Discussion of 6.08 "Tabula Rasa" - Aired 11/13/01 (UPN-US)

[appleAlcy]

So, S6 is where Buffy broke down, even though, there is a large, and growing, part of the modern audience that absolutely adores it.

The season confirms that life is pointless, miserable and doomed. I myself fail to see the point in nihilism.

As bleak as much of season six is, I feel it actively does the opposite? As bleak and horrid as the events these characters go through are, the cast largely comes out of the other end. There is hope. There is the dawning of a new day. It's darker than seasons 1–4 were, but season 5 is where that shift actually starts in my opinion. Note "The Body," note how much more threatening Glory is than previous Big Bads, etc. This is my perspective as one of those younger viewers in question. Season Six has more than its fair share of problems

 

[CardboardGhost]

S7 might be where Buffy died, but, S6 is where Buffy fell off a cliff. There is no example of a successful TV show, and, at the end of S5, Buffy was very successful, making the kinds of changes in story-telling and tone and characterization that S6 did and remaining popular with its audience (Normally you see radical changes when a show is failing and there is nothing to lose).

Why?

Because radical changes cause the current audience to quickly stop watching while it takes a two to three seasons to build up a new audience that can replace the old audience.

At the time S6 was very unpopular. It proved Whedon wrong about the posting boards being a better marker of audience position than ratings analysis and market research. More Arrogant and Stupid than Bold.

I disagree entirely that large changes are a sign of a failing show and that audiences never react well. Shifts in tone, when executed well, should be a natural progression of what came before and are a really valuable tool for developing characters in new ways. Say what you want about the quality of Buffy's shift in S6 (even as someone who likes the season, I will never deny that there could have been a lot more subtlety with how the themes of this season were handled), but I would not say that it's a shift that comes out of nowhere. Buffy has lost her mother, been dead and buried, and is brought back to an overall chaotic situation; showing her struggling with that transition, making poor decisions, and having to support herself and others entirely on her own for the first time is, in my opinion, a really interesting direction to take the show in.

I am willing to acknowledge that this shift in tone was clearly not planned, because the writers really only had things planned up to the end of S5, and I think the fact that they were just making it up as they went really shows. It makes this season very inconsistent, and that inconsistency makes the shift feel even more drastic.

Of course not everyone is going to like a huge change, and the shift in Buffy is certainly one that a lot of people really didn't like, but I think reducing it to saying "of course people didn't like season six, because it's near impossible for a show to make a shift that big without losing a lot of the audience" is too simple.

So, S6 is where Buffy broke down, even though, there is a large, and growing, part of the modern audience that absolutely adores it.

I still don't agree with the idea that Buffy "broke down." It changed. Change can be neutral. You don't like that change, but, by your own admission, there are a lot of people who do.

And I would especially like to unpack your phrasing here; this "is where Buffy broke down, even though there is a large, and growing, part of the modern audience that absolutely adores it." You're implying here that the younger part of the audience who likes S6 and beyond are wrong for doing so, because we are unable to see that, in your opinion, it's just worse. I try very hard not to take personal offense when people dislike things I like, because no one has to like the same things as me, but I do take a bit of offense at the idea that older fans dislike S6 more often because they have some kind deeper understanding of the show that "kids these days" don't have. I do not want to assume that this is what you meant necessarily, but that's the impression I get from stating decisively that S6 is breaking down of what Buffy is supposed to be "even though" a large portion of the younger audience likes this season. I don't appreciate laying out exactly why I like the season and then having people older than me act like my opinion is wrong because I'm the "modern audience" who wasn't there when it aired. Just because the popular interpretations of the show have changed over time and vary between age groups doesn't mean that those interpretations are wrong.

I agree with that, and include OMWF in that, and written differently and in an earlier season they would have been fun. And if written differently in this one the same would apply, but you would need to rewrite the entire season. To me, those are two episodes that should have had Ethan Rayne behind them.

I could see "Tabula Rasa" as an Ethan episode, although it would be very different from what we got. I did always wish we got more Ethan episodes, though, and I could see this being a good one. I don't know that I could see OMWF as an Ethan episode, though; I think the episode as it stands is very strong, other than the fact that we never follow up on Xander having summoned the demon.

Season six is when the series was staked in the heart. Season seven was when they nailed the coffin shut. In a show that is supposed to be about female characters, three of the five female actors either quit or refused to come back after S6.

Talking about the ways Buffy succeeds and fails at its goal of being a feminist work would need a thread of its own. It is definitely not an issue limited to S6, though.

Season seven has a very accurate depiction of a woman who has been broken by abuse and saw the show go completely 180, from being one about a strong female character fighting vampires to a show about an abusive male vampire.

I don't like this interpretation. Just to start, I didn't think Buffy's reactions in season seven are a depiction of an abuse victim at all, because the writers still wanted Spike to be a potential love interest and as a result could not explore the actual consequences of abuse in a sensitive and nuanced way because they didn't want to actually acknowledge the abuse. Buffy functionally acts like nothing happened at all, other than some slight hesitation at the start of the season. And I think that describing the season as being about "an abusive male vampire" simplifies the arcs of both Spike and Buffy down to almost nothing.

Yes, Spike is a vampire who has a history of being an abuser, but acting like that's the only thing about him that matters ignores the entire theme of the season, which is asking the question of if redemption is even possible. If you only view him as capable of abuse and nothing else, it answers that question pretty decisively in the negative while also treating any time Buffy trusts him as a manipulated victim running back to him rather than her being a leader who has to make difficult choices about who to trust. I find the idea that Buffy "has been broken by abuse" to be such an awful and depressing way to look at this season, and it's not an idea I find supported by the script.

S6 was not so much about trying new ideas, but completely lacking them in the first place. That's why the "teen is addicted to drugs by a trusted friend" soap opera plot became "magic is now drugs."

There are a lot of new ideas. Are you really going to say there isn't a single episode in S6 that's original?

I don't like the "magic is drugs" plot, but I don't think that the show having a kind of mediocre plot about drugs is proof that all original ideas are dead. Earlier seasons also used pretty standard tropes. Many episodes are based on specific things ("Some Assembly Required" and Frankenstein, "Buffy vs. Dracula"), even.

There seem to be three main reasons why a show undergoes a tonal change; a lack of viewership and a last minute attempt to save it, a lack of ideas or a new showrunner trying to leave their own imprint. S6 seemed to have the last two. There is no way more guaranteed to kill a show than a tonal change, because everyone still watching liked the previous tone, and if they liked a different one better, they would have stopped watching. So you end up with a loss of viewership that is effectively impossible to replace. The only show that has ever possibly recovered from such is Doctor Who, simply because it has a soft reboot mechanism built in.

I've already stated why I don't agree with the idea that a tonal shift can't be an intentional storytelling choice, so I won't repeat myself on that topic any further.

I suspect that this has something to do with the, essentially, and understandable, nihilism, that a lot of younger viewers have these days. The season confirms that life is pointless, miserable and doomed. I myself fail to see the point in nihilism.

Hello, younger viewer here! I would say the exact opposite about season six, actually. This is a season where Buffy is depressed and doesn't see the point in living, sure, but the point is that, by the end of it, she is getting better. Willow can't cope with grief, not for Buffy and not for Tara, and reaches her darkest point but is still loved by her friends and wants to get better. Spike makes the deliberate choice to get a soul, to try and become someone better--or at least to become someone who can be better. This is not a season about how life has no meaning, it's a season about how life is hard and still worth having.

