe not a hero or a saint, but a decent guy who does a little more good in the world than he does harm, for the very common reason that he wants to live up to the expectations of the people who believe in him. Hell Angel, for all his soul, became a good guy for exactly that reason.

And I also don't judge Angel as good in and of himself unless he's doing good out a will to do good. Angel isn't a good man at the end. He may or may not be a champion, but he ordered a man to be killed. And he knows that that's wrong and he did it anyway.

I think he made that choice for her as much as for himself, if not more. Ever since Glory we've seen him have the capacity.

Well, he had just tried to rape her. And she'd just proven that he couldn't. The only way to have her would have to be willingly.

I don't agree with that either. He'd seen Angel. He had as good an idea as anyone.

Seeing and experiencing are two very different things. He saw Angel... and made fun of him. It was until he had a soul that he truly understood the pain that Angel had felt ("Angel... should have warned me.").

But I think making that choice in the first place indicated how much he'd already changed.

I think that if Dru had ever said that he would need to have a soul for her to keep loving him, he would have gotten one, come hell or high water. She just wouldn't have either said or implied that. Buffy herself is the one who gave Spike the idea -- "I can't love you. You don't have a soul." She's the one who made it a prerequisite.

I'm not so sure of that, and whatever he thought along the way, once she was dead I read Wesley as not so sure either. We just read the lines differently. There's no way to resolve that.

Very true. I think we've reached the wall again in this one place.

Re: Vampires and goodness

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

They have a demon that makes them not follow the rules, but they do know them.

I think of this as the soul made empathy happen, but the soul is gone. So now they, the demon, need to learn empathy or learn why it's worth it to live by the rules without it.

Or relearn, but relearn the way someone with a brain injury does. You might remember that you used to read, but you don't still know how and choose to ignore it. If that part of the brain is gone, some other part has to learn from scratch.

That learning, to be at all effective versus the powerful drive to evil, would have to be emotional. They'd have to have strong first-hand motivation to overcome it. It makes sense to me that memories of having empathy, when you no longer have the empathy itself, would not be enough to govern their behavior. That doesn't mean nothing could.

but the second person is insane.

Not necessarily. They could be a soldier, a religious leader, an executioner. All kinds of people kill in the belief that they're improving the world. I rarely think they're right, but I don't think they're crazy.

if you only act out of fear, then the second that you stop fearing whatever it may be, there's no reason to keep doing good.

Yes. That's why fear is not enough. But fear of something like "losing the respect of someone I love" can go a long way to making people behave well for a long time.

The habits of that time, plus the rewards you get along the way (praise, trust, friendship, etc.) can be enough to keep you going after the initial fear has faded away.

Most people who learned not to lie for fear of being grounded aren't still afraid of being grounded, but neither are they lying. Most people learn habits & then reasons, not the other way round.

someone who does good because it is good will continue to do so regardless of the stimuli.

Maybe. IME few people are that unbudgeable. They have breaking points of things they fear or desire. They have vulnerabilities to consensus reality, so they can be convinced that what's bad is good, & then do that.

Good out of fear isn't sustainable.

Sure it is. It's ugly & coercive, but it was sustained by major religions for thousands of years.

Well, he had just tried to rape her. And she'd just proven that he couldn't.

I didn't exactly see that. I assumed he couldn't, because she's stronger than Angel & Angel is stronger than Spike, so QED. But what I actually saw was that he proved he couldn't. That he didn't take her "no" seriously until she threw him off, & then he was horrified by what he'd done (and by being horrified) & ran off.

I didn't come away from that thinking Spike now knew he could never trick or overpower her. He had her in chains before. I came away from it thinking Spike had realized he didn't want to overpower her. Which still leads to this:

The only way to have her would have to be willingly.

But as I said in the other thread, I think by then he was not so focused on having her as on not hurting her - & on having this constant debate in his head ended one way or the other.

Seeing and experiencing are two very different things.

Yes, of course. But you seem to be saying he had no idea of what he was getting into, whereas I think he had the best idea he could without having done it.

if Dru had ever said that he would need to have a soul for her to keep loving him, he would have gotten one

Maybe. I don't know. I think Spike transformed himself into a demon for Dru & a man for Buffy. In both cases there was magic involved but also a lot of work. In Dru's case the magic came first & the work after. In Buffy's case most of the work, to my eye, came before the magic.

I don't know if human William ever could have become evil enough for Dru without losing his soul. I don't know if vamp Spike could have become good enough for Buffy without gaining his soul, but I do think he became good enough to gain it, & that's no small thing.

She's the one who made it a prerequisite.

She did. Which goes back to my point about teaching. Give Spike a direction & he was incredibly motivated to follow, even to places that ought to be unthinkable to a vampire.