This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"I am obsolete. This must be what old people feel like. And Blockbuster."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 24 October 2014




Tweet







March 13 2005

Peter David reveals Spike comic book plot line. It seems that a loose end will be resolved as Peter explains that "this story [will shed] some interesting light on Spike's origins".

Coolnesss, a return for Halfreck. And Peter writing it is excellent news. He's one of the most critically acclaimed comic book writers around. And no stranger to be linked to at Whedonesque.

I hope the fact that Halfrek died in Selfless isn't ignored. I'm concerned now.

[ edited by Jackal on 2005-03-13 13:19 ]
I would imagine it's either a story set in the past or that Peter has written a very clever tale which takes into account her death. He is a huge fan of the Buffyverse after all.
Agreeing with Simon. I can't see Peter ignoring established series continuity. Anyone who knows his Hulk work will know how aware he is of the history of the characters he writes.

For anyone who wants to see a prime example of his writing ability, check out the current Madrox limited series from Marvel. It rocks!
This is interesting: when Kali Rocha was hired as Halfrek
(after having played Cecily)
Joss indicated that it was a coincidence, and there was no connection between the two characters,
but they still had Spike & Halfrek recognize one another.

However, on the BtVS S7 commentary for 'Selfless' Drew Goddard purposely set Halfrek & Anya's dinner w/the burning guests in the 20th Century because he was under the impression that Halfrek was Cecily
(that is how I understood his comments).

So if Peter David is having Spike and Halfrek meet for the first time in the past...
then what does that do to the Cecily tie in?
Put it back into the coincidence' box?
The way I see it - David's one shot reenforces that Hafrek and Cecily are the same person.
After Cecily utterly crushed William with her "You're beneath me!" line in "Fool for Love", I always wondered if D'Hoffryn might have appeared to her then in the same way he appeared to Aud and Willow after watching their vengeance work (of course intentionally done by the former, accidentally by the latter).
I don't think Cecily and Halfrek are the same person at all and the description of the comic doesn't lead me in that direction either.
killinj, yes they are. In an interview with Kali Rocha in Buffy Magazine, she states definitely that yes, Hallie and Cecily were the same person (or demon person if you want to be politically correct ;).

I thought everyone knew this already.
I know they are played by the same actress, what I'm saying is that I don't believe that Halfrek IS Celicy.
I think the "Is Halfrek also Cecily" question is just ambiguous enough that either answer could be supported easily. Knowing Peter David's past work, my guess is that he's leaning towards "Yes, she is," which is where I also stand.

But believing she's not also has canonical support, so you're right either way.
killinj, I know what you meant, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

Kali Rocha has definitively said that CECILY and HALFREK ARE the same. She didn't mean that she played them both, she was talking about the characters. Cecily is Hallie, Hallie is Cecily. Clear now?

Ben is Glory?
The reason I said Peter David's description backs up the idea that Cecily and Halfrek are the same person is because this story is supposed to shed a new light on his origin, and even though he does have a past with Halfrek, supposing for an instance they're two seperate people, I find it hard to believe that two characters both played by the actress would be tied to his origin.
This is a key reason the verse lives on thanks to Joss cleverness, he drops hints he never resolves so we are forever left wondering what is going on. Is Cecily really Halfrek or could it be the Halfrek and Spike had met before say like St. Petersburg. Which is reference in Season 7 Buffy "Selfless" and then again on Angel Season 5 "A Hole in the World" where Spike references the city. Coincindence or perhaps another level or layer to the tapestry in the verse. We may never know but it is things like these that keeps us wanting more.
Willowy - if there is one lesson we should never forget is that the actor is not told much of anything about the character they play. They may assume like we do that they are the same person - but then again Clare and the guy that played Ben did not know they were the same person until they got the script that showed them morphing. Cause they both went to Joss and ask about the scene and Joss just said casually to them, "Oh yeah, your the same person." and that was it. Would they have played their characters differently if they had known this info sooner, who knows and Joss is forever the master of mis-direction. Need anyone be reminded of the whole Spike quest thing.
It may well be a great story to show how the two are the same person and how and when Halfrek became a demon, the big question being was she a demon when William was writing his poetry about her?

But I cannot see how or why the actresses word should be taken as fact. If they can keep JM in the dark about what Spike wanted at the end of S6 then why would they tell Kali the truth? As far as I have heard only SMG was told much in advance what was happening with her character.