This also feels a bit like a "kids these days" kind of argument. You find the season depressing, so of course the reason younger viewers like it is because we're just so obsessed with nihilism, right? It couldn't be that some people find comfort in showing a strong character struggling in realistic ways but coming out the other side with hope that they will be alright, right?

As bleak as much of season six is, I feel it actively does the opposite? As bleak and horrid as the events these characters go through are, the cast largely comes out of the other end. There is hope. There is the dawning of a new day.

I agree with this summary, yes.

It's darker than seasons 1–4 were, but season 5 is where that shift actually starts in my opinion. Note "The Body," note how much more threatening Glory is than previous Big Bads, etc.

This is a really interesting point. There definitely is a shift between S5 and S6, but I did always feel like a lot of people talk about it like a bigger shift than I felt, and I wonder if this is why. I would argue that the shift happens in early S5 once Buffy has to drop out of school, since the school setting was so integral to the first three seasons and then somewhat carries over to her time in college.

 

[thrasherpix]

As I think it deserves its own thread, I'm going to be (relatively) brief.

I believe season 5 better portrayed how hard real life can be than season 6 did, in part because 6 gets rather silly in multiple ways (from its would-be comedy, the parts where it wants to be serious and "real life" concerns, and its pain porn). Someone close to me who suffered depression would've likely identified more with season 5 Buffy (who talked about not being able to feel anything, being cold and cut off) than the traumatized Buffy of season 6.

Also, season 6 actually has a rather happy ending (granted, Willow is still crying).

Though that said, Buffy walked out of the pit into a scene with a lot of color and I think background singing, which strikes me as another on-the-nose metaphor. I'm surprised that no one seems to think it's dismissive of actual depression. Buffy just needed to have a metaphoric slap and then focus on someone other than herself to get over it. I'd think people with depression would not react well to that, at least if they dealt with people who acted as if depression is just a lifestyle choice who just needed to get over themselves.

 

[NotASlayer]

I could see "Tabula Rasa" as an Ethan episode, although it would be very different from what we got. I did always wish we got more Ethan episodes, though, and I could see this being a good one. I don't know that I could see OMWF as an Ethan episode, though; I think the episode as it stands is very strong, other than the fact that we never follow up on Xander having summoned the demon.

We definitely needed more Ethan episodes, and OMWF is based on chaos. What better sort of thing to link to the follower of the Two-Faced God of Gates... err, Chaos? 😀

I don't like this interpretation. Just to start, I didn't think Buffy's reactions in season seven are a depiction of an abuse victim at all, because the writers still wanted Spike to be a potential love interest and as a result could not explore the actual consequences of abuse in a sensitive and nuanced way because they didn't want to actually acknowledge the abuse. Buffy functionally acts like nothing happened at all, other than some slight hesitation at the start of the season. And I think that describing the season as being about "an abusive male vampire" simplifies the arcs of both Spike and Buffy down to almost nothing.

Yes, Spike is a vampire who has a history of being an abuser, but acting like that's the only thing about him that matters ignores the entire theme of the season, which is asking the question of if redemption is even possible. If you only view him as capable of abuse and nothing else, it answers that question pretty decisively in the negative while also treating any time Buffy trusts him as a manipulated victim running back to him rather than her being a leader who has to make difficult choices about who to trust. I find the idea that Buffy "has been broken by abuse" to be such an awful and depressing way to look at this season, and it's not an idea I find supported by the script.

Spike's S7 behaviour has so many red flags. He should have been dumped as a potential love interest when he raped Buffy. The idea that all someone needs to do is accrue enough brownie points to win his victim is just awful. There were better ways of dealing with redemption, and this was seen in... um, something you haven't watched yet.

There are a lot of new ideas. Are you really going to say there isn't a single episode in S6 that's original?

There is a lot of stuff taken from soap operas. Even the writers admitted that it was not original. Yes, there may have been original parts, but it's essentially a soap opera with vampires crowbarred in. And that the reason why the season was done the way it was, was because they lacked ideas, so cobbled it together without a plan from script ideas never intended for Buffy.

Hello, younger viewer here! I would say the exact opposite about season six, actually. This is a season where Buffy is depressed and doesn't see the point in living, sure, but the point is that, by the end of it, she is getting better. Willow can't cope with grief, not for Buffy and not for Tara, and reaches her darkest point but is still loved by her friends and wants to get better. Spike makes the deliberate choice to get a soul, to try and become someone better--or at least to become someone who can be better. This is not a season about how life has no meaning, it's a season about how life is hard and still worth having.

This also feels a bit like a "kids these days" kind of argument. You find the season depressing, so of course the reason younger viewers like it is because we're just so obsessed with nihilism, right? It couldn't be that some people find comfort in showing a strong character struggling in realistic ways but coming out the other side with hope that they will be alright, right?

Well, I didn't say "all". It is perfectly possible to be younger and not like it, just as it is possible to be younger and like it without being a nihilist.

I believe season 5 better portrayed how hard real life can be than season 6 did

I agree, S5 is far more realistic than S6. Joyce's trauma arc is the most horrifyingly realistic arc on the entire show.

I'm surprised that no one seems to think it's dismissive of actual depression. Buffy just needed to have a metaphoric slap and then focus on someone other than herself to get over it. I'd think people with depression would not react well to that, at least if they dealt with people who acted as if depression is just a lifestyle choice who just needed to get over themselves.

I found the whole handling offensively poor; it's just not something I like to talk about. Vincent and the Doctor handled depression better in a single episode.

The whole "real life" thing was just terrible. Buffy was forced to be unrealistically broke, until they got bored of it, then she wasn't. Buffy was sad, then she wasn't. If you aren't going to try and handle real life things properly, don't do it. All they did was show that Buffy as a series was not up to the task.

 

[CardboardGhost]

Though that said, Buffy walked out of the pit into a scene with a lot of color and I think background singing, which strikes me as another on-the-nose metaphor. I'm surprised that no one seems to think it's dismissive of actual depression. Buffy just needed to have a metaphoric slap and then focus on someone other than herself to get over it. I'd think people with depression would not react well to that, at least if they dealt with people who acted as if depression is just a lifestyle choice who just needed to get over themselves.

I would never have even once thought of it as dismissive, no. Not fully realistic, either, but it's a show about vampires. It's a season that's over the top in the amount of bad things happening, but how Buffy reacts to those situations felt very real to me; she feels like there's something wrong with her because she feels this way, something must have changed, and the scene then Tara tells her no, there's nothing wrong with her. And this doesn't automatically make Buffy better! Hearing this is not necessarily perfectly comforting in the moment. That doesn't feel like a narrative that wants to portray Buffy as just choosing to be miserable and needing to get over it. She's hurt and traumatized, but she's still Buffy and still deserves to be loved. Buffy's behavior in this season is also incredibly self-destructive in a way that also felt very real to me.

We definitely needed more Ethan episodes, and OMWF is based on chaos. What better sort of thing to link to the follower of the Two-Faced God of Gates... err, Chaos? 😀

I mean, it is chaotic, but I'd say it's a slightly different kind of chaos. And one could argue that there's very little that's chaotic about elaborate, organized musical numbers following a coherent structure.

