What Spike's Soul Means to Me

[gryfndor_godess]

This week IDW’s Spike #6, written by Brian Lynch, caused another, unexpected round of fandom ‘What fresh hell’ on my f-list, the likes of which I wasn’t expecting to see until S9 began and which has apparently caused quite a furor on certain forums similar to the commotion after S6. I can’t speak to that since I eschew non-Spuffy fansites and didn’t watch BtVS when it aired, but after reading some of my f-list’s posts, I was inspired to write about what the soul means to me.

A brief background on the commotion, as I understand it from moscow_watcher ’s excellent post: A villain steals Spike’s soul, and Spike’s reaction is:

"Before it was official. Before the goddamned voodoo. I was GOOD. That glowy ball. That thing you've had a hard-on to tear from me? Hang it on your wall. Bronze it. I don't need it."

Spike then gives his soul to Drusilla to stop her from killing one of his friends, as all other physical or magical means of stopping her are exhausted by that point. Apparently the S8 writers have stated unequivocally that Spike has his soul in the last arc, which means he somehow gets it back in the last two issues of IDW’s Spike arc.

Spike’s decision and ability to be good without his soul have not only excited Spike haters but also divided Spike lovers through several arguments:
       a) If Spike can be good without a soul then he is more responsible for his crimes than Angel is for Angelus’s and is extra evil.
       b) If Spike can be good without a soul, his redemption in S7 is invalidated.

I don’t believe either of these viewpoints, but as a Spuffy fan, it’s the second one that most saddens me because it seems like Spike’s soul has become a (very unnecessary) dividing line in the sand. I don’t think Spike losing his soul invalidates his redemption. I also don’t think that Spike’s S7 souled redemption arc invalidates his ability to be good unsouled. I’ve been confused in the past about why some people regard it as an either/or situation, and I’ve come to conclusion that it must depend on your personal definition of what a soul means in the Buffyverse.

The writers never cohesively nor consistently defined what a soul means, so I understand that canon supports many different interpretations of the soul, some of which probably would invalidate one character arc or another. I choose to base my interpretation of the soul on Spike and other vampires’ actions, rather than on the various verbal definitions that Buffy, Angel, and the Council provide. Even though I use statement language in the following essay rather than ‘I feel’ or ‘I think,’ I am not trying to convince anyone of what the ‘right’ definition of a soul is. I am going to explain my interpretation of the soul and why I don’t think it invalidates any character arcs.

What a soul means to me:
       a) (Increased) Ability to empathize
       b) Increased ability to differentiate between right and wrong. Note here that the ‘increased’ is not in parentheses as it is above.
       c) Patience/maturity/impulse-control/willpower/insert-vaguely-synonmyous-word here to resist vampiric instincts

Empathy: According to Dictionary.com, empathy is the “intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” I’m going to dumb this down a bit and say that empathy is the ability to feel compassion and thus remorse; to understand why something is wrong as opposed to simply knowing it’s wrong. Here are some examples of where I see empathy missing or at work while Spike is soulless:

Missing:
       -Thinking that starving African children are funny in “Pangs”
       -Not understanding why Buffy thinking she killed Katrina would tear her up inside in “Dead Things”

At work:
       -Comforting Buffy in “Fool for Love”
       -Knowing and caring how much Dawn’s death would hurt Buffy in “Intervention”
       -Taking care of Dawn while Buffy is dead
       -Understanding how to care for Drusilla when she is having a crazy spell

Clearly Spike is capable of feeling empathy even without his soul. Arguably, other vampires are, too, though I don’t think the lines between empathy and self-interest are as distinct (Harmony trying to be Cordelia’s friend in “Disharmony”; Holden talking to Buffy in “Conversations with Dead People”). The soul increases Spike’s ability to empathize with two important results:
       a) He feels guilt for his crimes, as evidenced in “Beneath You,” “Never Leave Me,” “Damage,” etc.
       b) He feels compassion for people other than those he loves. Most of Spike’s soulless empathy is directed toward Buffy, Drusilla, and Dawn, the women he loves. Souled, he eventually cares for friends (Fred; Gunn in “Underneath”; Harmony in “In Harm’s Way”) and for humanity overall (unwilling to infect thousands for Fred’s sake in “Shells”).

Spike is empathetic without a soul, but a soul clearly increases his understanding of and caring for others. Souled!Spike would understand why Buffy’s heroism wouldn’t excuse her murder of Katrina, just as he finally understands in “Never Leave Me” how she was using him and why it hurt her.

Increased Ability to Discern Right From Wrong: Unlike empathy, which some vampires don’t possess at all (ex: Angelus), every vampire can differentiate between right and wrong to some degree. If you can’t differentiate, you’re not evil. For example, a shark killing a human is not evil; it is fulfilling a natural instinct to feed. Arguably, vampires are fulfilling the same instinct and cannot tell the difference either. However, the vampires that aren’t red shirts all* exhibit signs of knowing the difference:
       -Spike knows that trying to rape Buffy was wrong
       -Angelus delights in committing evil acts
       -Darla actively seeks to turn Angel back into Angelus
       -Harmony knows not to kill Cordelia in “Disharmony” and understands that she has betrayed Angel in “Not Fade Away”
*Dru is tricky because she’s so rarely lucid; I don’t know how to separate her insanity from her morality.