And until it airs, it's not cannon. They may well have said something to Kali, but they also told Emma she was only going to do one episode and James that he was going to be killed off before the end of S2! Things change....

And RavenU beat me to it....

[ edited by zz9 on 2005-03-13 16:38 ]
Still, I think that's a pretty strong statement to make, especially if you aren't sure. I believe her.

*scrounges through years of Buffy Magazine for the quote...*
Willowy, no one is disputing that Kali said it and believed it.
And personally I would think she got the idea from Drew Goddard who wrote 'Selfless' and clearly believed it
(as I said, on his commentary).
BUT the question is: did Joss intend it? Or did Joss just kind of leave the idea floating around so that others would put their own spin on it?
I think unless/until Joss allows it to be put into canon (and not just into Buffy Magazine and/or DVD commentary)
that we have to allow killinj the freedom to believe what killinj believes.
I seem to recall the writers saying they thought about going that direction, but decided against it. Didn't Joss say that the acknowledgement in "Older and Far Away" was just a nod to fans who may have recognized her as the same actress? Unfortunately, I don't have a quote.

Also, in "Lessons" we have this line from Halfrek:

"Listen, Anya. I know I've always been a little competitive with you. I mean, there was that thing in the Crimean War."

The Crimean War took place in 1854-1856. The scene with William and Cecily during "Fool for Love" took place in the 1880's.

I realize it doesn't prove anything, but it requires a great deal of explaining to make them the same character.

Likewise in "Entropy" when Spike walks in the magic shop and Anya and Halfrek (with her human face) are talking. Spike doesn't react to Halfrek at all. If he saw Cecily, the woman he once loved, standing there you'd think he'd notice.
Halfrek's comment about the Crimean War means that, if nothing else is sure, human Cecily couldn't have become demon Halfrek. If they are the same, Halfrek must have been playing the role of Cecily the way the she played the role of the school guidance counselor. If she isn't Cecily, her reaction to Spike - calling him "William" and being surprised to see him - makes little sense. But he didn't seem to recognize her, either then or in the magic shop. I think Halfrek was Cecily, and remembered William, but Spike doesn't remember exactly what his "beloved" Cecily looked like. There might have been a spell to make him forget her face, or maybe he just forgot in all those years.

I could be wrong. Joss did say there was no connection. But Joss also said in the first season that Angel was Spike's sire, so...
Spike remembered what Cecily's face looked like in "Fool for Love" - unless you don't think those flashbacks were from his memories. I find it difficult to believe he forgot between season five and season six. It also seems out of character for him to forget the face of someone he loved. So, again you'd need to come up with a complex explanation.

Demon Halfrek and William the Bloody could have run into each other at some point in the past. Thus explaining why she reconized him as William. To me, this is a more logical explanation.

[ edited by killinj on 2005-03-13 18:51 ]
I always interpreted the "Halfrek?", "William?" exchange as a wink to the fans who recognized that the actress playing Halfrek was the same one who played Cecily. And until Joss says otherwise I'm going with that. It's just my opinion but I'm not that crazy about going back into Spike's origin. "Fool for Love" may be my very favorite episode of BUFFY and I thought it said perfectly all we needed to know about Spike's origin. I suspect I'm in a minority but I really disliked "Lies My Parents Told Me" because I felt it undercut the impact of "Fool For Love". I also felt they were trying to catch lighting in a bottle twice by going back to Spike's origin in the first place. Like I said though, I think most Whedonesqueteers would disagree with me.
I think they´re the same person. But i think they´re not :p
It´s very confusing, with some contradictions in the story.
This story is not very interesting for me (because all the contradictions), at first sight, but maybe it could be great if he resolves everything (with Joss approval, of course).

I like Spike´s origin stories, but i would prefer a Spike & Dru one.
I think it's up to the viewer to make their own interpretation. For instance, I still insist Spike went into that African cave to fight the molten chocolate monster to get his chip removed even though I have heard with my own ears Joss Whedon say he always intended to get his soul back! :) The viewer is Queen!
Personally, i don't know why they would make a reference within the show if the only connection was that both roles were played by Kali Rocha. I mean, it is hardly unknown for one actor to play more than one role in a series. Even within Buffy and Angel you had several occasions where an actor returned to play a totally seperate part to the first one they appeared as. Why would this one merit special attention?