Spike's S7 behaviour has so many red flags. He should have been dumped as a potential love interest when he raped Buffy. The idea that all someone needs to do is accrue enough brownie points to win his victim is just awful. There were better ways of dealing with redemption, and this was seen in... um, something you haven't watched yet.

I agree that his behavior in S7 is awful, and I have never thought that S7's depiction of redemption is satisfying. I was specifically arguing against the idea that there is nothing else to Spike's character in this season apart from being "an abusive male vampire." As badly as he is written, there is still more going on that that.

There is a lot of stuff taken from soap operas. Even the writers admitted that it was not original. Yes, there may have been original parts, but it's essentially a soap opera with vampires crowbarred in. And that the reason why the season was done the way it was, was because they lacked ideas, so cobbled it together without a plan from script ideas never intended for Buffy.

I mean, yes, they were throwing together literally any idea they had lying around, but I don't think that's the same as being "unoriginal." The execution is what matters more so whether or not something is inspired by something else.

The whole "real life" thing was just terrible. Buffy was forced to be unrealistically broke, until they got bored of it, then she wasn't. Buffy was sad, then she wasn't. If you aren't going to try and handle real life things properly, don't do it. All they did was show that Buffy as a series was not up to the task.

The handling of Buffy's finances is one of my biggest criticisms of the season. I agree that it only came up when they wanted it to cause drama, which is exhausting and unrealistic.

I fully disagree that "Buffy was sad, then she wasn't," though. That's not how I remember the season at all and think this ignores how complicated Buffy's feelings are about the things going on--her resurrection, her relationship with Spike, everything going on with Willow... she has a lot of reasons to be incredibly stressed and confused, and she doesn't end the season having fully figured things out, just that she is coming to terms with the fact that these things have happened.

"Life is the big bad" is an idea I really like. I think where it falls flat is the fact that she has other things going on that are significantly worse than just "normal adult life," and we had already seen her as the adult in the house after Joyce died in S5. The show is very capable of showing Buffy as a struggling adult as long as they aren't trying too hard. Once it becomes the focus, things get wonky.

 

[NoShip]

I disagree entirely that large changes are a sign of a failing show and that audiences never react well. Shifts in tone, when executed well, should be a natural progression of what came before and are a really valuable tool for developing characters in new ways.

You can disagree, but, the numbers are decisive. There is no record of a successful TV show making major changes in story-tone-character and remaining successful.

There are a few examples that are forced by circumstance that work out well, but, no examples of choice working out well.

Also, I never said Buffy was failing. I specifically said that Buffy was very successful.

 

[hoponlilmama]

Yes, Spike is a vampire who has a history of being an abuser, but acting like that's the only thing about him that matters ignores the entire theme of the season, which is asking the question of if redemption is even possible. If you only view him as capable of abuse and nothing else, it answers that question pretty decisively in the negative while also treating any time Buffy trusts him as a manipulated victim running back to him rather than her being a leader who has to make difficult choices about who to trust. I find the idea that Buffy "has been broken by abuse" to be such an awful and depressing way to look at this season, and it's not an idea I find supported by the script.

How is a soulless vampire going to achieve 'redemption?'
When Buffy throws him off in SR and says, "Ask me again why I could never love you!" - the soul-getting is about getting back into Buffy's good books. That's not really redemption.

This is a really interesting point. There definitely is a shift between S5 and S6, but I did always feel like a lot of people talk about it like a bigger shift than I felt, and I wonder if this is why. I would argue that the shift happens in early S5 once Buffy has to drop out of school, since the school setting was so integral to the first three seasons and then somewhat carries over to her time in college.

I have asked this very question of tonal shift - if the series remained on the WB for s6, would there have been such a contrast. Would it have gone that dark? Who knows.

I agree that his behavior in S7 is awful, and I have never thought that S7's depiction of redemption is satisfying. I was specifically arguing against the idea that there is nothing else to Spike's character in this season apart from being "an abusive male vampire." As badly as he is written, there is still more going on that that.

What else does Spike have going on in s7?

There's things technically 'going on' (the kidnapping, crazy in the basement, the trigger), but they're not really contributing to his path of 'redemption'.

I mean, yes, they were throwing together literally any idea they had lying around, but I don't think that's the same as being "unoriginal." The execution is what matters more so whether or not something is inspired by something else.


The handling of Buffy's finances is one of my biggest criticisms of the season. I agree that it only came up when they wanted it to cause drama, which is exhausting and unrealistic.

It's almost comical, don't you think? We get to s7 and suddenly it's no longer an issue. 😂

 

[garfan]

As bleak as much of season six is, I feel it actively does the opposite? As bleak and horrid as the events these characters go through are, the cast largely comes out of the other end. There is hope. There is the dawning of a new day. It's darker than seasons 1–4 were, but season 5 is where that shift actually starts in my opinion. Note "The Body," note how much more threatening Glory is than previous Big Bads, etc. This is my perspective as one of those younger viewers in question. Season Six has more than its fair share of problems

Late season 5 does lead into the problems of season six, but honestly the coming out on the other end doesn't feel earned. At least in season 5 they had an enemy they could fight most of the year. They intentionally avoided that in season 6. And hope for the future at the end of season 6? What about Buffy's situation is actually better? Tara is dead, Anya back to being a demon. Willow stopped what she was doing, but at the moment the season ended they don't know how or why.

 

[garfan]

How is a soulless vampire going to achieve 'redemption?'
When Buffy throws him off in SR and says, "Ask me again why I could never love you!" - the soul-getting is about getting back into Buffy's good books. That's not really redemption.

or potentially controlling himself so that he can stay in them. Realizing you need help to solve a problem can be the first step on solving it.

But of course then you have the question of since the soul once absent and the souled vampire didn't exist before that do they need redemption

.




What else does Spike have going on in s7?

There's things technically 'going on' (the kidnapping, crazy in the basement, the trigger), but they're not really contributing to his path of 'redemption'.

things impeding your path to redemption also count as "going on." If fact I would say ME did a better job with putting out things that make it seem like people seeking redemption's path is impeded than saying anything contributed to it. Personally I think the writers were using a trope they didn't necessarily believe it

Post automatically merged: Jan 11, 2026

"Life is the big bad" is an idea I really like. I think where it falls flat is the fact that she has other things going on that are significantly worse than just "normal adult life," and we had already seen her as the adult in the house after Joyce died in S5. The show is very capable of showing Buffy as a struggling adult as long as they aren't trying too hard. Once it becomes the focus, things get wonky.

Everything you said after the first sentence is why the "life if the big bad" is a bad idea for this show

 

[NoShip]

Personally I think the writers were using a trope they didn't necessarily believe it
Post automatically merged: Today at 7:41 AM

I think Whedon and Co did that a lot.

You can almost track Whedon and his favorite writers checking out of BTVS by the show's ever increasing tropeyness.

 

[hoponlilmama]

or potentially controlling himself so that he can stay in them. Realizing you need help to solve a problem can be the first step on solving it.

