Why Spike is and isn't a serial killer. (No spoilers)
Elisi
topic really has nothing to do with SR directly, I thought I'd just
make a new thread.
A few of you have been latched onto the 'Spike is a serial killer'
thing, pointing out that this actually comes from the show itself. The
only example I can remember is 'Crush'. But Spike is called a lot of
other things in that particular episode as well:
BUFFY: Angel's different. He has a soul.
DAWN: Spike has a chip. Same diff.
HARMONY: Oh. Well, (walks toward Dru) you've got some nerve showing up
here like this. After all this time. After breaking my sweet boo-boo's
heart.
DRUSILLA: Electricity lies, Spike. It tells you you're not a bad dog,
but you are.
All of these girls/women are projecting their own ideas onto Spike.
Dawn thinks that because he's nice to her, he's as good as souled.
Harmony wants him to be her 'sweet boo-boo' (please someone argue in
favour of this?), Dru says that he's still the vicious animal he used
to be.
None of the statements above are 'true' as such. They say more about
the speaker, than about Spike himself. Which isn't surprising in an
episode that seeks to find out just how much Spike really has changed.
Is he just like Angel now? Is he still bad?
Anyway, then we get to the conversation with Buffy. Here it is with the
'serial killer' line _in context_:
BUFFY: Please! Spike, you're a vampire.
SPIKE: Angel was a vampire.
BUFFY: Angel was good!
SPIKE: And I can be too. I've changed, Buffy.
BUFFY: What, that chip in your head? That's not change. Tha-that's just
... holding you back. You're like a serial killer in prison!
SPIKE: Women marry 'em all the time!
BUFFY: Uhh!
SPIKE: (realizing that's not what he meant) But I'm not ... like that.
Something's happening to me. I can't stop thinking about you.
BUFFY: Uhh. (turns away)
SPIKE: And if that means turning my back on the whole evil thing-
BUFFY: (turns back) You don't know what you mean! You don't know what
feelings are!
SPIKE: (offended) I damn well do! I lie awake every night!
BUFFY: You sleep during the day!
SPIKE: Yeah, but - (through his teeth) You are missing the point. This
is real here. I love-
BUFFY: Don't!
Buffy is overwhelmed by what Spike is saying. She's scrabbling for some
way of explaining to Spike why she would never ever consider dating
him. The serial killer line is apt, but it's all in the context of the
chip. This says a lot about how Buffy views Spike (and vampires in
general). They're like serial killers and it's her job to stop them.
The chip is the equivalent of prison, which is why she doesn't stake
him as long as it works - he's safely contained as far as she is
concerned.
It's a nice, simple analogy, and does its job well. But - it's not good
as a general way of describing vampires. The phrase 'serial killer' has
an awful lot of connotations. That can't be helped, and whenever
someone uses the phrase, all those connotations come into play. Most of
those connotations _do not_ fit Spike or any other vampire. BtVS isn't
CSI, and doesn't try to be. It's not called 'Buffy the Teen Vigilante'.
The things is, vampires don't just kill people. They eat them - and the
consuming part has definite sexual overtones. To quote Spike himself:
'Out of My Mind':
BUFFY: Spike ... I just saw you taste your own nose blood, you know
what? I'm too grossed out to hear anything you have to say. Go home.
SPIKE: It's blood! It's what I do!
'The Gift':
SPIKE: Blood is life, lackbrain. Why do you think we eat it? It's what
keeps you going. Makes you warm. Makes you hard. Makes you other than
dead.
Vampires are dead, feeding of the life of the living to keep going -
it's parasitic. Animal like. It's no wonder that they're linked to
bats.
And they are demons - terrors lurking in the night, monsters living
outside the confines of human law and life. ("Become a vampire, you've
got nothing to fear. Nothing but one girl.")
But there is another side to this: The inherent attraction in something
dark and forbidden and dangerous. As Spring Summers puts it in her FFL
analysis:
"Death is Spike and Spike is Death and Sex is Spike and Spike is Sex
and Death is so damned Sexy."
Vampires are sexy. They seduce their prey - just look at Spike's very
first victim in Sunnydale - Sheila. He charms her, and makes _her_
follow _him_. But he doesn't kill her - he brings her home to Dru. She
needs to eat something.
To vampires, people are food. And sometimes they play with it, but it
all comes from what they are. They are just doing what comes naturally.
Hence the animal metaphors. A cat playing with a mouse.
Serial killers are humans who've become screwed up beyond normal
understanding. They're doing what's very _unnatural_ for a human.
They're sick.