As far as i'm concerned, Spike and Halfrek certainly had a history, Cecily knew him as William after all. Whether or not this means she was also Cecily, and if so, which of the identities came first, we will have to wait and see.
I think Halfrek probably was Cecily, the recognition when they saw each other could have just been that at some point, early in Spike's life as a vampire they met each other, but it's just tidier if she was Cecily, and she was in England to get vengeance on someone when Spike was still human.

Would have been a lot easier if the writers hadn't put that joke in for the people that recognised it was the same actress.

JudithS said:
For instance, I still insist Spike went into that African cave to fight the molten chocolate monster to get his chip removed even though I have heard with my own ears Joss Whedon say he always intended to get his soul back! :)


But that's just not true, Spike didn't want the chip out, the plot of the following seasons said it, the character said it, Joss said it, and Joss is like God of the Buffyverse, so if he says Spike went to get his soul back, Sike went to get his soul back. People may feel that James' acting up to the final scene suggested chip removal (I was spoiled, so just read it that he was pissed off that proving his love to Buffy had come to this) was because it was a plot twist (Joss invented them ya know), in his final scene in season 6, when he says "so I can give Buffy what she deserves", you can tell from his voice he's not there for some evil purpose like chip-removal.

Sorry, that one just annoys me, especially when I read it in the 3rd Watchers' Guide, but that was badly written throughout so...
I think we're all missing the obvious here. Cecily and Halfrek are time travelling clones. There was a very subtle reference to this in 'Lies My Parents Told Me'.
Uh, I have a theory. The town is a bunch of false fronts and he ran over there real quick.

If Peter David proves or disproves the validity of Halfrek and Cecily being the same person, it's apocryphal. Plain and simple. Unless I see a copy of the comic that Joss Whedon signs and says, "I approve of this message," I won't accept it as canon. The point isn't to prove or disprove whether or not Cecily and Halfrek are one and the same. The fact this ambiguity is there helps create this feeling of the overall series that it's much deeper and richer than we see on the surface.

Personally I have this delicious theory of my own that "The First" was actually an illusion perpetrated by none other than Amy Madison. Yes. The Rat. I've looked for evidence to support my theory and all I see is ambiguity. It IS possible. It's also equally possible that I'm wrong. Shroedinger's Rat.

Some would think the idea of the power behind The First would be dispelled if it was learned that all it really was was parlour tricks by a two-bit Wanna Blessed Be. However, it explains why The First didn't continue bothering Angel after "Amends" because almost immediately after that in "Gingerbread" Amy turns into a rat for three years. Amy then comes back, tries to befriend Willow, she's turned away, and we don't see her again for the rest of seasons six and most of season seven. The First rears its ugly head again, but only after Amy's no longer a rat. The appearance of Amy near the end of the seventh season again doesn't prove or disprove my theory. I believe that whenever we saw The First, off camera and hidden away Amy was simultaneously orchestrating everything inside a pentagram with all kindsa magic mumbo jumbo going on around her. The Scoobies never suspected because she purposefully conjured an image of The First as an illusion to throw the Scoobies off her trail.

It's simply there as a possibility. It serves to further deepen and enrich the possibilities of the series. I may or may not be right. Y'all may or may not be right in your opinions regarding Halfrek & Cecily.

I like ambiguity. It's all over the place in BtVS. I wanna keep it that way. That's what makes it fun!
Okay, we are going way off topic here but i can't ignore a "What did Spike really want at the end of season six" debate.

What it boils down to, for me at least, is that Spike didn't need to get his chip removed if all he wanted was to hurt or kill Buffy. He could already do that with the chip active. Why go to the lengths he did if it was just about physically hurting her?

Nope, he was definately there to get his soul back, no doubt about that in my mind.
ZachsMind: soooo, when Caleb entered into the First to get all his super strength,
he was just really entering into an image Amy created?
Cause that would have really pissed off Caleb! LOL
Our mysogenistic preacher didn't mind the First taking the form of a girl,
but he would have been seriously annoyed to learn it WAS a girl!

Warlock is right: Spike didn't need his chip out in regards to Buffy; he did need his soul back however.

