Random thoughts are random and not really argued so much as mused (but they have Spike in!)

[quinara]

Watching Dead Things today (and As You Were - funny thing, gang, I actually love Sam; also, I entirely forgot the scene with Buffy staying up late to try and clean her coat existed - it was like ENTIRELY NEW BUFFY SCENE, made my heart ache - and Fool for Love), what really strikes me about soulless Spike is not his lack of morality (though that is somewhat in evidence), but his lack of shame. It just isn't there. Now, I've thought this before - it was a blunt instrument in my characterisation for To Apprehend Air - but I find it really interesting. I mean, I spend most of my time giggling at or cringing away from Spike through the middle of S6, all because of the outfits (/lack of) and the jewellery and the cheesy lines, but it's not just that. As much as Spike is shameless in putting on the act of the slinky vampire seducer man, he's equally shameless in his acknowledgement that it is an act - the moment Buffy seems receptive to it, he'll happily switch into hearts and flowers mode.

And that's the complete opposite of Buffy, who not only feels shame by the bucketload but equally is certain that her actions and presentation have to match what's going on inside her. When she realises she's 'right' she completely changes, blowing up the crypt and breaking up with Spike - and yet she equally admits that there's a William inside Spike somewhere, which comes across to me now like an admission of something even queerer and more insurmountable as when she saw him as an ugly soulless thing (because Buffys Williams should never be able to act like ugly soulless things; it's not their nature).

[My use of queer, by the way, and probably a lot of these thoughts is brought to you by one of the few actually decent articles on Buffy I've managed to find in print - Dee Amy-Chinn's Queering the Bitch: Spike, Transgression and Erotic Empowerment in the European Journal of Cultural Studies 8.3 (2005), which basically says what rahirah's been saying for years, that Spike is one big giant queerfest of queer. (She also says that this is empowering to Spike over the course of the show, but I'm not entirely sure about that one.)]

I feel like this reflects somewhat the idea that heroes' bodies(/selves?) should be hard, perfect and impenetrable (ie. in no way shifting or fluid). As much as she rejects that in Intervention, Buffy's definitely trying to achieve that persona by S7. I just wonder whether, when she's covering up all her bruises and putting on her massive BOTN/Showtime front, she thinks that's who she is on the inside too, or whether she's mastered the idea of identity performance. Hmm. More thought required.

Comments

[shipperx]

Spike is not his lack of morality (though that is somewhat in evidence), but his lack of shame

Yes. This!

This is what I find myself arguing every time it gets into "Spike was soooo evilly manipulating Buffy in Season 6."

I don't think Spike is so much manipulating as mirroring, reacting and fundamentally misunderstanding. What he's functioning on is positive and negative feedback (as read by in what sort of action reinforcing response she gives to him...which happens to be the more negative his actions the more he's 'rewarded' for them. Being supportive such as "After Life" gets little, going PimpSpike gets attention and sex. The Balcony scene is really that in spades. What's Spike is saying to Buffy about being "in the dark" isn't (in his mind) degrading her. He doesn't feel degraded by it. He feels this is a somewhat accurate read of the situation. He actually believes what he's saying, because that's what she's been responding to all season and... because he has no shame. He honestly doesn't 'get' the shame as motivation thing she has going right then. He doesn't get get that's what she's doing, acting out on her self-loathing and shame, using him as a way to punish herself. He thinks her responding to him is great and that her 'positive' responses to Pimp!Spike is the two of them them actually connecting.

Soulless Spike has an idea of right and wrong in an intellectual sense. He doesn't feel it, but he intellectually can see it. He doesn't feel though (souless being soulless and all). And this is particularly the case with shame. Why would a soulless 'get' that this could make her respond to him (outwardly and in his perception) positively? Soulless aren't ashamed of being evil or of dirty things? It doesn't produce an inwardly cringing feeling. He just isn't seeing that shame and self-loathing is what primarily causing Buffy to act. He's reading her actions as her actions and not really understanding the shame that is behind them. This is his fundamental misreading of Buffy all season. He reads what gets her attention and what doesn't. And he wants more attention so he does more of that.

