I think he gets most of the major character points right (his romanticism, his forthrightness, his "all fists and fangs" approach as opposed to Angel's methodical approach), but I disagree with most of his interpretations. First of all, the Spike who acts entirely out of love for Buffy is not really discontinuous with the former Spike, who acted primarily out of love for Dru and to some extent out of his paradoxical love/hate relationship with Slayers as part of his identity. Secondly, I think he gets Spike's motivations post-soul mostly wrong. It's true that Spike isn't all goodness and light at all, but it's wrong to say that there's no altruism in his behaviour. He is genuinely kind to Anya, admits some regret over Wood's mother, yells "I gotta do this!" when he's burning in "Chosen," saves Fred at the cost of his own corporeality, and so on. He's not introspective at all, and generally doesn't express guilt over what he's done, but that's part of the same adaptability and lack of introspection that's always been a part of the character, even as a vampire; compare to Angel/Angelus who is, either way, an artist, an intellectual, thinking about each and every kill. And "Damage" went in-depth into this. And I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the season seven Buffy/Spike relationship, and Spike's "No you don't" line--but then, I remember reading Chief Seattle's review of "Out of My Mind" back in the day, in which he thought that Riley was being entirely irrational in thinking that Buffy didn't love him. In both cases, I think Buffy failing to love the person in question is evident in the story, at least to the degree that the men need. (Plus: Spike needed Buffy to get the hell out of there.)

As far as the interpretation of Spike getting his soul back...what ME did with Spike brings up a conflict between maintaining the mythological status quo and following a really interesting story. The story is that an evil soulless thing achieves redemption through love and Pavlovian conditioning; the mythological problems it raises centre around the fact that if an evil soulless thing can become entirely good, then it calls into question Buffy's entire mission. What ME did was compromise: show that Spike can do good, even be good to an extent, but that ultimately he can't be a "good person" and can't ever have feelings for people directly around him. Have him get his soul, and then go all the way toward becoming good; so that the story is satisfied (evil soulless thing can "redeem himself") without breaking the show's mythology (evil soulless things can't be good). This compromise, depending on your perspective, could be brilliant (best of both worlds) or horrid (worst of both worlds--which Chief Seattle seems to feel, here). I'd say that it's mostly a success. Spike does in fact self-actualize so it's a great story; but his case is unique, depending on the very qualities that made him particularly evil to allow him to become good.

WilliamTheB | July 23, 19:36 CET

I think the article tries to shoehorn BtVS and AtS characters and stories into the traditional superhero stereotypes. And, obviously, the writer takes everything he/she sees on screen at face value and needs clear and simple explanations of every action.

Moscow Watcher | July 24, 12:29 CET