But of course then you have the question of since the soul once absent and the souled vampire didn't exist before that do they need redemption

As we've seen a soul isn't an automatic road into goodness. We saw so many souled people doing terrible things.

things impeding your path to redemption also count as "going on." If fact I would say ME did a better job with putting out things that make it seem like people seeking redemption's path is impeded than saying anything contributed to it. Personally I think the writers were using a trope they didn't necessarily believe it

Post automatically merged: Jan 11, 2026

Doesn't really track - once he's back (and staying at Xander's), or post-kidnapping, or post being de-triggered, he makes no attempts to apologise to the woman he raped and abused, to the remainder of the Scoobies who he tried to harm (on multiple occasions). Wears the coat of the woman he murdered in front of the son (doesn't apologise to him either, actually).

"I don't give a piss about atonement"

(And for the record, I wish they'd also shown Faith apologising).

Everything you said after the first sentence is why the "life if the big bad" is a bad idea for this show

I wonder what s6 would be like with their more traditional MOTW or having a proper Big Bad (Rack maybe, or Dark Willow)?

 

[CardboardGhost]

How is a soulless vampire going to achieve 'redemption?'

Again, whether or not it's possible for him to achieve redemption is one of the main questions of the season. You seem to be saying that the answer is no, it's not even possible; which is fine, that's your opinion, but the show itself clearly disagrees with you. The fact that you don't like the answer the show gives doesn't mean that nothing of value happened that season.

I didn't like how Spike's redemption arc is written at all. It's inconsistent and never actually deals with him having to confront any of the harm he did beyond feeling a little bad about it. But it happened, and the show ends with him sacrificing himself to save everyone else. And, just for the record, I've never liked the trope of self-sacrifice as redemption, because it feels like taking an easy way out rather than having to actually face consequences; but the sacrifice is there because the writers are using it as a way of telling us that Spike is now someone capable of a "heroic" act. I can believe that it's a flawed view of redemption and also know what the writers' intentions were.

When Buffy throws him off in SR and says, "Ask me again why I could never love you!" - the soul-getting is about getting back into Buffy's good books. That's not really redemption.

Well, yeah. But that's part of what makes it interesting! He gets his soul back for selfish reasons, but having a soul is supposed to make him a "different" person, and that person has more complex motivations. Getting the soul itself is not redemption. Getting the soul sets up his further quest for redemption. It's a starting point, not an end goal.

The show fails by writing Spike as literally exactly the same after getting the soul, but we're supposed to view him as different. This is also my basic issue with Angel and redemption; if he's supposed not the same person when he doesn't have his soul, then why does Angel (with a soul) need to atone? He didn't do that. Why does season seven Spike need to atone for SR? He didn't do that. Allegedly. If you treat SR as something Spike can never, ever come back from, then Angel can never come back from anything he did in season two, either.

What else does Spike have going on in s7?

There's things technically 'going on' (the kidnapping, crazy in the basement, the trigger), but they're not really contributing to his path of 'redemption'.

You don't need the word "technically." These are things going on. They're things that happen to him. Just because none of the things you listed involve him groveling for forgiveness doesn't make them irrelevant. A character's current situation is absolutely relevant.

It's almost comical, don't you think? We get to s7 and suddenly it's no longer an issue. 😂

S6 Buffy has to get a job to pay ever mounting bills, and then in S7 she can feed thirty people as the only employed adult in the house... and she seemingly just stops going to work partway through the season. I guess debt doesn't matter if the town collapses into a crater! 😂

Late season 5 does lead into the problems of season six, but honestly the coming out on the other end doesn't feel earned. At least in season 5 they had an enemy they could fight most of the year. They intentionally avoided that in season 6.

How are these things related? Feeling like you've accomplished something only counts if you have one specific Big Bad to represent all your problems? Buffy has a lot of reasons to feel like she has made progress at the end of S6, namely overcoming her suicidality and ended a toxic sexual relationship. It's not perfect progress, but it's progress. And for someone who is suicidal, any progress can feel groundbreaking. Buffy says multiple times this season that she wants to die. And then she doesn't. She lives and she learns that she is glad she lived. She absolutely struggled to get there. It is very earned that the season ends by saying "Buffy didn't know that she would make it out the other end, and then she did."

And hope for the future at the end of season 6? What about Buffy's situation is actually better? Tara is dead, Anya back to being a demon. Willow stopped what she was doing, but at the moment the season ended they don't know how or why.

Your situation doesn't have to actually be better for you to have hope that it can become better. I'd argue that's a better and more complex ending than just showing everything work out magically at the end.

things impeding your path to redemption also count as "going on."

Exactly. Stories run on conflict, a "redemption arc" doesn't work if it's easy.

Everything you said after the first sentence is why the "life if the big bad" is a bad idea for this show

I don't agree that it's a bad idea. I think it's a good idea that was executed poorly. I gave reasons that I thought this concept failed, but none of those things inherently prevent the writers from making this work. First and foremost, "life as the big bad" can't work if they aren't going to handle real-world issues like money with seriousness and consistency. They could have done that and didn't.

As we've seen a soul isn't an automatic road into goodness. We saw so many souled people doing terrible things.

Of course, but that isn't really what garfan was saying. If vampires are a completely different person than the human they were made from (which the show tells us repeatedly is the case), and Spike gets a human soul, then does he even need redemption for the things the "vampire" did? There will never be a satisfying answer to this because the show has never been consistent about how souls work.

Doesn't really track - once he's back (and staying at Xander's), or post-kidnapping, or post being de-triggered, he makes no attempts to apologise to the woman he raped and abused, to the remainder of the Scoobies who he tried to harm (on multiple occasions).

Well, yeah. That's because the writers often seem like they're trying to convince us that Spike never did anything wrong rather than actually trying to show him becoming a better person. I'll admit that. It's one of the things about S7 I hate. But I do think that it's also important to consider that a verbal apology may not be the only important way to judge whether someone has changed. There's a lot of behavior this season that I think is more damning than the fact that he doesn't say "I'm sorry" verbatim.

Wears the coat of the woman he murdered in front of the son (doesn't apologise to him either, actually).

His treatment of Robin is especially atrocious. It contributes to my above complaint, that the writers just want to act like Spike's behavior is entirely fine. It undermines the arc they're supposedly trying to write.

"I don't give a piss about atonement"

One line taken out of context can't disprove the rest of the season. Sometimes characters lie, or change their mind, or are wrong. Spike is depicted this season as feeling severe guilt and, again, sacrificing himself for the greater good. The fact that he says he doesn't care doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't care.

I wonder what s6 would be like with their more traditional MOTW or having a proper Big Bad (Rack maybe, or Dark Willow)?

Ugh, the idea of Rack as a Big Bad is just exhausting... as if we don't have enough episodes in the buffyverse about how drug addicts are evil.

I don't know that Dark Willow could sustain a full season without making it significantly harder to redeem Willow afterwards. But I assume that a season-long Dark Willow arc would be written completely differently, so maybe it could work.

 

[hoponlilmama]

Again, whether or not it's possible for him to achieve redemption is one of the main questions of the season. You seem to be saying that the answer is no, it's not even possible; which is fine, that's your opinion, but the show itself clearly disagrees with you. The fact that you don't like the answer the show gives doesn't mean that nothing of value happened that season.

Well in s5, it's impossible. And in s6. The writers tell us this with basic vampire lore. The difference is Spuffy fans will think it's possible. All of Spike's 'good deeds' are done for Buffy or to impress her. If Spike had indicated otherwise that he showed any care or compassion to the rest of the Scoobies (s5 & s6) then that might be a different story.