Basically, Spike believes what he's saying in the Balcony scene and he doesn't feel that it's saying anything all that awful. He thinks isn't just uncompromising, non-prettified truth. He doesn't see it as shameful and thus doesn't see it provoking shame. He doesn't 'get' the sort of relentless self-loathing that's causing Buffy to behave the way that she is.

Without shame he doesn't understand how Buffy is all about shame in Season 6. He doesn't see why she'd be so motivated by it, and so he ends up assigning the wrong motivations to her actions and choices. He's reading her all wrong.

It's a case of fundamental miscommunication. He's reading her wrong. His mis0reading is reinforcing what she thinks about herself. She hates herself so she goes to him to reinforce her self-loathing, and she ends up hating him for it too.

They were dysfunction city.

[quinara]

*nods nods nods* Yes, totally! I'm not sure I tend to think about it in terms of negative and positive reinforcement - but I do see the balcony scene as very much Spike behaving the way he thinks he needs to behave, saying the things he thinks Buffy expects/wants him to say, which is almost exactly what you're saying. :D Especially with lines like 'I may be dirt - but you're the one who likes to roll in it', I don't think he thinks of that being as bad as it comes across to Buffy: what's wrong with liking anything? And of course he wants to make himself be what she likes...

The miscommunication doesn't absolve him from his mistakes, but I would argue that there's a positive progression in his actions (at least in terms of why he does them) from S5 to S6. It just goes rather spectacularly wrong.

[quinara]

(Hmm, actually, that last bit would be better phrased as positive progression in terms of his motivations, because he isn't really helpful at all in the end, and the AR is quite obviously an utter fail - the most extreme disconnect between what he wants to achieve and what he actually does.)

[shipperx]

Epic fail pretty much covers it. It wasn't pre-meditated. He didn't go there intending for anything like that to happen, but... that doesn't absolve him of its happening. It's the culmination of a lot of factors coming together in an epic fail.

[quinara]

It's the culmination of a lot of factors coming together in an epic fail.

Yes. *nods*

(Apropos of not very much, though, since I plunged myself back in time today by re-reading some of the essays after the fallout of S6 and trying to watch DT and AYW with fresh eyes, I have to admit that I had forgotten just how viscerally Buffy punches Spike in the face - and often. It's not pretty at all.)

[shipperx]

Buffy punches Spike in the face - and often. It's not pretty at all.)

No. It's not. And considering that the writers chose to have her in a sexual relationship with Spike, I really don't know what message they were intending with that. It's one of many things that make that season not as clear cut as some people (including apparently Marti Noxon) wanted it to be.

[stultiloquentia]

Quin!!! *drive-by glomp*

what really strikes me about soulless Spike is not his lack of morality (though that is somewhat in evidence), but his lack of shame.

What a striking observation.

[quinara]

STULTI!!! *glomps back*

And the vamp really doesn't have a cringe instinct. *pets him and and his I'm-too-sexy-to-button-my-shirt-ness*

[evilawyer]

Yes. The shame, or lack thereof, is a key element that's explored in both Spike and Buffy in Season 6. (Invisible Buffy's throwing anything resembling shame out the window because of the anonymity of her situation comes to mind.)

[quinara]

Invisible Buffy's throwing anything resembling shame out the window because of the anonymity of her situation comes to mind.

Ah yes - and it's interesting how that's linked to the presence of her body: if she isn't there physically, then psychologically she doesn't have any cares. I'm not sure Spike would be the same way.

[evilawyer]

No, I agree. Spike would not be the same way. Spike's shamelessness is ingrained in him (in my opinion) but then, unlike Buffy, others don't associate his physical presence with "good". The Scoobies (his sole connection to anything resembling society at that point) look at him and say "soulless, evil thing" and expect him to behave accordingly. That's there even despite/possibly during the first episode where he's fighting with them. Buffy, on the other hand, is the embodiment of "good", or is at least supposed to be, at least when viewed with black-and-white simplistic eyes that the Scoobies generally have up until Season 6. It's only then they begin to realize that good and evil aren't separate poles that can only exist in separate creatures, but something that can and does exist (whether consciously or subconsciously --- Spike being willing to babysit Dawn, for example) within the same being.

[fulselden]

This is fascinating, especially on lack of shame as a defining feature of soulless Spike. It seems to me that they used a lot of the same tricks and tropes of Britishness (and maybe manliness) when cococting a backstory for Spike as they did for Giles. They just inverted them (or queered them up, perhaps) in Spike's case.