Based on our vampire leads and the fact that enough red shirts seem gleeful about killing, I’m willing to extrapolate that all vampires know a little bit about the difference between right and wrong. They might not be able to understand why, say, eating kittens is wrong, but they know that killing humans is wrong on a fundamental level. The degree to how much they can discern between morality and immorality varies, and the problem is, of course, that even if they know they usually don’t care (which is where empathy comes in above).

Spike undergoes enormous personal growth in S5 and S6 without his soul and definitely develops a more nuanced view of right and wrong while leashed by the chip. He expresses shame for creating the robot in “Intervention” when Buffy calls it disgusting, indicating he knew it was wrong; he has to talk himself into trying to attack the woman in “Smashed”; most importantly, he realizes immediately that what he did in the bathroom was attempted rape and it was as wrong as wrong could be.

However, there are also examples that show the limits of unsouled Spike’s evolution. It’s not that he doesn’t care- it’s that he literally can’t understand why something is wrong and it would offend an ensouled person. I’ve already mentioned one glaring example, his inability to understand why fully exonerating Buffy’s “murder” of Katrina is wrong. The other biggie is his behavior in “Crush.” Spike shows no sign of understanding just how awful his treatment of Buffy is; he honestly thinks that physical force and coercion are valid and viable ways of forming relationships (in this respect “Crush” both echoes “Lovers Walk” and foreshadows “Seeing Red”). Considering that “Dead Things” occurs far into S6, it’s safe to say that Spike does not attain a perfect moral compass as a soulless being, even withstanding his recognition that the AR was wrong.

It’s difficult to pinpoint examples of Spike clearly discerning the difference between right and wrong in S7, partly because some examples conflate gained empathy and gained morality (such as his admissions in “Never Leave Me”) and partly because as a souled being Spike doesn’t demonstrate the moral quandaries he faces in S6 (such as in “Smashed”). In S7 he inherently recognizes and does the right thing. I am confident that souled!Spike would never have tied up and threatened Buffy as he did in “Crush.”

Ability to resist vampiric instincts: As a Spuffy fan, this aspect of the soul is most important to me as it is Spike’s downfall in “Seeing Red.” The AR is not a result of lack of empathy or the inability to discern right from wrong but Spike’s failure to control himself. Since rape is unfortunately a human crime rather than a vampire depravity, it’s not right to chalk the AR all up the fact that Spike is a vampire. However, vampires are more prone to violence; they can’t control impulses the same way a souled being might. Examples of soulless!Spike losing control and giving into particularly violent, psychotic impulses include:
       -Staking Harmony in “The Harsh Light of Day”
       -Attacking the Buffy dummy in “Triangle”
       -Kidnapping and threatening Buffy in “Crush’

And there are examples of souled!Spike being able to restrain his violent instincts:
       -Not killing Wood in “Lies My Parents Told Me”
       -Stopping the fight with Faith in “Touched”

Spike’s soul doesn’t erase his violent instincts or his love of a good brawl; instead it gives him the maturity/patience/self-control/call-it-what-you-want to temper and resist certain impulses; the soul increases his inhibitions. With his soul, Spike would never give into a violent impulse to force himself on Buffy. Whether or not he would ever feel such an instinct is a different matter and not one on which I care to opine, but even if he did, he would never act on it.

As I said, this aspect of the soul trifecta is most important to me because my favorite vampire is Spike and this is the aspect he lacks most without his soul. Soulless!Spike can functionally empathize and differentiate between right and wrong, but he can’t always control himself. If Angel were my favorite, though, the empathy aspect would probably be most important to me. Angelus knows the difference between right and wrong and from all his speechifying in S2 about destroying Buffy rather than simply killing her, he is able to resist his impulses; the aspect that makes Angel Angel instead of Angelus is empathy.

So how does my interpretation of the soul affect Spike’s arc? Going back to the (probably dumbed down) main issues:

       a) If Spike can be good without a soul then he is more responsible for his crimes than Angel is for Angelus’s and is extra evil.

This argument doesn’t even make sense to me, and since this is a Spike hater comment and to my knowledge no Spike haters read my journal (don’t know if any Spike lovers are reading this either given how long it’s gotten), I’ll keep this brief:
-Spike’s ability to do good without a soul does not make him evil. It does not mean he should have known better for the first 120 years he was a vampire. It does not make him worse than Angel. It means he has evolved. Being able to be good is good. Not extra evil. Duh.

      b) If Spike can be good without a soul, his redemption in S7 is invalidated.

False. We already know that Spike can be good without a soul. We saw plenty of examples in S5 and S6, and if choosing to fight for a soul to be a better person isn’t an example of goodness, I don’t know what is.

