See, this made my Spike hate go through the roof. Spike killed Wood's mother. This would have been a perfect opportunity to show that Spike had changed if he had shown remorse for the killing. If he had said, "I'm a different man now." Instead he takes back Wood's mother coat and Wood basically gets told by Buffy that Spike's life is worth more than Wood's. WTF? That pissed me off and showed me that souled Spike was no different than old Spike and it made me say, "Where'd our Buffy go and who is this heartless beyotch in her place?"
See, I loved that scene. I love that Spike's not all Angelriffic over his past. Besides, if he DID tell Wood, "I'm a different man now," I doubt Wood have gotten the message, and most of this board would have been howling "THEY'RE TELLING NOT SHOWING!!!" HEre, they DID show...they show'd that Spike has changed in some ways--I mean, Wood's alive--and in other ways, he really hasn't. As to Buffy, that I didn't care quite as much for, but she was (justifiably) angry, and I took it as a bit of overstatement to get her point across.
I wouldn't mind it so much if there was no Spuffy. That Buffy's got his back in these cases just kills me. I hate it.
Not to mention he had Giles' support. Wood was justified. I'd think that part of having a soul would be showing regret or remorse for the evil you'd done (see Angel).
In the Buffyverse philosophy of good and evil, within the moral framework of the Buffyverse, how was Wood justified? Wood was seeking vengeance. The Buffyverse philosophy so abhors vengeance that vengeance has its own demons to do it's bidding, that there are curses made out of vengeance, etc.
Besides, if he DID tell Wood, "I'm a different man now," I doubt Wood have gotten the message, and most of this board would have been howling "THEY'RE TELLING NOT SHOWING!!!" HEre, they DID show...they show'd that Spike has changed in some ways--I mean, Wood's alive--and in other ways, he really hasn't. As to Buffy, that I didn't care quite as much for, but she was (justifiably) angry, and I took it as a bit of overstatement to get her point across.
Wood already knew Spike was a different man now. That's pretty much why he triggered Spike, and darn near said as much.
Well, Spike is a vampire. Wood has dedicated his life to killing vampires. Justified.
Okay, then explain why the m-effer took back Wood's dead mother's coat - that's pretty damned low.
He didn't take it from Wood, did he? I thought it was at the school, which I didn't get, but it's not like Spike said, "hey, I didn"t kill you, but hand over your mother's coat."
Well, Spike is a vampire. Wood has dedicated his life to killing vampires. Justified.
Nikki was a human. Spike was an unsouled vampire. Their reason for being - the way they stay alive - is to kill humans. Does that mean all along, all these vampires have been justified?
If I make it my mission to eat all the chocolate in the world, am I justified if I take chocolate from you?
edited to expand on this...
I'm not saying Wood's desire and attempt to kill Spike were not understandable. But there's a huge gulf between understandable (and even sympathetic) and justified.
The Buffyverse philosophy so abhors vengeance that vengeance has its own demons to do it's bidding, that there are curses made out of vengeance, etc.
Ohmygoodness. That's true. And I've managed to completely miss that for all this time. I'm really dense.
eta: thank you.
Ohmygoodness. That's true. And I've managed to completely miss that for all this time. I'm really dense.
That's why nobody staked Spike after he got the chip.
Well, Spike is a vampire. Wood has dedicated his life to killing vampires. Justified.
If Wood kills Angel in the season finale is that justified? I would be pretty pissed. And Angel spent a large portion of his life as an evil-murdering vampire.