And finally, I am looking forward to Peter David's comic no matter how he handles the Cecily/Halfrek connection... I'm excited about a Spike centric comic!
Embers. Yes. You're absolutely right. Another rational explanation for why Amy wasn't going to let anyone, even Caleb, know The First's true identity, or where her real location was. That's why she needed the illusion charade. She probably had a spell that restricted her ability to appear as anyone other than the dead, which is why she couldn't even appear as herself had she wanted to.

As for the whole Spike chip soul debate thing... Oboy this one's gonna be long.

I agree with Warlock, I think, to a point. However I feel I have to explain myself. I mean, the African cave had nothing to do with the chip. If anything it was an indirect catalyst to why he wanted his soul, but he knew going in that getting his soul wasn't going to affect the chip one way or the other. The chip wasn't malfunctioning. Warren proved that. The problem was it didn't register Buffy.

Spike wanted to NOT hurt Buffy ever again. He'd just tried to rape her. That wasn't his conscious desire. He wanted to make her love him, but this is how Joss Whedon shows evil. It's not that melodramatic "All Bow Down And Beware for Evil Is Approaching" kinda crappy evil you see in bad b-movies. It's the kinda evil that sneaks up on you and makes normal average well-intended types do pretty effed up crap.

Spike wanted Buffy to love him. This comes into a level of unmanageable control. You can't force someone to love you the way you want them to. If you try, that's when you start committing evil acts, whether your intentions are good or not. Spike saw himself do something tremendously horrid to Buffy, and had Buffy not happened to be a Slayer and able to kick his ass? He woulda done it. He knew that. He couldn't bare to live with himself after that without doing something drastic to keep that from ever happening again.

Spike wanted to be what she wanted, and the incident in the bathroom proved to him he couldn't do right by her without something to keep the evil demony side of him in check. The chip wasn't gonna stop him from killing her. It no longer registered Buffy as a normal living human. She'd become something more than that. She was a mystically enhanced Slayer who'd died and come back a couple times. Technically, she's an undead herself. Just not a bloodthirsty kind of undead. One could argue though that the black stuff those three old guys put in The First Slayer? Pretty evil stuff that the old guys learned to channel into The First Slayer in order to make her kill bad, but the original source of the Slayer powers are demonic in nature. The chip should have never worked in proximity to her, but upon her return after The Gift, it definitely no longer saw her as a normal human.

So Spike went to get the soul. Pre souled Spike was probably thinking, at least unconsciously, that Buffy loved Angel and he was a vampire with a soul. If he got a soul, he'd be a vampire with a soul and Buffy would then have no excuse but to love him.

"They put the spark in me and now all it does is burn."

POST souled Spike was confused at first, but then realized to his unhappiness that getting a soul wasn't enough. Angel could have warned him. The soul wouldn't cleanse him of his evil. It'd just make him see it for what it was. Even getting the soul wasn't enough for Buffy - she still couldn't love him the way he wanted, because he couldn't love himself due to what he had done, but he couldn't undo what he'd done. That's what the whole scene in "Beneath You" where he rested himself on the cross was all about.

"Why does a man do what he mustn't? For her. To be hers. To be the kind of man who would nev— (looks away) to be a kind of man!"

Spike's a vampire. He's dead. He's a fascimile of a man. He's not really human. He thought the sould would change all that. Spike had learned from seasons four through six that that stupid chip in his head, as annoying as it was, made him appear to be enough of a man to not just reach out and suck from Buffy's neck like a predatory animal. It gave him a chance to really get to know Buffy for herself and she got to know him. He thought there was a chance with Buffy. However, after that bathroom scene at the end of season six where he almost raped her, he realized even the chip wasn't enough. He was still less than a man deep down. Still a predator with a hunger and a thirst. He needed something stronger to keep his evil side at bay. A soul worked for Angel. Why couldn't it work for him? But there was still no spark between Spike and Buffy. Not the right kind of spark anyway. Not something that would let the restlessness in him finally rest.

What Spike really wanted was Buffy, and the soul was a means to that end. However, once he got the soul he realized how wrong he was. Back in season three, Spike told Buffy and Angel, "I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it." In season seven he choked on those words.

