Look who has a Get Out of Jail Free card
Why is Spike considered infallible with his fans? It never really occurred to me to wonder until I started writing FtTP. In Part II of that story, he's doing all sorts of gruesome, violent, cruel things to people who (whether they were mean to his human self or not) did not deserve it. Aside from the fact that a lot of readers abandoned ship during this section of the story, there were also others who reviewed telling me that they hated to see Spike evil. But Spike was evil, right? For half his stint on the series, he was portrayed as a villain. Still, I can understand why someone on a Spuffy archive might not want to read non-Spuffy exploits of a serial killing vampire. But then there are the recent chapters, and all the conflict between newly-returned Buffy and newly-enlightened Spike. He's angry with her for lying to him (understandable); she's angry with him for being evil, soulless, and not the man she wants him to be. Understandable? Well, not really. Because a good 90% of reviewers are angry with her for not treating him better. The last time she saw him, before the story opened, was when when he chained her up in "Crush" and threatened to let Drusilla kill her if she didn't tell him she could/would/did love him. Not exactly a shining moment in Spikehood, that. Still, when she holds it against him, she's considered (by many, though not all) to be the bad guy. I'm really intrigued by this, because when I started thinking about it, if it happened this way on the show - I'd probably be angry with her, too. lol.
Why does Spike evoke such strong loyalty with his fans? It's like no matter what he does, someone is always there to justify it. The only characters who were never hurt by him were Joyce (Spike has some mommy issues, lol) and Dawn (but by then, he was chipped). When he fell in love with Buffy, he definitely changed for the better, and I, personally, don't think he really needed that soul to be a good man. However, to a certain extent, I can certainly see Buffy's point. She'd spent how many years listening to his threats, watching him wreak havoc as he tried to make good on them? How could she just automatically believe in his 180 from animal to man? Especially since she knew that his affection for her was the catalyst for such change. To her way of thinking, if she was his moral compass, then what would happen if she was no longer around? If she chose to break his heart into a million little pieces? Well, if the chip failed to work, or if he figured out some other inventive way to do it, he would probably have killed people. Of course, after "Intervention," it becomes obvious that his change is genuine and not just an effort to get into her pants. But before that ... doesn't Buffy have a right to be wary of him? Why is it she's always called a bitch for shooting him down? Yes, he's sweet and soulful, and full of undying loyalty and love ... but he's also a serial killer. And one who (in mid season five) is still struggling to reform, but isn't quite there yet. In "Fool for Love" his first inclination, after she hurt him, was to gun her down. It spoke volumes that he didn't actually do it, of course. Still, having that as your first impulse does not a trustworthy lover make. So, I can really see Buffy's point in season five. As a viewer, I adore Spike and I root for him in that season. But if I were Buffy? I'd be going out of my way to avoid him, too. From another character's perspective, he really could be a little creepy. So, why doesn't he come across that way to viewers?
I don't know. I feel like I've babbled on incoherently, but I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this.
Why does Spike evoke such strong loyalty with his fans? It's like no matter what he does, someone is always there to justify it. The only characters who were never hurt by him were Joyce (Spike has some mommy issues, lol) and Dawn (but by then, he was chipped). When he fell in love with Buffy, he definitely changed for the better, and I, personally, don't think he really needed that soul to be a good man. However, to a certain extent, I can certainly see Buffy's point. She'd spent how many years listening to his threats, watching him wreak havoc as he tried to make good on them? How could she just automatically believe in his 180 from animal to man? Especially since she knew that his affection for her was the catalyst for such change. To her way of thinking, if she was his moral compass, then what would happen if she was no longer around? If she chose to break his heart into a million little pieces? Well, if the chip failed to work, or if he figured out some other inventive way to do it, he would probably have killed people. Of course, after "Intervention," it becomes obvious that his change is genuine and not just an effort to get into her pants. But before that ... doesn't Buffy have a right to be wary of him? Why is it she's always called a bitch for shooting him down? Yes, he's sweet and soulful, and full of undying loyalty and love ... but he's also a serial killer. And one who (in mid season five) is still struggling to reform, but isn't quite there yet. In "Fool for Love" his first inclination, after she hurt him, was to gun her down. It spoke volumes that he didn't actually do it, of course. Still, having that as your first impulse does not a trustworthy lover make. So, I can really see Buffy's point in season five. As a viewer, I adore Spike and I root for him in that season. But if I were Buffy? I'd be going out of my way to avoid him, too. From another character's perspective, he really could be a little creepy. So, why doesn't he come across that way to viewers?
I don't know. I feel like I've babbled on incoherently, but I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this.