I also wonder if there's something interesting structurally about the jokiness of both Spike and Buffy's one-line personas - she's the horror-film blonde who hits back; he's a bloody awful poet who turns into Sid Vicious. I guess I should just check out that article!

And I can't see Buffy as all that good at knowingly putting on a face, even by the close of season seven - I mean, being the slayer is all about spiking (heh) nasty two-faced creatures through the heart with pointy sticks of wood. All about the ('masculine') impenetrability, or at least the sincere performance thereof. Though, at the same time, of course, what you see is never quite what you get with the slayer either, because what you see is a hero but what you get is a girl. It's an identity which has a degree of two-faced fluidity built in.

Also, Spike's queerness and empowerment, hmm. It seems to me that the show does this weird half-assed thing where it seems to want him to man(pain) up, and reward him for doing so (or at least stick a white hat on him), but ends up, in BtVS at least, by finally casting him as the sacrificial damsel - or Dido, even. At the close of Buffy his agency is arguably along the lines of the bad Bond girl made good who takes the bullet at the end of the show. Which seems rather minimal as empowerment goes?

... this might have been more coherent if I could remember episode titles and such. I obviously need to rewatch!

[quinara]

It seems to me that they used a lot of the same tricks and tropes of Britishness (and maybe manliness) when cococting a backstory for Spike as they did for Giles. They just inverted them (or queered them up, perhaps) in Spike's case.

Yes! I can't help but wonder with this whether there isn't a certain sense that 'British people are queer' (ie. a little bit more fluid on the inside than their American counterparts), but then I have a massive axe to grind when it comes to Brits in Joss shows, so I'm possibly barking up the wrong tree.

The article is worth checking out. I'm not sure how high I'd rate it in comparison to articles in the world generally, but in terms of articles on BtVS it's a very good one. I mean, queer theory is a field I haven't read much in at all, so it's entirely possible it's completely rudimentary, but I did enjoy it.

Though, at the same time, of course, what you see is never quite what you get with the slayer either, because what you see is a hero but what you get is a girl. It's an identity which has a degree of two-faced fluidity built in.

Ah, that's true. I suppose it depends on where your POV is sitting, because in the show vampires etc. seem to get more and more knowledgeable about who Buffy is and so have less of a disconnect. I think I'm right in thinking that in S7 the vast majority of people know who Buffy is to the point where they afford her some respect. But then of course, from a viewer's perspective, that disconnect never really goes away (apart from among long term fans?) - though I think by 2003 that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a brand established enough that it isn't so unexpected? Buffy's girliness definitely seems to be normalised over the course of the series to the point where her dates turn into slaying missions and she doesn't seem overly perturbed by this (I'd also argue her slaying missions turn into dates, but that's harder to argue if you don't take Spuffy as a done deal ;) ).

At the close of Buffy his agency is arguably along the lines of the bad Bond girl made good who takes the bullet at the end of the show. Which seems rather minimal as empowerment goes?

Yeah, I agree. I think there is a definite problem with Spike's soul making him good enough to kill himself - as much as I would say it works for his heroic story, it doesn't really work for a story of empowerment or about his queerness (much like getting the soul in the first place doesn't really).

Rewatches are always good! Even when you've seen episodes dozens of times, apparently. (Though it turns out that I can still pretty much quote Fool for Love - the episode in S5 with all the Spike flashbacks after Buffy gets stabbed with her own stake - from start to finish...)

[fulselden]

I can't help but wonder with this whether there isn't a certain sense that 'British people are queer'

Probably! I suspect this goes double for people from THE CONTINENT or similar, which might be one reason why Anya doesn't get given an ah-now-I-am-good-I-must-suffer-shame redemption story (or, at least, it gets kinda squished into that one episode with the heart-eating spiders). Or, rather, one reason why they made her some kind of faux Scandinavian when they realised they'd fudged the treatment of her past as compared to other ex-baddies. And hm, I've only seen Firefly, other-Joss-wise - though I suppose that even there, the film had a Hollywood-British bad guy (much as I love Chiwetel Ejiofor).