Spike’s S7 redemption would only be invalidated if S7 had been the beginning of his ‘goodness.’ However, S7 is only a continuation of an evolution that began in S5. The soul represents a different kind of goodness. Spike was good in S5 and S6 mainly because he loved Buffy and wanted to make her happy and/or, depending on your level of cynicism, get in her pants (I say ‘mainly’ because he obviously is good for Dawn’s sake as well when Buffy is dead). S7 and the soul are about being good for good’s sake; it’s about redemption; it’s about doing the right thing; and yes, it’s about getting back into Buffy’s good graces.

Spike’s S7 arc is hugely important because it’s a different, more selfless kind of goodness and because of what it means for Spuffy. His redemption in S7 is also for a very specific crime- the AR. Losing his soul in Spike #6 does not invalidate his journey because we saw that he could be good before his soul. We also know what he gained with his soul- impulse control. He doesn’t lose his empathy and moral compass in #6 but quite possibly he does lose that self-control. It’s also possible that having had his soul has improved said control and widened his moral compass beyond what-makes-Buffy-and-Dawn-happy, in which case his S7 arc becomes even more crucial and puts a post-NFA soulless!Spike one more step up the evolutionary ladder of goodness.

Lastly, even if you think the soul was unnecessary for Spike’s goodness, it is absolutely crucial for Spuffy. I don’t see how Spuffy could have happened after the AR if Spike hadn’t gotten his soul, and frankly, I would be offended if it had. Even if comics!soulless!Spike turns out to have empathy, an infallible moral compass, and learned impulse control, there is absolutely no way it invalidates Spike’s S7 arc because after the AR Spuffy couldn’t have been possible without the soul.

Just as being good without his soul post-NFA doesn’t invalidate S7, S7 also doesn’t invalidate his ability to be good in S5 and S6. Again, it’s a different kind of good.

Soulless!Spike is good in terms of being able to empathize and judge right from wrong.

Souled!Spike is good in terms of being able to empathize, judge right from wrong, and control his violent impulses.

Having a soul allows Spike to recognize more opportunities for doing good, and it keeps him from screwing up situations that his vampiric instincts might otherwise derail. Not having a soul makes it more difficult to be good and limits the scope of what he accomplishes, but it does not preclude him from being good.

I understand why fans who champion Spike’s soulless goodness get frustrated by S7 for how inflexibly the arc hinges on the soul. I believe this really is a product of the situation rather than the mythology, though. S7 is under the shadow of the AR, and that was the result of the one aspect of the soul that Spike lacked- impulse control. Ideally the show would have eventually explored what a soul meant and what aspects of it Spike already acted upon in S6; perhaps the comics are a chance to rectify that wasted potential.

In conclusion, if you assume that a soul equals empathy, increased ability to discern right from wrong, and impulse control, Spike’s ability to be good isn’t an either/or situation. Rather, his souled and unsouled states have a different mix of attributes that elevate him to different levels of goodness. Though fans may naturally prefer him one way or another, his goodness in one state does not invalidate his goodness in another state. The soul is yet one more stage in an evolution that began in S5, and I for one look forward to seeing how having had and lost the soul will affect his future evolution in the forthcoming comics.

Comments

[rahirah]

Oh, you and your Earth logic! *g* I pretty much agree with your take on the soul, which is why the reaction of some fans has made me scratch my head. To me, Spike having a soul has never been as important as Spike being the kind of person who would decide to get one in the first place. But as you say, there are a million different interpretations out there.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

To me, Spike having a soul has never been as important as Spike being the kind of person who would decide to get one in the first place.

Yeesssss. The fact that he seeks it is so crucial and phenomenal and wonderful. I wonder if Buffy would have forgiven him and cared for him in S7 the way she did if his soul had been a curse like Angel's instead of a choice. Part of me thinks not.

[rahirah]

I think that she would, because for Buffy, it's having the soul that's important. Spike getting a soul hit a big ol' reset button, not just for him, but for her. In her mind, he's a different person with a soul, and that's why she can forgive him. If Spike had tried and failed the trials, and returned broken and crazy but soulless, would Buffy have helped him? That's what's debatable. And that's why S7 Spuffy, such as it is, bugs the hell out of me. In a way, it's always seemed to me to be founded on an evasion on Buffy's part. Spike's soul allowed her to not think about or confront a lot of things she really needed to think about and confront in order to move past some of her issues and grow as a character.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

I think that she would, because for Buffy, it's having the soul that's important. Spike getting a soul hit a big ol' reset button, not just for him, but for her.

I don't think it's necessarily true by this point that having the soul is all that matters to Buffy. Her speech to him in "Never Leave Me" is all about how he chose to be a better man, how she witnessed his change. It's probably still true in Angel's case, but I don't think it is for Spike. Though it's a double standard (b/c in my mind killing Jenny is just as bad if not worse than the AR), I don't think Buffy would have been as forgiving if Spike had been randomly cursed b/c his crime was so much more personal. I think she would have accepted him and maybe taken care of him, but I don't think she would have ever allowed a relationship with him. I actually do think she would have helped him if he tried and failed to earn his soul (although still nix on the relationship). Granted, that's my instinct and there isn't canon to back up such counterfactuals, but I do think that "Never Leave Me" proves that Spike's choice was important to Buffy.

