Angel news on Sci Fi Wire

[Wayside]

Ok, Wayside, obviously we have very different interpretations of what the writers intended. We’re simply not going to settle this in the absence of definitive testimony from them on what they were trying to do. Since we’ve both obviously spent a lot of time on Buffy, quoting episodes back and forth at each other clearly isn’t going to change either of our minds. So I don’t want to escalate this argument, but I do want to clarify my reasoning.

If there are quotes from other episodes that suggest ambiguity or Spike's going after his soul, I would actually really like to see them. I only went back and re-checked the episodes I knew contained the reason for my believing he wanted rid of the chip (as much for myself as to post here; for all I knew, you guys were right about the writers dropping no specifics). If there are other pertinent episodes please do give me some specifics.

Oh, I agree that it’s complicated, but it seems to me that Spike is very upset with himself for even attempting such a thing. Either way, there is a lot of self-loathing. He also has flashbacks to the attack in this episode, and is haunted by what he did. And remember, Buffy looks right at him after the attack and says, “Ask me again why I could never love you.” These are real incentives for him to change completely, and for the better.

I completely agree that this should be how it came off, only it isn't. Him being haunted isn't in the script, except for that brief moment where he says "Buffy... I didn't mean...". Him being haunted by the fact that he was haunted for that brief moment, however, is what we see. What the writer's intended doesn't matter; it's what's in the text that matters. If Spike was supposed to be sorry and want to change, he should've been that way.

It seems clear to me from Spike’s character and responses that he wanted his soul back from the beginning. In that case, for the writers to leave it ambiguous and suggest that he might want the chip removed is, in fact, misdirection. I can see that since you don’t think that was original plan you won’t consider it the same way.

The original plan is completely immaterial (we have access only to what was written, not what was meant to be written). There's no way of accounting for your belief that Spike wanted his soul back the whole time. There's simply no reason to think that based on the text. I wish there were, because we obviously agree that that's what ought to have been going on.

However, if it were clear that he wanted his soul back, as you say it was for you, then that could not be misdirection. If it were ambiguous, that could not be misdirection. If it suggested that he wanted the chip removed (which it does not; He, the character, makes this eminently clear), then it could be misdirection.

And you're saying all three of these things are coexesting? It's clear that he wants his soul back, although it's ambiguous while at the same time suggesting he wants the chip removed? Are you trying to make my head explode?

The Sixth Sense clearly employs misdirection, because nothing is compromised; the continuity is flawless. It is the manner of presentation that allows the twist to sneak along undetected by most, not a lie put into a character's mouth. When writers rely on characters to do the work of controlling the audience's perception, they have failed as writers.

I agree that the lines you quote strongly suggest that Spike wants the chip out, and clearly that is what the writers want us to think. In fact, my main disagreement with the way this was handled was that I thought the writers used the chip too much as misdirection, and that this was torturous and not completely in character.

I'm not sure what to say to this. Like I said before, there are two possibilities: the writers are either incompetent enough to do what you have just accused them of (though I would phrase it differently, or be harder on them assuming they were trying to use misdirection, since they failed so utterly to do so), or the plans for Spike's role changed between the latter half of season 6 and the beginning of season 7. You are more or less agreeing with me, but chosing to believe it's the former, while I choose the latter, because I think they are better writers than that.

But I also need to note that the scene plays out mostly as Spike trying to figure out what’s wrong with him, and that he never actually says he wants the chip removed. The crux of the problem is that he’s neither a good monster nor a good man, and he needs to resolve one way or the other.

All but. The scene looks to play out like 'Spike figures out (decides) what's wrong with him' more than 'Spike tries to figure out what's wrong with him.'

So, why am I convinced that the writers always intended for him to get his soul back?
1) It’s the satisfying arc for the character. The season becomes about him proving that he will change for Buffy.
2) It gives the best chance of having Spike around as a regular character in season 7. Soulless Spike without the chip is just another villain for Buffy to stake, and it’s hard to justify her not killing him. Spike with soul is much more interesting to play with.
3) The way they deliberately never have Spike say what he is looking for. If they intended for him to have the chip removed, there is no reason not to just say so. To dance around the issue as much as they did, and to keep it so it could be read both ways, required considerably more effort on their parts.
4) It feels right. It’s in keeping with the way that the character and the relationship were written all season, and it’s very much in keeping with Mr. Marsters' portrayal.