You'll note as soon as Buffy is back from the dead and as soon as he gets into her pants, his big show of helping patrol, fighting the 'good fight' and taking care of Dawn vanish. Pretending to be good and being good are quite different.

I didn't like how Spike's redemption arc is written at all. It's inconsistent and never actually deals with him having to confront any of the harm he did beyond feeling a little bad about it. But it happened, and the show ends with him sacrificing himself to save everyone else. And, just for the record, I've never liked the trope of self-sacrifice as redemption, because it feels like taking an easy way out rather than having to actually face consequences; but the sacrifice is there because the writers are using it as a way of telling us that Spike is now someone capable of a "heroic" act. I can believe that it's a flawed view of redemption and also know what the writers' intentions were.

We can agree on this. It's poorly written. His wearing the amulet he did for Buffy, let's be clear on the matter. He got jealous after seeing Angel.

Well, yeah. But that's part of what makes it interesting! He gets his soul back for selfish reasons, but having a soul is supposed to make him a "different" person, and that person has more complex motivations. Getting the soul itself is not redemption. Getting the soul sets up his further quest for redemption. It's a starting point, not an end goal.

The show fails by writing Spike as literally exactly the same after getting the soul, but we're supposed to view him as different. This is also my basic issue with Angel and redemption; if he's supposed not the same person when he doesn't have his soul, then why does Angel (with a soul) need to atone? He didn't do that. Why does season seven Spike need to atone for SR? He didn't do that. Allegedly. If you treat SR as something Spike can never, ever come back from, then Angel can never come back from anything he did in season two, either.

And he got the soul for all the wrong reasons. What would've been really interesting is Spike getting the soul back and realising he never actually loved Buffy. Now he has to deal with a soul he regrets. But in a season packed with so much, there isn't really time to focus on that kind of arc, unless they'd managed to get to an eighth season.

I don't read the comics but I saw a comment somewhere via social media (and happy to be corrected on this if it's incorrect) Spike apparently admits pre-soul he wasn't in love, but obsessed with Buffy. I don't consider the comics canon, but it's interesting to note that that was mentioned.

The soul makes Angel different and Spike is essentially the same. Writers backing themselves into a corner because no one wants Angel 2.0. Also, It's not merely the AR in SR, it's all the other acts over multiple seasons.

You don't need the word "technically." These are things going on. They're things that happen to him. Just because none of the things you listed involve him groveling for forgiveness doesn't make them irrelevant. A character's current situation is absolutely relevant.

And when he's back he doesn't grovel for forgiveness anyway. He makes zero attempt. ("Can't say I'm sorry") - Uh yes sir, you can. Again, I'd say the same thing about Faith. But her redemption arc was clearer, more defined and better written. Spike's real redemption and growth beings on AtS.

Buffy saying she can "feel" Spike can be a "good man" but yet can't have faith in...erm...Faith? She can't "feel" that? I guess if Buffy had slept with Faith then perhaps she'd have a better understanding. 😉

Side note: all these things happening to Spike were unnecessary in s7. Too much focus on him and so little focus on the rest of the cast.

S6 Buffy has to get a job to pay ever mounting bills, and then in S7 she can feed thirty people as the only employed adult in the house... and she seemingly just stops going to work partway through the season. I guess debt doesn't matter if the town collapses into a crater! 😂

She's lucky to have Xander around to repair the house for free when it's damaged! 😀

Of course, but that isn't really what garfan was saying. If vampires are a completely different person than the human they were made from (which the show tells us repeatedly is the case), and Spike gets a human soul, then does he even need redemption for the things the "vampire" did? There will never be a satisfying answer to this because the show has never been consistent about how souls work.

Angel in Doppelgangland begins telling us otherwise:
Buffy: Willow, just remember, a vampire's personality has nothing to do with the person it was.
Angel: Well, actually...

As you said (and it's something I've also mentioned in the past) if they're two separate beings, why is Angel atoning for the sins of Angelus? The writers screwed up, and you are right there will never really be a 'proper' answer in regards to the above.

Well, yeah. That's because the writers often seem like they're trying to convince us that Spike never did anything wrong rather than actually trying to show him becoming a better person. I'll admit that. It's one of the things about S7 I hate. But I do think that it's also important to consider that a verbal apology may not be the only important way to judge whether someone has changed. There's a lot of behavior this season that I think is more damning than the fact that he doesn't say "I'm sorry" verbatim.


His treatment of Robin is especially atrocious. It contributes to my above complaint, that the writers just want to act like Spike's behavior is entirely fine. It undermines the arc they're supposedly trying to write.

But Spike is showing us he is lacking in the redemption department in both words and actions. He wears the coat of the woman he hunted down and murdered in front of the son. Buffy defends Spike telling Robin that it isn't the same man - I wonder if she'd say differently if Robin told her all the nasty things Spike said in that garage.

Blindly supporting Buffy doesn't mean much because as if the writers are going to show us any different. They're trying to ridiculously build Spuffy, and it's pretty clear.

I believe @NoShip mentioned that the audiences wanted the 'old' Spike back.

One line taken out of context can't disprove the rest of the season. Sometimes characters lie, or change their mind, or are wrong. Spike is depicted this season as feeling severe guilt and, again, sacrificing himself for the greater good. The fact that he says he doesn't care doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't care.

You can't tell me that was taken 'out of context' - that's your opinion, not fact. Especially coupled with all the other stuff he says in that episode alone. He isn't depicted feeling 'severe guilt'. Angel even calls him out on it ("You spent two weeks crazy in a basement!").

By continuing to wear the jacket he stole from the corpse of Robin's mother - and in front of him - that says a lot. He evens mourns its loss over on AtS when it was ruined.

Ugh, the idea of Rack as a Big Bad is just exhausting... as if we don't have enough episodes in the buffyverse about how drug addicts are evil.

I don't know that Dark Willow could sustain a full season without making it significantly harder to redeem Willow afterwards. But I assume that a season-long Dark Willow arc would be written completely differently, so maybe it could work.

I don't think Dark Willow would work for an entire season either!

 

[NoShip]

Again, whether or not it's possible for him to achieve redemption is one of the main questions of the season. You seem to be saying that the answer is no, it's not even possible; which is fine, that's your opinion, but the show itself clearly disagrees with you. The fact that you don't like the answer the show gives doesn't mean that nothing of value happened that season.

When did the show indicate that Spike was redeemed? When Buffy was telling him she believed in him in 'Never Leave Me'?

Because I don't recall the show saying that Spike was redeemed. I do remember Spike's long list of atrocities being ignored as the First & Caleb attacked our heroes. But no redemption memories.

And I am someone who believes that Spike IS without any doubt redeemable.

Post automatically merged: Jan 29, 2026

Why does season seven Spike need to atone for SR? Allegedly. If you treat SR as something Spike can never, ever come back from, then Angel can never come back from anything he did in season two, either.

I completely agree. If I never see Angel or Spike in BTVS again I will be very happy.

Post automatically merged: Jan 29, 2026

Ugh, the idea of Rack as a Big Bad is just exhausting... as if we don't have enough episodes in the buffyverse about how drug addicts are evil.

I don't know that Dark Willow could sustain a full season without making it significantly harder to redeem Willow afterwards. But I assume that a season-long Dark Willow arc would be written completely differently, so maybe it could work.

Rack would have been an AWESOME big bad!!! Look at how he made so many people's skin crawl. He had depth & complexity & layers & layers & layers. Plus Jeff Kober is a really good actor. He could carry a season.