Spike's soul allowed her to not think about or confront a lot of things she really needed to think about and confront in order to move past some of her issues and grow as a character.

OTOH, doesn't the fact that Spike fought for his soul force her to expand her world view? In S6 she consistently denies his ability to change for the better, and in S7 she recognizes that he could and did. Her worldview could definitely stand to get grayer, but I don't think there's a complete lack of growth on her part in S7.

[rahirah]

The problem is, this is one of those things that's almost entirely a matter of interpretation. Buffy does give a speech to Spike telling him he's changed, but the speech is phrased ambiguously enough that it's impossible to say for certain whether she means that she saw him change before he got the soul, or as a result of getting the soul.

Considering the number of fans I've seen who say that Spike getting the soul was done with the purely selfish and evil motive of getting into Buffy's pants, I don't think that Spike going to get it is necessarily going to shake her worldview in the long run. It might have; she's certainly shaken in the scene where she discovers it. But she never talks to anyone about that afterwards, so we're not really privy to Buffy's thoughts on the matter.

She constantly stresses that he's got a soul, so it's reasonably certain that his having it is extremely important to her - it's the justification for all her actions towards him. Whether it's the only justification is a lot more difficult to say, at least for me. Did she change her views at all? Or was it just a momentary shock, which she later rationalized away? I mean, she does have an extremely strong reason for that sort of rationalization: Angel. If she really thinks about the fact that Spike loved her enough without a soul to get one for her, then she has to think about the fact that Angel didn't. And especially considering her actions in the comics, it's hard for me to accept that she's ever really thought about Angel in that light.

I'm reasonably sure that the ambiguity is at least partly deliberate on the writers' part. Spike's very existence was a challenge to Buffyverse orthodoxy. By giving him a soul, the writers neutralized that challenge - but if they'd put a lot of emphasis on Spike changing before he got it, then they'd be back to square one. (Besides, the writers were just as divided about the character as fandom was.) Interestingly enough, in one of the earlier drafts of the script for NLM, Buffy had a line where she said outright that she'd seen Spike change before the soul. If that line had made it to airing, it would be a pretty clear indication of what Buffy thought. But it got cut in the final shooting script. And in the shooting script of "First Date," Buffy had a line to the effect that now that Spike had a soul, he was a real person - which would heavily imply that she thought he hadn't been a person before getting a soul, and thus had been incapable of any meaningful feelings or changes. But that line didn't make it to the aired episode, either. So it seems to me that the writers were trying to walk a very narrow line and avoid giving too much ammunition to either side of the argument. (Besides the fact that they all disagreed about it themselves.)

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Considering the number of fans I've seen who say that Spike getting the soul was done with the purely selfish and evil motive of getting into Buffy's pants, I don't think that Spike going to get it is necessarily going to shake her worldview in the long run.

I'm confused as to how fan reaction affects Buffy's worldview. You think that Buffy would assume the same, that he was just trying to get back into her pants? That's possible, but he does say in "Beneath You" that he wanted to be the kind of man who would never [attempt to rape her], so there's her proof that remorse was part of the reason for his soulquest if she wants it. I wish we had been privy to her thoughts, but that would have required the writers choosing a viewpoint and as you point out, that was not on their agenda. *sigh*

And especially considering her actions in the comics, it's hard for me to accept that she's ever really thought about Angel in that light.

I've only read the Last Gleaming arc and don't consider the comics canon, so I can't speak to this.

I tried to be objective in my original post (and hope it came across that way), but to be honest S7 Spike, S7 Buffy, and S7 Spuffy are all my favorites. It annoys me that Buffy hand-waves about the soul so much in S7 and never explicitly recognizes Spike's pre-soul goodness, but I'm willing to blame the writers for that and exploit Buffy's reticence to give her the benefit of the doubt in terms of her growth. So as you said, it's really a matter of personal interpretation.

[rahirah]

I'm just saying that to a person - an intelligent, thoughtful person - who is convinced that vampires without souls cannot feel love and cannot do good, Spike going to get a soul is not necessarily going to shake that conviction. They can can and do explain it by assuming that Spike did it out of selfish motives, or as a grandstanding move designed to impress Buffy, without any true understanding of the implications.

Buffy is a person who has been shown to have strong convictions that soul=good, no soul=evil. She has a number of reasons to cling to that conviction. So I think it's possible, given that she never discusses her thoughts or feelings about Spike getting a soul with anyone in such a way as to give viewers a clear idea of her beliefs on the subject, that Buffy still has a fairly black and white view of souls. It's also possible that she does not. Her words and actions can be interpreted in several different ways, and which one a viewer chooses to believe is likely to depend upon that viewer's own convictions and their previous opinion of Buffy.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

Or was it just a momentary shock, which she later rationalized away? I mean, she does have an extremely strong reason for that sort of rationalization: Angel. If she really thinks about the fact that Spike loved her enough without a soul to get one for her, then she has to think about the fact that Angel didn't. And especially considering her actions in the comics, it's hard for me to accept that she's ever really thought about Angel in that light.

Her behavior in the comics that you talk about was very skewed by situation and outside influences (*cough* glow *cough*) and it really doesn't belong to this discussion at all, IMO.