"...the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art..."

"One must ask how the critic expects to get an answer to the question about intention. How is he to find out what the [writer] tried to do? If the [wrtier] succeeded in doing it, then the [writing] itself shows what he was trying to do. And if the [writer] did not succeed, then the [writing] is not adequate evidence, and the critic must go outside the [writing]--for evidence of an intention which did not become effective in the [writing]. 'Only one caveat must be borne in mind,' says an eminent intentionalist in a moment when his theory repudiates itself; 'the [writer's] aim must be judged at the moment of the creative act, that is to say, by the art of the [writing] itself.'"
--"The Intentional Fallacy"

So, I don't disagree with any of your points except for 3; however, none of them are evidence for anything. I share all the same beliefs, yet reach a very different conclusion based on them.

I see no dancing around the issue (as you indicate in 3). Spike pretty much says what his intent is as much as anybody on the show ever indicates their intent about anything. Does he say "Clem, I'm going to get a soul"? God no. Would Spike ever say something like that? God no.

 

[Green Knight]

Regarding that AICN link, according to the Spoiler Slayer ( http://www.spoilerslayer.com ) that script excerpt is BS. Which is a shame, since with the exception of him needing the amulet, I liked the idea of Spike becoming the first male Slayer. Oh well. I still hope they find some way to keep him super-strong, even if they do go the Shanshu route. He just wouldn't be the same if he isn't as much of an ass-kicker as he is, now.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Regarding that AICN link, according to the Spoiler Slayer ( http://www.spoilerslayer.com ) that script excerpt is BS.

Well, I'm still crossing my fingers for that. That was damn neat.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

If there are quotes from other episodes that suggest ambiguity or Spike's going after his soul, I would actually really like to see them.

I'm going to make this my last post on this subject, since we're really arguing semantics and talking past each other. My only argument with your position is that you call the soul/chip misdirection a mistake on the part of the writers when I believe that it is misdirection.

Even if the writers changed there mind, it would not be in my mind "a mistake." Continuity errors are mistakes (Spike saying in season 2 that Angel was his sire when later we learn that it's actually Drusilla, for example). A change in how the writers want to direct the storyline is not a mistake. It might be bad writing in your view, which is subjective, but a mistake implies objective failure.

 

[Henry]

SPIKE
She thinks she knows me. She thinks
she knows who I am. What I'm capable
of. She has no idea. I wasn't always
this way. It won't be easy, but I
can be like I was. Before they
castrated me. Before...
(a beat)
Then she'll see who I really am.

(If they had just left out the castration remark, this could be ambiguous, but it isn’t. It’s referring to the chip. There’s no room for interpretation).

However, the "Before... (a beat) Then she'll see who I really am" part is VERY important here. This blows away the castration statement, because it could very well be referring to "before he was turned." Hence the strong case for misdirection. Every incidence you note also has another clause with it that refers to him being a man formerly, as well.

So the "agree to disagree" holds strong. For ever argument, there is a pretty strong counterargument about where the writers intended to go with Spike's "de-chipping or ensouling."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Buffy knew Spike before his Chip, and she knew what a nasty kind of guy he was - half a season he was the main baddie...
Castrated might actually fit for the Vampire-Turning thing as well - it eliminated his soul.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

"Castrating" could also refer to the women in his life who either demeaned him (the woman he wrote his poetry for) or his mother, who overprotected him to the point that he could barely function as a human being. Possibly tenuous, but not out of the question.

 

[WisdomLikeSilence]

If there are quotes from other episodes that suggest ambiguity or Spike's going after his soul, I would actually really like to see them.

That’s the problem. Nothing is explicit. Things are only implied, or hinted at, and that makes it really hard to post quotes. It’s also the reason we’re having this whole discussion. If they’d just stated things either way there would be no room for disagreement. As you know, though, that’s not the way things always work in Buffy….