[ edited by ZachsMind on 2005-03-13 22:25 ]
I'm glad I'm not alone in disliking "Lies My Parents Told Me." Lessens the impact of "Fool For Love," and doesn't even make sense (Spike decides that he's luckier than Principal Wood because *his* mother loved him, whereas Wood's mother was a Slayer and Slayers can't love anyone (huh?)...and all this the culmination of an episode in which his own mother called him a parasite or somesuch...okaaaay).
I believe Buffy when she told Spike she loved him. Imo part of Buffy's story in season 7 was moving on from Angel and a way to show this happening was for her to fully love someone else.

Imo the AR was necessary because ME had to come up with something so drastic that the only option was for Spike to get his soul. Vampires just don't go out and try to win their souls back. Something had to rock Spike to the core of his existence and knowing how much he almost hurt Buffy did the trick.
Ilana: the whole point was that the trigger removal business had FINALLY made Spike realize that that wasn't his Mother who called him a parasite:
it was the vampire/demon which had taken over her body that said that.
Spike finally realized that his Mother had loved him,
but the Vampire she became didn't.

Spike was rubbing Principal Wood's nose in it a bit;
Nikki Wood did love her son, but she had put the mission first,
(which is what good Slayers have to do)
so she died and left Robin Wood alone.
Well Judith, I suppose you can insist on interpreting the story any way you want. Why you'd want to interpret it incorrectly is beyond me, but that's your prerogative.

If Joss comes out a says Halfrek and Cecily are indeed the same being, then they are, period. Until then, I choose to believe they are two different characters.

I believe all interpretations have to take into account the author's intent otherwise the meaning could become lost.

You know, there's easier way for me to argue this:

Joss is the God of this universe. God trumps Queen. Thhpppt!!! ;)

Also, ditto Zachsmind.
Embers, that would make sense if not for the fact that Spike loved his mother even after he became a vampire...so doesn't it seem more as though the demon brought out a repressed resentment of him that had been there all along? He *was* a useless pansy dangling from her apron strings, after all.

Whichever of us is right, I still don't see how he realized, from remembering THAT, that his mother loved him. It didn't feel organic to me.

I also didn't like the declaration that Slayers can't love anyone; it seemed silly and undermined all of season 5.
It didn't say that slayers can't love, they can, but being the slayer has to come first, which Buffy has realised by the same episode when she tells Giles that if faced with the same situation as she was in "The Gift", she wouldn't sacrifice her life for Dawn.
I think you are missing the point a little, Ilana.

Firstly, it has been made very plain over the years that, for some unknown reason that may never be known, Spike was never your average vampire. He retained a lot more of his humanity in his demon form than is normally the case. This was shown by the almost unnoticeable difference in him after he became a vampire, not to mention his ability to love Buffy. Basically, you can't use Spike as a good example of what a vampire should be like emotionally, because he was far from normal.

Therefore the fact he continued to love his mother, even once he was a vampire, is not something that you can compare to how his mother became. She took on the traits of a normal vampire, no longer being able to care about her human life and relationships. Spike wasn't able to accept that for a very long time, mostly due to the fact that he hadn't lost all of his humanity and expected his mother to still feel the same way. It was only thanks to what Robin Wood put him through, forcing him to face his, or more to the point, his mother's demon, that he finally understood that his mother died when he bit her and let the demon take over her body.

Also, it wasn't that Nikki didn't love Robin, it was that she didn't love him enough to put him before her mission. A lot of what Spike said to Robin was to hurt him, but the fact remains that Spike's mother was devoted to him, whilst Nikki had to make her son a second priority.
Perhaps part of what makes Spike so lovable is that despite how bad he tries to be, and how bad he actually is (and yes he is bad he's done some terrible things in his time - killed two whole slayers! And he won't hesitate to boast about that), he's really not all THAT bad. I mean, he's AS bad as he can get, and most of his badness is putting on airs. He tries to look bad, but it's largely ineffectual. That's because what he started out as was such a pansy, that true evil, trapped in his carcass, just can't do enough to make him REALLY bad.

I mean, Angelus, left unchecked, is BAD. As bad as they come, cuz the person Angel was before he got vamped was already pretty rotten. Not only is he mean, but he's smart mean. He's artistically mean. He uses evil as a form of expression. He's an artist when it comes to murder. He's SCARY in that way. Really.

Spike still can't even write decent poetry.

Try as he might Spike still can't be really bad any more than he could ever be really whatever it was Cecily wanted in a man, or whatever Buffy doesn't know what she wants in a man. Spike gets an A for effort, with a plus and a bunch of stars to the side, but nothing he does is ever enough. What a tortured soul. I love that about him.