Spending S7 redeeming Willow would have been so much more interesting than redeeming Spike. So many more stories. Best of all, Willow is a core part of Buffy. No need to cut the Scoobies out to make room for Spike. Willow is a critical part of all the Scoobies lives and all would have moved heaven & earth to help her while with Spike, Buffy was the only Scoobie who gave a damn.

 

[hoponlilmama]

Spending S7 redeeming Willow would have been so much more interesting than redeeming Spike. So many more stories. Best of all, Willow is a core part of Buffy. No need to cut the Scoobies out to make room for Spike. Willow is a critical part of all the Scoobies lives and all would have moved heaven & earth to help her while with Spike, Buffy was the only Scoobie who gave a damn.

This discussion has made me realise that the First kidnapping Willow would've been better and made more sense to the story. The First knows she's a powerful witch (as an all-seeing entity it likely saw and 'felt' her actions in s6 that she has the power to end the world!) who will likely be of important use in the battle against evil.

 

[NoShip]

The show fails by writing Spike as literally exactly the same after getting the soul, but we're supposed to view him as different. This is also my basic issue with Angel and redemption; if he's supposed not the same person when he

Spike did not start S7 as the same person. He was quiet and withdrawn and wore normal clothing (no leather overcoat taken from the still warm corpse of Nikki Wood). His personality was not the Spike we had come to know. Spike was shown to be different.

His fandom freaked. This was not "their" Spike. And, because BTVS was in the middle of losing 20% of its audience, the show responded. And we got Spike reclaiming his metaphorical necklace of human ears (and his scummy attitude) in "Get It Done".

While I don't defend Whedon & Co much, in this case, they had a very different arc planned and the loudest voices in the audience thunderously rejected it. So, we got what we got.

 

[CardboardGhost]

Well in s5, it's impossible. And in s6. The writers tell us this with basic vampire lore.

But, as established, they contradict this lore constantly.

The difference is Spuffy fans will think it's possible.

I mean, not all Spuffy fans. I don't really believe in the idea of "earning" forgiveness in the first place, personally; I think Spike is capable of becoming a better person, and I think that if he genuinely did that, then Buffy would probably forgive him, but that's not the same as believing it's possible for him to "make up" for what he did. I don't think he can. And he has to live with that.

I'm specifically arguing against the idea that the show does nothing to redeem him in the final season and that Spike is purely abusive with no good qualities, period. The writers were (at least in theory) trying to give him a redemption arc, and I'm pushing back against the idea that it's impossible to watch the season and walk away from it understanding that Spike is supposed to be "a good man" by the end of it. I think it takes a lot of wishful thinking to get that conclusion, because, as we've already agreed on, this arc is written very badly, but it is an arc that happened.

All of Spike's 'good deeds' are done for Buffy or to impress her. If Spike had indicated otherwise that he showed any care or compassion to the rest of the Scoobies (s5 & s6) then that might be a different story.

You'll note as soon as Buffy is back from the dead and as soon as he gets into her pants, his big show of helping patrol, fighting the 'good fight' and taking care of Dawn vanish. Pretending to be good and being good are quite different.

Why are things that happen before he gets his soul (before the official start of his "redemption arc") being taken into account as examples of how he's bad? Of course he does everything for bad reasons and doesn't care about anyone else; he's an evil vampire with no soul. It would be much more relevant to bring up how he treats the Scoobies after getting a soul, because it's still bad.

I genuinely just don't think Spike's behavior pre-S7 should be the determining factor on whether his redemption is earned. It's not a contradiction of the redemption arc, it's the reason he needs to be redeemed in to first place.

What would've been really interesting is Spike getting the soul back and realising he never actually loved Buffy. Now he has to deal with a soul he regrets. But in a season packed with so much, there isn't really time to focus on that kind of arc, unless they'd managed to get to an eighth season.

You're right, that would've been really interesting! I doubt they would have ever taken it in this direction even if they had the time, but having Spike's feelings on Buffy be very distinct before and after getting the soul would really help it feel like something has actually changed; I also like the idea of a newly soulled Spike having a lot of self-directed anger about it rather than being self-pitying, which would also distinguish him from Angel.

I don't read the comics but I saw a comment somewhere via social media (and happy to be corrected on this if it's incorrect) Spike apparently admits pre-soul he wasn't in love, but obsessed with Buffy. I don't consider the comics canon, but it's interesting to note that that was mentioned.

I haven't read the comics, but I agree that's an important thing to note. I don't even necessarily disagree, but I don't see how it's relevant here? Again, him doing things for the wrong reason before season seven doesn't really hold weight as an argument that he doesn't really have a redemption arc in season seven.

The soul makes Angel different and Spike is essentially the same. Writers backing themselves into a corner because no one wants Angel 2.0. Also, It's not merely the AR in SR, it's all the other acts over multiple seasons.

I agree that's not the only important factor, I mentioned that one specifically because you brought it up. I wasn't trying to imply that SR is the only episode that matters when determining if Spike can or can't be redeemed.

But the "Angel is different and Spike is the same" thing only works as an explanation of why the writing takes such a downturn in quality. It doesn't explain anything in-universe about why Angel is forgiven for things he did without a soul while Spike can't be. Angelus canonically did just as many evil things as Spike, and also tried to start an apocalypse, and we accept that he's capable of being redeemed. It's one thing to say Spike's behavior doesn't prove that he's changed; it doesn't. But it's another to say that Spike is incapable of being redeemed. Why is it impossible for him but not for Angel? The Doylist answer is that the writers wrote themselves into corners. I've never heard a satisfying Watsonian answer.

And when he's back he doesn't grovel for forgiveness anyway. He makes zero attempt. ("Can't say I'm sorry") - Uh yes sir, you can.

And I'm making the point that this really doesn't matter as much as you're making it out to be. If I may reference a non-Whedon media for a moment, I think The Magnus Archives took a really interesting stance on redemption when the protagonist befriends someone who tried to kill him and then at her funeral states that she never asked for forgiveness because she knew she couldn't earn it. She just... quietly changed her behavior. And that meant more. Apologies can often be performative, so I don't think the lack of one is definitive proof that Spike hasn't changed. His actual behavior is a much better indicator than that.

Buffy saying she can "feel" Spike can be a "good man" but yet can't have faith in...erm...Faith? She can't "feel" that? I guess if Buffy had slept with Faith then perhaps she'd have a better understanding. 😉

It often seems like that would have fixed a lot of her problems... or at least given her different ones.

Side note: all these things happening to Spike were unnecessary in s7. Too much focus on him and so little focus on the rest of the cast.

Very much agree here.

But Spike is showing us he is lacking in the redemption department in both words and actions. He wears the coat of the woman he hunted down and murdered in front of the son. Buffy defends Spike telling Robin that it isn't the same man - I wonder if she'd say differently if Robin told her all the nasty things Spike said in that garage.

This episode is so awful for the way it basically ruins Robin's characterization to prop up Spike😒 it's a shame because I really like the flashback sequences in it, but the ending just makes all of it into such a waste of time.

You can't tell me that was taken 'out of context' - that's your opinion, not fact.