(Personally... I think that Buffy had much bigger problems with Angel without a soul being so utterly evil, than "not loving her". And I'd say that without soul, Angel did love her, in his own sick, soulless way, except that his sick, soulless way was a lot sicker and more soulless than Spike's. It's not like the love disappeared - it was turned on its head into its very opposite. Like Willow observed, he was still completely obsessed with Buffy. How much luckier Buffy would have been if he had just stopped having feelings for her instead.)

Personally, I think that Buffy has one much, much stronger reason to hang to the souled vs soulless dichotomy: she's a Slayer. She kills soulless vampires, that's what she's supposed to do and what she's been doing since she was 15 - often just as they rise from their graves. It must have been incredibly difficult to find yourself having feelings for one of the creatures you're supposed to kill, and seeing some goodness in him. It's the kind of thing that threatens to shatter not just one's entire worldview, but one's identity as well.

However, I don't agree with your view of Buffy in season 7 at all. "He has a soul now" was a neat catchphrase to defend her choices to Giles, Dawn, Xander and the others. For Buffy, the crucial thing is that he chose to get his soul back, that he did it for her and out of remorse, and that he fought for his soul. That's why she was so moved in Beneath You, why she told him he saw him change and fought the monster inside. Does anyone really think that she was referring just to him not killing her in Sleeper?!

And really, the idea that Buffy believed that Spike was 100% evil without a soul is really contradicted by her behavior. In Villains, she claimed that Dawn was safe with him not just because he physically couldn't hurt her, but because he wouldn't.

[rahirah]

I'm not interested in arguing anyone out of their views. I'm just outlining my own. You are free to disagree with them.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Huh. I like this.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[moscow-watcher.livejournal.com]

Love your essay. Soul concept has always been vague in Jossverse, and I read many explanations, since every fan has its own reading of canon. Your interpretation makes the most sense on practical level. This is what I saw - although I was told differently.

*shrugs*

I flash back to "Fool For Love" and William's line about his poetry: "It's about how I feel".

After all, it's about how we feel.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Thank you! :) I'm glad it makes sense.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

I like your thoughts.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[kelpyfinners.livejournal.com]

I really love this!

I had a RL conversation about Angel/us vs. Spike the other day. The comment made by my friend was that Spike is a comic-villian, therefore is demon must not be as strong as Angel/us' demon.

I took the opposite approach: It's not that one demon is stronger than the other, but that the original personality is "stronger". I see all three working together: the demon, soul, and personality.

This is where the grey areas of Spike's evolution come in to play (using your excellent logic) : the original personality is the person without the soul. The part of Spike that can empathize with those he loves, but when he has no soul, cannot see Buffy's logic in "Dead Things", etc (etc = all your wonderful points).

Anyway, I boiled it down for myself into something simple that I could throw at people, and here you were using lots of shiny words!

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

It's not that one demon is stronger than the other, but that the original personality is "stronger".
I definitely agree that Spike's personality is stronger than the typical vampire's (ironic since William was so meek) and that's what allows a vampire to trump the demon. Angel's an odd case, b/c Liam's personality is actually very strong in Angelus but is almost completely overshadowed by the soul in Angel. I think for Spike personality > soul > demon, whereas for Angel soul > personality > demon or soul > demon > personality. Spike's personality doesn't change much whether he's souled or unsouled, but Angel's does a lot. Nothing wrong with that as it makes for very interesting, multi-dimensional characters, but it is kind of strange.

I'm so glad you liked this meta! Thank you for your kind comments! :)

[ever-neutral.livejournal.com]

This is a fantastic post. Carry on.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[(Anonymous)]

"(...) if choosing to fight for a soul to be a better person isn’t an example of goodness, I don’t know what is."

YES!!

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

:D

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Great post. :)

(I have slightly different take - but no time, and our differences are probably not even real differences, but different angles to the same thing. Hence, me not clogging up your LJ.)

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Thanks! :)

(Hee, well if you have a manifesto already written somewhere and want to link me, I'd be happy to read it)

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Copy&Paste from Gab's LJ, where i said my piece:

The soul is a strange thing in BtVS, Whedon himself said it eludes him (and he's the creator/god!).

Too often fans get way too technical when contemplating the soul in BtVS. They want to know how it works, what it does, where it resides.

I don't think You can nail down the soul in BtVS like that. It is just as elusive as it is in other literature, in the general cultural sense we, as humans, even if from vastly differing societies, have of this (excluding the various theological studies which try anally to make a science out of a belief system).

The soul gets described as "the spark", "that makes me fit", "to know what i've done and care". And I do think it doesn't get any clearer than that - and i do think it is not neccessary to get any clearer: The soul is this magical spark, which makes us fully human.

I once described the soul in Spike's case as a "mirror" (and again: insert nifty observation of vamipres who do not reflect in mirrors, thus are unable to self-reflect) to truly know oneself. But, as people like Warren Mears demonstrate, just having a mirror is no guarantee to actually look into that mirror. We humans can always choose to self-deceive us.