There's a little bit of Spike in all of us I think. I'm scheduled to have mine removed next Thursday.
I know someone who want's a little of Spike in them, if you know what I mean.
Ilana: it is probably unnecessary for me to respond, because others have...but I will anyway.
you wrote:
"Embers, that would make sense if not for the fact that Spike loved his mother even after he became a vampire...so doesn't it seem more as though the demon brought out a repressed resentment of him that had been there all along? He *was* a useless pansy dangling from her apron strings, after all. "

So, Ilana, does that mean that Angel had had some suppressed resentment and/or hatred of Buffy, Giles, Willow, and Miss Calendar? No, because when Angel reverts to Angelus he reverts to a normal vampire who simply wishes to destroy and kill; who doesn't love. It is Spike that is unusual.
When Spike killed his Mother (turning her into a Vampire), he killed his Mother's love, and he was left with the Vampire who didn't love him. He hadn't understood that in all this time because he had repressed the memories, but Robin Wood forced him to face his memories and he finally understood it.

I thought it was very organic and the David Fury did a great job of it.

PS: and the useless pansy part? But see, THAT is what his Mother (when she was alive) loved...she had raised him to be sweet and devoted to her, to put her needs first and take care of her. She was a timid Victorian lady, naturally she wanted her son's unflagging protection and support.

[ edited by embers on 2005-03-14 01:00 ]
It's you and me against the world, Ilana. I also felt that vampire Mom's resentment of William came out of human Mom's repressed feelings. So when Spike triumphantly declared that his mother loved him and Nikki didn't love Robin it didn't ring true to me. And I also felt while Robin was effectively persuaded by Buffy to postpone killing Spike he still should have wanted to. And also Lies My Parents Told Me pilfers from the qualities that make Fool For Love a great ep. And I just don't buy that the human man who longed for Cecily and the vampire that was so attached to Dru would want his Mum tagging along. I just don't buy it!

And embers, I agree that Angel did not have a deep resentment of Buffy, Giles, Willow, and Jenny. But Angelus wasn't the result of turned Angel, but rather turned Liam. And Liam did have a deep resentment of people triggered by his relationship with his father (who is the first person Angelus killed, after all). So the newly turned Liam could now prove to his father and the world he was a powerful force to be reckoned with and when William was turned he was similarly motivated. Despite what was said in the first (or second) ep of BUFFY (when Xander's friend was turned and we were told that vampires are a demon occupying a shell that was once this person) I think we can make the case that being turned brings out the worst in the former human. And that is a long-winded way of saying why I feel the horrible things vampire Mom said to William were a part of human Mom and a large part of the cornucopia of reasons why LMPTM didn't work for me.
I can't believe there's actually still some debate on the Spike/Soul/chip thing. He went for his soul. Really. It was always intended that way. The only thing is that the dialogue that was meant to misdirect us wasn't very subtle and doesn't really make a lot of sense. So they should've done a better job on that probably. But as many have pointed out already, his chip already didn't work on Buffy, he wanted to be worthy of her love and Joss has said repeatedly that he always went for his soul. Really, this is one thing there is no ambiguitiy on.

As for Cecily/Halfrek, it's obviously less clear cut. Personally, I've always felt they were the same the moment they recognize each other, and she calls him 'William'. (And he doesn't really want to go into it). It was just a little joke for those who recognized the actress but it was also obviously played so you could see it that way if you wanted to. Also, the Crimean war mention isn't that strong an argument. There's several references to Angel's age that don't match up at all either, to which Joss once said "The dates should match. They don't. We suck."

To me, Drew's commentary pretty much cinches it. They went out of their way to make sure Halfrek's history would match her days as Cecily. So even though it's not ironclad, and wasn't the idea originally, there was a clear attempt at the meetings of the Buffy writers to have it work for her to be Cecily. Kali Rocha's comments only fortify that. I don't see why people don't want her to be Ceciliy myself, I think it's a great idea and always regretted there was no time to go into it deeper.