It's definitionally out of context. You quoted one line, and in order to get the surrounding context I would have to look up the scene (because I don't have every episode memorized or anything like that; I've seen the show one time). "Taking things out of context" is often used to mean twisting the meaning of something, so I understand that this may have come across as accusatory, but I did genuinely mean that you literally quoted one singular line without other context and as a result I can't respond to it.

Especially coupled with all the other stuff he says in that episode alone.

I don't remember what else was said in this episode and you didn't include it. That's what I meant by it being out of context. I don't remember when this was said or why. I barely even remember what order major plot points happened in S7, let alone specific conversations.

He isn't depicted feeling 'severe guilt'. Angel even calls him out on it ("You spent two weeks crazy in a basement!").

The scene in the church sure felt like guilt to me. I don't know that I trust Angel's opinions, especially regarding when Spike first gets his soul on account of Angel not being there.

By continuing to wear the jacket he stole from the corpse of Robin's mother - and in front of him - that says a lot. He evens mourns its loss over on AtS when it was ruined.

I agree that this is a jerk move but you seem really fixated on the jacket. Personally I don't think stealing a jacket is the worst thing Spike ever did.

When did the show indicate that Spike was redeemed? When Buffy was telling him she believed in him in 'Never Leave Me'?

There's not one clear moment, partially because the writers don't seem to have really thought about how to redeem Spike. I tend to think of his death in "Chosen" as the moment where we are meant to see him as redeemed, but Buffy seems to be thinking of him more positively a bit before that. On the one hand, I'd say it's realistic that there's no one moment where it feels like a switch is flipped and he's definitely a good person now, but that only works if we see him struggling to make the right choices. He seems pretty content to just keep doing what he does.

Rack would have been an AWESOME big bad!!! Look at how he made so many people's skin crawl. He had depth & complexity & layers & layers & layers. Plus Jeff Kober is a really good actor. He could carry a season.

He probably could, but I can't see them doing this plotline without it becoming an even more on-the-nose metaphor about how drugs are bad. The magic-is-drugs plotline as it exists is already kind of exhausting, I'm not really on board with making the magic drug dealer into the big bad and making that plot even more centric.

Spending S7 redeeming Willow would have been so much more interesting than redeeming Spike. So many more stories. Best of all, Willow is a core part of Buffy. No need to cut the Scoobies out to make room for Spike. Willow is a critical part of all the Scoobies lives and all would have moved heaven & earth to help her while with Spike, Buffy was the only Scoobie who gave a damn.

I mean, Willow does get some episodes this season! A lot of the episodes I remember most clearly have really strong Willow plots (and one of my favorite Spike scenes this season, when he's in the basement and having two conversations at once, is related to Willow dealing with the guilt of her actions in S6). It would have been nice to have a little more focus on the Scoobies in general, though.

Spike did not start S7 as the same person. He was quiet and withdrawn and wore normal clothing (no leather overcoat taken from the still warm corpse of Nikki Wood). His personality was not the Spike we had come to know. Spike was shown to be different.

His fandom freaked. This was not "their" Spike. And, because BTVS was in the middle of losing 20% of its audience, the show responded.

This is a good point. I think this gets somewhat missed because this happens simultaneously with the period of time where he's in the basement, so some of the more subtle changes in his behavior and wardrobe are kind of easy to not notice in favor of his cryptic speech.

That said, I have a hard time believing they actually, definitely had this perfectly good Spike redemption arc ready to go and then got scared. They may have had some plans that got scrapped, but S6 is proof that there really weren't any plans after S5 and the inconsistency of the vampire lore by this point means that any redemption arc was going to be full of holes anyway.

 

[hoponlilmama]

But, as established, they contradict this lore constantly.

Correct, so going by their original vamp lore, a soulless demon cannot feel what a human with a soul feels. They bent the rules because Spike became so popular, contradicting themselves.

To be honest and for the record, I'm happy Spike stuck around and wasn't killed off in s2. He was a great addition to the series! He grabbed my attention immediately - not just for his looks - but that is a very pleasant bonus. 😁
He's my favourite character in the series.

It is after s4 where things go pear shaped with him.

I mean, not all Spuffy fans. I don't really believe in the idea of "earning" forgiveness in the first place, personally; I think Spike is capable of becoming a better person, and I think that if he genuinely did that, then Buffy would probably forgive him, but that's not the same as believing it's possible for him to "make up" for what he did. I don't think he can. And he has to live with that.

For the most part, I agree. I do think people can 'earn' forgiveness though. Earning that comes with regaining trust, showing change with words and actions, re-establishing a connection, it all intertwines.

I'm specifically arguing against the idea that the show does nothing to redeem him in the final season and that Spike is purely abusive with no good qualities, period. The writers were (at least in theory) trying to give him a redemption arc, and I'm pushing back against the idea that it's impossible to watch the season and walk away from it understanding that Spike is supposed to be "a good man" by the end of it. I think it takes a lot of wishful thinking to get that conclusion, because, as we've already agreed on, this arc is written very badly, but it is an arc that happened.

It's an arc that happened, it was not done very well, and carried out for all the wrong reasons.

As a few members here have pointed out in other posts, though we begin to see Spike show true signs of altruism in s5 of AtS, he's still acting like a jerk, one example being dragging Harmony initially AGAINST HER WILL to have sex with him. After what he did to Buffy - yeah...doesn't look good. Brushes aside his atrocities.

We have Angel feeling the heavy burden of all he's done, continuing to fight the good fight and Spike is back his old self, because no one wants to see him as a brooding vampire (neither in BTVS or AtS). He SHOULD be feeling the weight of his century plus of mayhem, but that is not conveyed to the viewers.

Again - down to the writers. It's so inconsistent.

Why are things that happen before he gets his soul (before the official start of his "redemption arc") being taken into account as examples of how he's bad? Of course he does everything for bad reasons and doesn't care about anyone else; he's an evil vampire with no soul. It would be much more relevant to bring up how he treats the Scoobies after getting a soul, because it's still bad

I genuinely just don't think Spike's behavior pre-S7 should be the determining factor on whether his redemption is earned. It's not a contradiction of the redemption arc, it's the reason he needs to be redeemed in to first place.

Because there are people who believe that his redemption began in s5. I think all of Spike's story is relevant and up for discussion. If he's defended for being 'unique' and feeling things (which again, can't happen without a soul) then it counts. I personally believe his real redemption story began over on Angel.

I haven't read the comics, but I agree that's an important thing to note. I don't even necessarily disagree, but I don't see how it's relevant here? Again, him doing things for the wrong reason before season seven doesn't really hold weight as an argument that he doesn't really have a redemption arc in season seven.

I never said there wasn't an attempt at a redemption arc in s7. It's just a very poor one, even if you cast aside s5 & s6, his redemption journey (getting the soul) was done for all the wrong reasons. It wasn't noble, it was for a woman.

We likely would've seen more of this growth if BTVS had had an eighth season, a sixth season of AtS, or the planned Spike (or Faith) spin-off. Alas, it wasn't to be.

But the "Angel is different and Spike is the same" thing only works as an explanation of why the writing takes such a downturn in quality. It doesn't explain anything in-universe about why Angel is forgiven for things he did without a soul while Spike can't be. Angelus canonically did just as many evil things as Spike, and also tried to start an apocalypse, and we accept that he's capable of being redeemed. It's one thing to say Spike's behavior doesn't prove that he's changed; it doesn't. But it's another to say that Spike is incapable of being redeemed. Why is it impossible for him but not for Angel? The Doylist answer is that the writers wrote themselves into corners. I've never heard a satisfying Watsonian answer.