To make a long story short: I think within the framework of BtVS, Spike does very much "need" a soul, to be a full person (not to say he's a "thing" before, but he's lacking the ability to put himself and his interaction with others into perspective). Can we root for soulless!Spike? Sure, but we root for someone "incomplete" (which can be great fun and i've read some great fic which had exactly this at it's center).

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I remember reading this comment on Gab's post and loving the mirror analogy. I think we do have basically the same philosophy, only worded differently.

I think within the framework of BtVS, Spike does very much "need" a soul, to be a full person

Yup, yup, yup, that's exactly the sort of thing I was going for with my trifecta of soul attributes. While soulless he arguably has 'sufficient' empathy/morality/control, the soul gives him 'complete' awareness/control.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it is not really a manifesto, just some thoughts. ;) And yes to our "same philosophy". Just worded differently. :)

[misskittydu34.livejournal.com]

Great and intersting post :) I agree with a huge part of what you said. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I'm glad it made for a good read.

[quinara]

I'm a bit late to the party, but I just wanted to say that I think we're very much on the same page, at least as far as how Spike's soul fits into his journey. Goodness for me is a performative quality, not an inherent one - you are good when you act as a good person, not when you have something inside you that means you tick the box of goodness. Evil is exactly the same.

I think the only point where I don't quite follow you is about the discernment between right and wrong. Even with my soul I don't think eating kittens is inherently wrong, certainly no more wrong than eating, say, a rabbit - and Katrina's death, were it to have happened the way Buffy saw, was an accident: it happened in a situation Buffy had no control over, where Buffy was not acting out of any sort of malice or even negligence. It was a sad situation, but Buffy was without culpability. I dunno, I mean, I think vampires can discern human patterns of morality quite easily - they can see what people do and don't do. The combination, however, of their instincts, enhanced abilites (and so lack of repercussion from doing wrong) and lack of empathy means that morality is more pointedly and obviously an artifical construct to them. So they do what they like.

In terms of Spuffy, just as a final point, I don't believe that in absolute terms that Spuffy was impossible after the AR. I don't know whether the show would have been able to do it in a way that was inoffensive, but it seems odd to say that it would have been inherently impossible for the characters, given that Spike did have the capacity to understand what he'd done (and the act was about more than simple violent impulses) and Buffy has several relationships where (attempted) murder and attempted rape have been moved on from, if not worked through. I completely accept, though, that the soul worked very well as a symbol of Spike's distrust of himself and willingness to change, which (in story terms) worked as a good shortcut through the issues.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Never too late to party!

Goodness for me is a performative quality, not an inherent one - you are good when you act as a good person, not when you have something inside you that means you tick the box of goodness. Evil is exactly the same.

Exactly. That's a very lovely and succinct way to put it.

Even with my soul I don't think eating kittens is inherently wrong, certainly no more wrong than eating, say, a rabbit

I'm a lifelong vegetarian, so I probably hold different views on the morality of eating animals than the majority of the world. Also, I was going off the artificial morale construct that most people seem to have that eating puppies and kittens and cute things is wrong, whereas it's okay to eat chickens and such. In retrospect, maybe it's not a great example.

I mean, I think vampires can discern human patterns of morality quite easily - they can see what people do and don't do.

Well, I do think that they all have some understanding of morality- hence why I said the soul increases it rather than enables it. I do think there are limits, though. Frex, Spike really does seem quite oblivious in "Crush" that what he's doing is wrong.

In terms of Spuffy, just as a final point, I don't believe that in absolute terms that Spuffy was impossible after the AR.

Hmmm...I dunno. I guess nothing's impossible, but it's certainly not a story I could invest in heavily, and I still have to squint really hard to see it. Most of Buffy's relationships where she's forgiven attempted rape and murder have had mitigating circumstances. Xander was possessed at the time; though most fans thumb their noses at the drug addiction metaphor, I think Buffy and the other Scoobies buy that as an excuse for Willow's behavior; and Angel has the soul, of course. Spike's vampireness could maybe be seen as a mitigating factor and I'm sure Buffy would guilt-trip herself into seeing her own S6 behavior as "mitigating" or making them even (I'm NOT saying that it does, btw; just that I can see Buffy believing so). I think she might accept him if he expressed remorse, but I can't see a relationship. She had already broken up with him, dismissed any possibility of romance, and didn't believe he could change for the better...so how on earth would she change her very-set-in-stone-black-and-white mind about those things after he attempted to rape her? Meh. I guess the key word is "inoffensive."

[quinara]

Also, I was going off the artificial morale construct that most people seem to have that eating puppies and kittens and cute things is wrong, whereas it's okay to eat chickens and such. In retrospect, maybe it's not a great example.

Well, as a vegatarian, I think you've got more reason to argue it than Joss when he tried to use it as what marked Clem as soulless! I'm just not very convinced as a keen rabbit-, duck- and lamb-eater who nonetheless definitely thinks those animals are cute...

Frex, Spike really does seem quite oblivious in "Crush" that what he's doing is wrong.