And really, I'd say Peter David is of the same mind or he wouldn't even start writing this story. As for it being canon, that's up to every reader individually. If I don't like something, and Joss isn't directly involved, I feel free to disregard it. But I think Peter is a good choice for writing Jossverse characters. As said, he's a big fan and has the same sense of humor. I'm looking forward to it. Now let's see if it takes place post NFA and how he's gonna get past that 'she was dead thing' if it is.
"So, Ilana, does that mean that Angel had had some suppressed resentment and/or hatred of Buffy, Giles, Willow, and Miss Calendar? No, because when Angel reverts to Angelus he reverts to a normal vampire who simply wishes to destroy and kill; who doesn't love. It is Spike that is unusual."

We've actually hit on one of the topics that fascinates me most about the Buffyverse, i.e., how much the vampire self has to do with the human identity. I do not think that Angel had a deep resentment of Buffy and friends, but look at how obsessed he is with her after he loses his soul--as Willow says: "You're still the only thing he thinks about." Love twisted into its inverse through the loss of the soul. Why do you think Angelus says "To kill this girl, you have to love her"? It's widely acknowledged that love and hate are closely related.

One of my favorite lines in "Doppelgangland" has nothing to do with Willow in a dominatrix do...it's when Buffy reassures Willow that the vampire a person becomes has nothing to do with who the person was, and Angel starts to DISAGREE, and then hurriedly stops himself. A whole thesis right there. (And what can we make, then, of the fact that Oz kills Willow in "The Wish"?)

More: in The Prodigal when Angelus kills his entire family, Darla implies that he was motivated by love. Wish I could remember the line, but it pretty much states that vampires are always motivated by the same love that they had as humans.

I think it would be really boring if all this psychological stuff were *not* there, but it is, so it would be a pity to ignore it. In a way, Spike is not that unusual, either...look at the sadistic relationship he has with Dru and subsequently with Buffy, as a vampire. "I'll tie her up, torture her, until she likes me again!" Really.

[ edited by Ilana on 2005-03-14 14:07 ]
Batmarlowe, thanks for putting a lot of things better than I could. As you can see I agree, but couldn't achieve the same brevity :).
I think it's obvious that vampires retain some part of their former selves, yet they get warped and twisted. We knew from LMPTM that William's mother wanted him to find a girl, and not fuss so much about her. When she was turned, the evil in her used those feelings he had for her to hurt him.

Spike seems to retain more deep feelings than most vampires, but then that's always been the case since we saw him appear in SCHOOL HARD, trying to cure Drucilla.
Don't get me wrong here. I absolutely agree that the vampire's personality is largely based on the human it used to be. I think it has become very obvious over the years we have gotten to know the various vampires of both shows that what was claimed by Giles way back in The Harvest, that a vampire is a demon in a human shell, is not exactly true. Clearly a vampire is a human transformed by the demonic essence it now contains, very much in the same way Aud was transformed into Anyanka or Cordelia was made part demon. Vampires are just another example of humans taking on demon characteristics and losing their humanity, their soul. Whether what Giles originally said was what the Watchers truly believed at the time, because until Angel they obviously had no idea that a vampire could be re-ensouled, or whether it was just the company line that all Watchers told their Slayers, to avoid any moral ambiguity, we will never know.

However, as i said before, it is pointless to use any of that to try and understand Spike and what he became upon taking vampire form. He was not the same as Angel, Drusilla, Darla, his mother, or any other regular vampire. They all held on to the memories and certain character traits of their human lives, Spike kept a little bit of what originally made him human, maybe he even always had a little bit of his soul, he just didn't know it.
Someone makes reference to something about "Fallen Angel". Does anyone know what this is?
I'm not 100% certain this is correct, ShotgunWes but i believe it is a creator owned comic book series that Peter writes, nothing to do with our Angel though, that much i'm certain of.

I'm sure somebody else will have a better idea what it is about.
Most of what has been said here is the reason I don't like Spike. He doesn't seem to go by any of the rules set out for the rest of the characters so it's hard to accept him as a character instead of just someone the writers love.
You don't like people who don't follow the rules, Charisma? Boy, we really wouldn't get on then! ;)