I'd be asking Giles and Xander if all is forgiven with Angel. They might've reluctantly accepted him back into the fold but there was always a feeling of uneasiness there. Angel in s3 struggled with his return and actions. He's shown though continuously helping others, fighting the good fight, actively showing he wants to be redeemed to help all - not just doing so for Buffy.

Now is Spike incapable of redemption? No, but as long as it's done for all the right reasons. The Spuffy tie-in is the issue. If they'd left that out and perhaps created a different story - something like, Spike goes to get his chip out in s5 (or s6) and is tricked and given a soul. That would've been interesting all on its own.

And I'm making the point that this really doesn't matter as much as you're making it out to be. If I may reference a non-Whedon media for a moment, I think The Magnus Archives took a really interesting stance on redemption when the protagonist befriends someone who tried to kill him and then at her funeral states that she never asked for forgiveness because she knew she couldn't earn it. She just... quietly changed her behavior. And that meant more. Apologies can often be performative, so I don't think the lack of one is definitive proof that Spike hasn't changed. His actual behavior is a much better indicator than that.

The only person he's really 'friendly' with is Buffy. The rest of the gang he basically treats with contempt or doesn't even bother to interact with. Which was kinda the way he acted pre-soul anyway. Not much has changed.

It's definitionally out of context. You quoted one line, and in order to get the surrounding context I would have to look up the scene (because I don't have every episode memorized or anything like that; I've seen the show one time). "Taking things out of context" is often used to mean twisting the meaning of something, so I understand that this may have come across as accusatory, but I did genuinely mean that you literally quoted one singular line without other context and as a result I can't respond to it.


I don't remember what else was said in this episode and you didn't include it. That's what I meant by it being out of context. I don't remember when this was said or why. I barely even remember what order major plot points happened in S7, let alone specific conversations.

I don't have every episode memorised either (wish I did, that would be handy!). And your tone wasn't accusatory at all, we're having a discussion. 🙂
Some stuff I can recall easily, others I have to look up. In this case, I've made an error and I apologise because I've muddled up where that line appeared - my mistake!
He says to Robin: "I don't give a piss about your mum" (the "I don't give a piss about atonement" quote was said over at AtS). Nevertheless, my point still stands.

But for some context, in the episode Lies My Parents Told Me, this is a snippet from what we get from ol' William:

"I don't give a piss about your mum"
"That's the way the game is played" - 'Game' is harsh and heartless.
"She knew what she was signing up for" - Slayers don't 'sign up'. Spike of all people should know this.
"You didn't sign up for it and so now it's my fault" - Well, yes. You killed his mother.
"You see, unlike you, I had a mother who loved me back" - Further twisting the knife in. And completely false, there's nothing to indicate that Nikki didn't love her son.

Not a person feeling 'severe guilt'.

The scene in the church sure felt like guilt to me. I don't know that I trust Angel's opinions, especially regarding when Spike first gets his soul on account of Angel not being there.

I don't deny that. But as you may or may not know, that scene was re-written and paints Spike in a more sympathetic light. It's well acted by James, and shot brilliantly, but I find it troubling that we have Buffy shed a tear over her abuser and rapist. But 'severe guilt' exhibited throughout the season? I don't see it. Perhaps you do.

And correct, Angel wasn't there. So someone has filled him in on Spike's return to Sunnydale and his timeline. Someone has told him Spike went 'crazy in a basement' for a couple of weeks and then was pretty much back to Spike pre-soul. We as the audience also observe it.

We get some insight to what Spike and Angel feel when they have a couple of conversations over on AtS. I loved those, however brief they were.

I agree that this is a jerk move but you seem really fixated on the jacket. Personally I don't think stealing a jacket is the worst thing Spike ever did.

I'm not 'fixated' on a jacket. I merely gave an example to the above that apparently Spike really cares, when his actions and words show otherwise. By the by, this isn't some random jacket he swiped from a shop. It's a trophy he took from a woman he hunted down and killed. And then wears it in front of Robin. How do you think that makes him feel? Not great, I imagine.

For all the evidence that is there that defends Spike, there's also the same amount there to contradict it.

We both agree that the writers screwed up. Too many contradictions and inconsistencies, not establishing a plan, and writers divided - this is what happens when you keep a character around (Joss and James would even talk about the fact they had no idea what to do with Spike) and throw several things at a wall and see what sticks. It also shows us that pandering to a certain audience and a re-hashing of old stories (vamp in love with a Slayer) damaged Spike's character and as a member here once said, put a noose around the series.

 

[NoShip]

That said, I have a hard time believing they actually, definitely had this perfectly good Spike redemption arc ready to go and then got scared. They may have had some plans that got scrapped, but S6 is proof that there really weren't any plans after S5 and the inconsistency of the vampire lore by this point means that any redemption arc was going to be full of holes anyway.

You are basically correct. Marti Noxon was no Joss Whedon. She did not obsessively outline a season for years before filming it. She liked to know where the season would end and then more or less make it up as she went along. She was also all about horrible romances rather than the horror-comedy-adventure aesthetic of Whedon. Those are the main reasons S6 & S7 were total messes.

The "plan" for Spike was basically to turn him into a "normal guy". Clothes, attitude, interactions with others. The idea was that getting his soul back fundamentally broke him and he had to completely remake himself.

Spike's fans without reservation despised the "new" Spike. They were so vocal about no longer watching Buffy (at the exact same time that Buffy's ratings were crashing) that UPN demanded changes and Fox forced Whedon-Noxon to comply.

Once any TV show loses its ratings luster, it also loses its autonomy. Executive interference becomes an almost daily occurance.

Having said all that, the absolute biggest driver of S7's narrative meltdown was Gellar's refusal to sign up for S8 despite the arrogant conviction of Whedon and the Mutant Enemy & Fox execs that Gellar would be enticed/coerced to do so.

 

[NoShip]

Of course not everyone is going to like a huge change, and the shift in Buffy is certainly one that a lot of people really didn't like, but I think reducing it to saying "of course people didn't like season six, because it's near impossible for a show to make a shift that big without losing a lot of the audience" is too simple.

The analysis and conclusion is simple. Why? Because the tv ratings and behind the scenes articles in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter or TV Guide or People Magazine are publically available. So are articles critical of major changes on the front end.

Making major changes when not needed and failing is common enough that a Trope is named for it: The "Cousin Oliver Problem". Anyone can look it up.

Post automatically merged: Jan 31, 2026

I still don't agree with the idea that Buffy "broke down." It changed. Change can be neutral. You don't like that change, but, by your own admission, there are a lot of people who do.

If you look at the ratings and market research from 2001-2002, S6 was a disaster. About 70% of the audience disliked to hated it. They only kept watching because they could not believe that the most famous Joss Whedon protoge was that terrible. Everyone thought the show would turn around and it didn't.

About 10% liked to loved S6 in 2001-2002. Since then a lot of Millenials and Gen Z have discovered Buffy and S6 has become more popular. How much more popular? No one knows because there are no ratings or market analyses done for reruns. The streamers could give out excellent viewership numbers but they refuse to give out proprietary information.

The IMDB ratings that many posters like to quote are B.S. because they are nothing more than self-selected popularity contests.