Hmm - the thing about Crush is that I don't read that as him not realising it's wrong so much as him not thinking it through much at all. This is presumably how he and Dru have interacted for a century, and now he's dealing with Buffy, who has been using violent coercion (on top of bribery) to get what she wants out of Spike over the course of S5 - for example in FFL, when she starts their negotiation by slamming Spike against the wall, and Blood Ties, technically the week/episode just before, when she slams the sarcophagus lid into his chest and traps him there, presumably as a threat, for the first part of her demands. Yes it is wrong, but his actions to me imply that all he's trying to do is make Buffy listen to him, in a similar way (if taken further) to how Buffy has been forcing him to listen to her. To me, Spike in Crush noticeably doesn't try and touch Buffy beyond grabbing her chin to look at him, even though he's been known to (also wrong) 'cop a feel' etc. I agree with you that it does foreshadow the AR in terms of Spike taking things too far and being wrong and being to blame, but I think at least in Crush that the base line of acceptable methods of communication Buffy has set between her and Spike does make things to some extent murkier, in terms of at what point he should have realised what he was doing was unacceptable. Of course two wrongs don't make a right in absolute terms, but in relative terms I'm not sure it's fair to treat Spike as if he should (and therefore fails to) judge things from a base 0 of morality, rather than how his actions relate to the way he has been treated by someone he would presumably presume was moral.

In terms of Buffy's characterisation in S6, I do think she believes in Spike's ability to change; she just chooses to dismiss it... Her affair with Spike is about punishing herself, but what she won't admit is that she creates her punishment in rather controlled conditions, with Spike not nearly as nasty and dangerous as what she wants to construct him as being. That's all complicated and messed up with the AR, which would have left things complicated afterwards, but, with telly time being what it is in terms of character development and BtVS being the show it is, I'm not sure that a couple of years or something down the line Spike couldn't have redefined himself enough that it worked with the characters. But that's all wildly theoretical stuff, and it's probably just as easy for me to say that I'm a firm believer in 'anything's possible'. ;)

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

the thing about Crush is that I don't read that as him not realising it's wrong so much as him not thinking it through much at all.

I can buy him acting instinctively and opportunistically and not thinking things through, and I hadn't thought about him mimicking Buffy's aggression, but the pattern in his behavior still indicates to me that he didn't see the inherent wrongness of it. *shrugs* That's my gut reaction, although I see the logic in other arguments.

I'm not sure it's fair to treat Spike as if he should (and therefore fails to) judge things from a base 0 of morality, rather than how his actions relate to the way he has been treated by someone he would presumably presume was moral.

I guess the right-wrong morality scale I'm thinking of is one in which you wouldn't need to evaluate your behavior according to someone else's. Ideally Spike would know that Buffy's treatment of him was just as wrong as his treatment of her.

But that's all wildly theoretical stuff, and it's probably just as easy for me to say that I'm a firm believer in 'anything's possible'. ;)

I can definitely raise a glass to that sentiment. :)

[nmcil12.livejournal.com]

Great post - it is good to have the fans revisit the "soul" question - especially with the events of Buffy Season 8 and all the moral themes.

You are so right that the AR and Spike making the choice to go through the trials and win his soul was all important and fundamental to any development of the Buffy-Spike relationship. Buffy's important word was "trust," that is what he finally can attain and give with his soul. Spike tells her exactly what getting his soul meant to him, why he did it; to become the kind of man/vamp who would never have attempted the AR.

What the soul has always meant to me in the Buffyverse and Angelverse is the metaphor for The Developed Man vs The Primal Beast. It is the potential of intellect, love, empathy and compassion versus violence, greed, hatred and the primitive instincts being how men choose to live their lives.

The soul helps create William/Spike but it is intellect, love and choice that ultimately bring about Spike, the resurrected "good man."

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I'm glad you liked it. It was cathartic to finally synthesize all my thoughts on the soul. S8 really does bring out that quagmire again with Angel; I hope they address the fact that he committed such atrocities while ensouled in S9- and in an ideal world, there would be some acknowledgment of how much good Spike did without his soul!

[tennyo-elf.livejournal.com]

I really like this, thank you for putting this into words.

I agree with most of this. I have slight difference in opinion on souls in the Buffyverse but not so different than what you and those above (in your comments) have wrote. I agree that Spike needs a soul, but he is a unique vampire without one.

Essentially I can forgive Spike for everything bad he did (years of killing/raping) because he got a soul. Spike saying those things and loosing the soul really made me feel like it cheapened his journey in regards to his relationship with Buffy. He got a soul to be a better man/because he tried to hurt Buffy and honestly giving up the soul and giving it to Drusilla with like a slap in the face to Spike/Spuffy fans. I've rationalized it now and have gotten over that initial reaction. But souls are a huge thing in the verse and to have it trivialized in the comics does not make me happy with it at all (Angel doing all the bad in S8, Spike giving up his soul, etc.).

I really dislike Brian Lynch's interpretation of characters and mythos in the Buffyverse. He wrote most of the comics and most of what he does leaves a really dry taste in my mouth. In terms of events he does ok, making up scenarios and such but utterly ruins the established canon. I especially dislike the dismissal of the Buffy-Spike relationship and it's main effect on Spike.