The fact is thought that Spike's rather unique personality is what makes him the excellent character he turned out to be. You just never knew what to expect or what he would choose to do next, either with or without a soul. I believe that is also why so many of the writers did like to use him, because he was such an interesting character to write.
Amen Warlock....Spike is unique and lets face it ....he's a REBEL. Thank God for that. I think thats what made him so fascinating too...you never knew what he would do...he always surprised you. I mean who would ever have thought that the BIG BAD, Slayer of Slayers would ever fall in love with his sworn enemy , fight to get his soul back to become a better man for her, and finally gave his bloody life to save her and the world . Then he comes back from the dead and ends up with Angel...who lets face it ...couldn't stand the sight of him. Spike knew that. He could have left. I'm sure Angel expected him to.... but no....he STAYS and helps fight Angel's battles now. Yeah...I guess he doesn't follow the 'rules' that the others were bound by....but then that would have made for a pretty boring story wouldn't it? Anyway...I guess Spike always did say " I am nothing like Angel ! "
Spike showed up in SCHOOL HARD as a different sort of vamp. He liked his slayer sparring, but didn't show up at the hellmouth to fight Buffy, he showed up to cure Dru. He liked the world, and people like the Annoying one, who wanted to destroy it, were a bother to him. In LIE TO ME, he chose to protect Drusilla instead of killing Buffy. Yes, this was before Angelus lost his soul. The writers made Spike a different kind of vamp early in the series.. (Actually, it would have been in episode 14 if season one had been a normal 22 episodes.)

Charisma's reasons for disliking Spike are the reason I love Spike and Buffy. Spike, like Buffy, breaks the rules set before them by other vampires/slayers respectively. Buffy and Spike mirrored each other and chose to connect with people, and when they lost their connections then their worlds were thrown into chaos. No matter what they do or how far these characters fell, I loved these two above all others because they didn't play by the rules. In the end THEIR connection to each other saved the world. I commend the writers/actors for creating my two favorite characters ever.

[ edited by twiggy on 2005-03-14 23:16 ]
I don't really accept that Spike wasn't a "normal" vampire...and when it comes to vampires in love, what about the love-obsessed vampire in the first episode of Angel's third season? Vampires can love sometimes, apparently. I think the same rules that apply to other vampires can be applied to Spike, and that if that is not true, then Charisma is right--the writing is inconsistent and silly. But I think his sweet idealism as a human was turned to intense passion as a vampire. Nothing much nurturing about it, since torture was an expression of love.

Anyway, I don't really understand what it proves even if he wasn't normal...maybe I am still missing the point...(shrug) Still don't think "Lies" made sense.
Ilana, all i can recommend is to watch the episode a couple more times. I've followed Spike's character development very carefully from School Hard all the way through to Not Fade Away, as well as taken great interest in reading what the various writers, Joss especially, had to say about his character's story arc, and what happened to him in Lies My Parents Told Me made perfect sense to me.
Heck, if you (or anyone else) could give me links to Joss's comments on Spike's character arc I'd be eternally grateful :). I'm always looking for more stuff that he's said about his work.
Links i can't help you with, i'm more a book kinda guy, although i'm certain there will be other Whedonesquers who can point you in the right online direction.

I do seem to remember quite a few good comments by Joss and some of the other Mutant Enemy writers about Spike featuring in Keith Topping's Buffy episode guide, Slayer. If you have it, have a scan through. If not, get hold of a copy, it's a damn good book! ;)
I'm in a hurry so pardon me if I am not as coherent as I would like.

I always thought "Lies My Parents Told Me" worked really well in context of Spike's character and in terms of the ambiguity that marks fine writing. IMO it gives Spike a huge push into becoming a vicious killer. Between what Cecily says to him earlier and his mother says to him, he has something to prove. His ties to his former self are stripped away. He is primed to try as hard as he can to prove he is not all the things his mother said and leave who he was behind. He is ready to join, and learn from Dru, Angelus and Darla.

At the same time, though the whole situation was a severe trauma for him anyway you look at it, I don't think it was written or presented in a way that the audience can tell whether what she said came from her previously hidden feelings about him that were magnified and revealed by the demon in her, or whether it was made up by her new demon-self out of whole cloth. Spike makes his decision and it gives him peace. Whether he is just accepting the answer that he can live with or he is right, is up to the viewer. Self-delusion can be a life saver.

Spike's comments to Wood about the nature of Slayers, how they always fight alone, how his mother didn't love him enough to put him before the mission, always seemed a combination of Spike using his preditor talent for being able to know what will hurt someone the most, cutting Wood more deeply than he could physically and the verbalizing of his own resentment of some of Buffy's traits that have made his life since being in love with her very difficult. He is talking about "Slayers." Which one does he know the best and have a very frustrating history with?

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home