Him being haunted isn't in the script, except for that brief moment where he says "Buffy... I didn't mean...".

You probably already know about this, but there is a great script site for Buffy. Check out http://www.studiesinwords.de/shooting/index.html
That’s where I pulled the following.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT - NIGHT
The door to Spike's crypt crashes open. Spike bursts in (sans leather coat). Anger, humiliation, and regret swirl across his tormented face.
INT. BUFFY'S BATHROOM - FLASHBACK (ALREADY SHOT)
Spike has Buffy on the floor against the bathtub. Her face is twisted in pain as she tries to push Spike away.
INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT - CONTINUOUS
Spike clenches his eyes closed, attempting to shut out the incriminating images flashing through his mind.
INT. BUFFY'S BATHROOM - FLASHBACK (ALREADY SHOT)
Buffy is on the floor. Spike brutally pins her down.
INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT - CONTINUOUS
Spike's eyes snap open. He can't shake the images of the attack. He stalks over to his alcohol stash, pours a glass of vodka with trembling hands and raises it to his lips.
INT. BUFFY'S BATHROOM - FLASHBACK (ALREADY SHOT)
TIGHT ON BUFFY, in agony, as Spike tries to rip open her bathrobe.
INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT - CONTINUOUS
Spike explodes, his emotions boiling over. He crushes the glass of vodka in his hand. He stands there seething, at war with himself.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There's no way of accounting for your belief that Spike wanted his soul back the whole time. There's simply no reason to think that based on the text.

Except that, based on what I saw, I did and do believe it. I didn’t realize until this discussion how hard it is to point to the specifics, but the totality of the episode did leave me certain that Spike wanted his soul back. And I pulled that from lots of little touches in the episode and the season.

"… If the [wrtier] succeeded in doing it, then the [writing] itself shows what he was trying to do.”… I share all the same beliefs, yet reach a very different conclusion based on them.

It worked for me, although not perfectly. It didn’t work for you. We both watch the show pretty carefully. That’s why we’re not going to be able to change each other’s mind. We’ll just have to wait for season six to come out on DVD and see if the commentaries resolve the whole intention/mistake issue.

Ooh—Season four is almost out…. Almost time to go watch more Buffy….

-WLS

 

[Vocenoctum]

However, the "Before... (a beat) Then she'll see who I really am" part is VERY important here. This blows away the castration statement, because it could very well be referring to "before he was turned." Hence the strong case for misdirection. Every incidence you note also has another clause with it that refers to him being a man formerly, as well.

So the "agree to disagree" holds strong. For ever argument, there is a pretty strong counterargument about where the writers intended to go with Spike's "de-chipping or ensouling."

There's also always the chance that Spike didn't know what he was going to prove when he went off.
Spike went somewhere, and fought through all these trials and got his soul. All that really prove's is that Angel is too lazy to seek a more permenant solution to his Curse.

 

[Wayside]

Lol Henry. If you really just want to break it all down I'll pull out my Derrida and we can get started on some real deconstruction. Otherwise I take arguments over the meaning of castration as equivalent to waving a white flag. The chip has been referred to in this context a dozen times over the course of the show.

Kid Charlemagne and WisdomLikeSilence (forgot to mention I like your name; Tempus Loquendi, tempus tacendi), I just want to make sure you two realize I'm not criticizing from the point of view of a fan. I'm looking at it as a literary critic (it's a testament to Buffy that it can even be looked at in so serious a way). I'm not getting anywhere trying to explain the autonomy of the text though.

I will sum up the 'semantic' argument you object to Kid: I realize you think it is misdirection, but the fine control of where the audience directs their attention is put into a character's mouth in a way that makes misdirection without artistic failure impossible. Either they compromised the character of Spike to misdirect (as WisdomLikeSilence noticed), or they simply had a different plan for the character at that point. I honestly don't think they'd do the former, so the conclusion I'm left with is naturally the latter. That's it. Though I was also pointing out what misdirection is, this is the real point (hence not a semantic one, though the point I just made, *that* was a semantic one ).