This, with my own thoughts, leaves me content enough to continue loving the Buffyverse/fandom/etc.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Thank you! It was my first attempt at meta, so I'm really glad it works for you.

But souls are a huge thing in the verse and to have it trivialized in the comics does not make me happy with it at all

Yup. Part of the problem, I think, is that the writers never came to a conclusive definition of what a soul means in the shows (and certainly waffled about the importance of it in Spike's case because his soulless goodness threatened everything that makes Bangel a special snowflake). If it helps in relation to the Spuffy slap in the face, I think one fandom reaction to Spike's declaration of not needing the soul was "it's just bravadol," and I can buy that. I admire his choice to give it to Drusilla (to save someone else) b/c it shows he believes enough in his own will-power and goodness to make do without it temporarily. That actually shows a lot of courage, IMO. I don't consider the comics canon and occasionally I resent them for existing, but at least they bring up good food for thought. I like that I can meet people through discussing them, case in point. :)

[tennyo-elf.livejournal.com]

Logic keeps the crazy pieced together.

I wish they did give it (the soul thing) a conclusive definition in the show(s). But even not giving it the fine line Spike's soul case already made Angel look less than shiny and unique (and actually gave bangel a few blows, but it was never addressed obviously. Why could soulless Spike love Buffy when Angel, her supposedly great love, couldn't love her without one? etc).

I agree, what Spike said in the comic could be construed as bravado, which is perfectly in character for him. And after you put it that way, Spike's actions do come off as courageous and I like that very much ('cause Spike is the nummy treat filled with awesome sauce).

Oh, I resent the comics existing all the time, I hate they were given the canon stamp and wish that they were all deemed non canon (I wish I could do what you do and ignore their canonship). Either a nice novel written solely by Joss or another season/movie to tie up all loose ends and end the series would be nice (at least for me).

Thanks for the reply!

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

But even not giving it the fine line Spike's soul case already made Angel look less than shiny and unique

It definitely did. Unless one is a rose-tinted-glasses-wearing Bangel shipper...

hate they were given the canon stamp and wish that they were all deemed non canon

If it helps at all, I have read that Joss apparently said at the PaleyFest reunion in 2008 that if he and the cast ever miraculously agreed to continue the show together or make a movie, he would instantly scrap the comics as canon to do a new continuation. If the creator himself is so willing to disregard his "canon," calling it canon in the first place is kind of an oxymoron methinks. :)

Thanks for the reply!

Oh, my pleasure! Thanks for commenting on an old post! I know not everyone takes the time to do so, and I always appreciate it. :)

[tennyo-elf.livejournal.com]

Had to comment, this was made of too much win for me not to comment on.

Oh, we should find a magic wish granting demon to make another season/movie happen with all the cast! Then we can give the comics the cosmic middle finger. (Yes, that did help. <3)

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

adfkjad'fjk we obviously also need a vengeance demon to make a wish against the comic book writers!! :D

[tennyo-elf.livejournal.com]

Where is Anya when you need her! (She is not dead!!! :cries in a corner:)

[browneyedkat.livejournal.com]

i love how well you explain the ideology and logistics of a soul, as that's one of the major gaps in the mythos of the Buffyverse. this is ridiculously coherent and sense-making, i love it!

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Oh thank you so much! I'm really glad you like it and find it plausible. :) The soul is such a gap in the mythos; I had to come up with my own explanation just to get rid of my cognitive dissonance!

[rihannon52.livejournal.com]

I know this entry is not new, but I just found it so I guess it's new to me. An I feel the need to comment because I'm really surprised to read about the reactions triggered by Spike #6. I guess I wasn't following the forums at the time... Anyway, I can see how Spike haters can find the way to use his statement (about being 'good' without the soul) against him, what somehow stuns me is that those ideas didn't even cross my mind. Of course, since I absolutely love Spike, I was utterly happy and proud of him when I read those pages. To me, it was the confirmation of how his soul-search was made with the knowledge of what it would do to him (maybe not the extent of it, but at least to some point), and he didn't regret getting the soul, even if he said didn't need it.
I didn't even tried to think of a different implication, because I saw it as the measurement of his moral growth, his development as a character, and the achievements in his quest to become a better man.

So, I wish I have read this post some before (to make a more opportune comment) , but I'm really happy to know this discussion has taken place.

Best wishes,
R.

[gryfndor-godess.livejournal.com]

Thanks for leaving such a nice comment on an old entry. I'm glad it was enjoyable even though the comic/discussion itself is long over. :)

I saw it as the measurement of his moral growth, his development as a character, and the achievements in his quest to become a better man.

Exactly, the soul is a measurement of his growth, not a sign that he's done growing or is automatically perfect.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

the soul is a measurement of his growth, not a sign that he's done growing or is automatically perfect.

I think the_royal_anna made the point in one of her lovely metas ten years ago that it's very in character for Spike to go after his soul - make a big, grand, dramatic gesture - and think that will make everything all right with buffy. And of course it doesn't, and I think that's important. And I think buffy realizes and reaffirms it when she says "I saw your penance". It's a process of growth, not a one-time event.