Oh, yes, I was very much thinking in terms of the viewer's POV when talking about Buffy's girliness as a bait-and-switch a little akin to the Buffyverse's two-faced vampires. And you're right that even there things were different by the time the show had become a bit of a pop-cultural hot commodity. They are very good about normalising her girliness in-universe, true - I guess the only moment when they really play the gotcha card is in the first five minutes of the show. And, oh, Spike/Buffy! I ... never really made up my mind? I mean, I ship it, but so also Buffy/that one other dude! But then the comics turned that into a (literally) cosmic trainwreck, so, sadfais.

good enough to kill himself

Yeeees. Disquieting! For me, the show made it so very clear in universe that a soulless vampire is incapable of really understanding what good is that I can't ever buy soulless!Spike/Buffy as anything but rather disturbing, in canon or out. But I do agree that ensoulment does nothing whatsoever for Spike's queer credentials. Vampires in general got stuck holding the black-and-white, broad-brushstrokes, metaphorical-teenagers-v-adults storytelling after the show as a whole had grown past that, I think.

And even I know Fool for Love! With the Boxer Uprising and the Seventies subway, right? Fantastic episode.

[quinara]

And, oh, Spike/Buffy! I ... never really made up my mind? I mean, I ship it, but so also Buffy/that one other dude! But then the comics turned that into a (literally) cosmic trainwreck, so, sadfais.

Oh, wot? :O Not that one other dude!!! By which I of course mean fair enough. Absolutely. Yes. Though I don't agree that the show made it completely watertight that a soulless vampire couldn't know what good is. Statements that characters made were undercut all the time (just look what happened to the idea that someone's personality was completely separate from from the demon they became as a vampire). I mean, Spike wasn't there by any stretch of the imagination, but he was understanding new concepts as much as he was cocking up in S5-6, IMO. I suppose I find myself cutting through the rhetoric of the show somewhat there, because I'm not sure I know what 'good' is in the Buffyverse when it gets beyond helping save people rather than trying to kill them (do Willow and Xander ever feel the same righteous duty as Buffy does when they goof around on patrol?), so that's less important to me.

*snuggles FFL*

[fulselden]

I don't agree that the show made it completely watertight that a soulless vampire couldn't know what good is

Very true, actually! To be honest, I guess I just imprinted on their original definition of vampires as omg eeevil and was willing to buy the soul as a magic goodness-pill because I'm a sucker for redemption stories? And, hm, I definitely see your point about season 5/6 Spike - they did get him to a point where they had to abruptly yank him back to the dark side with that (REALLY badly executed, if not necessarily ill-conceived, I think) attempted rape scene.

My visceral 'uh, no' reaction to shades-of-lighter-grey-soullessness does make me feel very Manichean, though, (or unqueer, I guess...) - I can absolutely see that there's a lot of interesting stuff peeling off from the show's hilariously wobbly definition of what exactly a soul does when it's at home. Not to mention what good is, as you say - though I always enjoy the way that it is mostly Buffy who has this destiny-laden sense of being out there fighting the good fight. I mean, goofing around on patrol, so to speak, is pretty true to form as far as humanity goes (I say glibly). I guess that's one Buffyverse shade of grey I'm rather fond of.

Mind you, perhaps this just means I need to read more AU fic as well as rewatching!

[laeria]

Lovely analysis!

What do you think about shame and S7 Spike? Does he feel it? Does it decrease his queerness?

[quinara]

Thanks!

I think yes on both those points - Spike seems certainly more modest, closed off and cautious in S7, and he's fundamentally less different from Buffy and the humans, though he's still somewhat queer.

[laeria]

Mm, thank you.

I'm rethinking the show in regards to hypocrisy - I have this dim idea that one of Buffy's main tasks is growing to accept her own hypocrisy - and am unsure of how S7 Spike fits into it. He's - yes, subdued, humbled, full of regret, but he also doesn't seem to feel shame in the way Angel did, the whole "don't look at me, I'm a monster" thing. So. Unformed thoughts. They are plenty.

Do shame and queerness correlate in other characters? I suppose it does with Willow - she becomes less self-consious and self-aware and self-policing after she falls in love with Tara (though Restless suggests she's repressing it). What about Giles, Andrew, Tara? Again, amorphous thoughts swimming near the surface, ack.