That's why the analogy doesn't work very well. It's comparing say...
apples (serial killers) and fish (vampires). Saying that both can be a
source of nourishment bypasses all the reasons that they're different
which is very unhelpful when discussing things particular to fish such
as gills, scales and fins.
That's all I've got time for. I hope that makes sense. :)
Ken from Chicago
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156694053....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> To vampires, people are food. And sometimes they play with it, but it
> all comes from what they are. They are just doing what comes naturally.
> Hence the animal metaphors. A cat playing with a mouse.
>
> Serial killers are humans who've become screwed up beyond normal
> understanding. They're doing what's very _unnatural_ for a human.
> They're sick.
>
> That's why the analogy doesn't work very well. It's comparing say...
> apples (serial killers) and fish (vampires). Saying that both can be a
> source of nourishment bypasses all the reasons that they're different
> which is very unhelpful when discussing things particular to fish such
> as gills, scales and fins.
>
> That's all I've got time for. I hope that makes sense. :)
Serial killers kill one at a time in a series.
That's a literal interpretation of the term "serial" "killer".
"Serial killers" is a phrase as I and you have pointed out has many
connotations attached to it. Hunters and fishers are serial killers in a
literal sense in that they tend to kill animals one at a time (unless they
kill multiple animals at once). Again, it doesn't fit the meaning most
people have for the phrase in common parlance "serial killers".
However the reason why many people would have no problem with the comparison
of vampires with serial killers is that one of many connotations attached to
"serial killers" is "animals" or "inhuman".
In seeking to distance oneself from the worst of humanity we often demonize
them, attempt to strip them of their humanity, be it serial killers,
rapists, child molestors, terrorists, dictators, Green Bay packer fans,
Biley shippers, et. al. And yet the simple unappealing truth is they too are
people too.
Buffyvamps are not humans. However they are killers, very often serially.
Moreover many of them do fit the connotation of "serial killer", targeting
prey, stalking their prey, hunting them down, sometimes capturing and
"playing with" them, and, eventually, killing them.
Not all, some just kill whoever's available at random. For many people that
would be worse, someone or something just killing at random. In those cases,
vampires would be considered WORSE than "merely' "serial killers".
-- Ken from Chicago
lili...@gmail.com
But even aside of that, even if we do use human terms for vampires,
there's the fact that Spike still woudln't be a serial killer. Spike's
a massmurderer, where as Angelus much more fits the traditional idea of
a serial killer.
To Spike his individual victims are easily forgotten, where as Angelus
would seek out specific victims and kill others just to cause more pain
to the victim he's specifically picked out.
It's a small difference, but it's still there*g*
Lore
Ken from Chicago
<lili...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156746059....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
And arguing about the difference between a mass murderer and a serial killer
(which I agree that Spike is more of a mass murderer) is arguing
insignificant differences. When Buffy made the comparison of Spike to a
serial killer, she could have said mass murderer and repeat murderer and it
would have fit the bill.
-- Ken from Chicago
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> And arguing about the difference between a mass murderer and a serial killer
> (which I agree that Spike is more of a mass murderer) is arguing
> insignificant differences. When Buffy made the comparison of Spike to a
> serial killer, she could have said mass murderer and repeat murderer and it
> would have fit the bill.
one of the reasons for the darpa autonomous vehicle challenge
is the possiblity of autonomous fighting vehicle
if an autonomous fighting vehicle kills civilians is it a mass murderer?
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
there can only be one or two
Ken from Chicago
"mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-E61DC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <y6Kdnc0MQYUbN2_Z...@comcast.com>,
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> And arguing about the difference between a mass murderer and a serial
>> killer
>> (which I agree that Spike is more of a mass murderer) is arguing
>> insignificant differences. When Buffy made the comparison of Spike to a
>> serial killer, she could have said mass murderer and repeat murderer and
>> it
>> would have fit the bill.
>
> one of the reasons for the darpa autonomous vehicle challenge
> is the possiblity of autonomous fighting vehicle
>
> if an autonomous fighting vehicle kills civilians is it a mass murderer?
Yes.
> meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
> major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
> there can only be one or two
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Stanley would be a great robocar once they work out the kinks--and get
the price down to 5 digits.
Rowan Hawthorn
> "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mair_fheal-E61DC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <y6Kdnc0MQYUbN2_Z...@comcast.com>,
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And arguing about the difference between a mass murderer and a serial
>>> killer
>>> (which I agree that Spike is more of a mass murderer) is arguing
>>> insignificant differences. When Buffy made the comparison of Spike to a
>>> serial killer, she could have said mass murderer and repeat murderer and
>>> it
>>> would have fit the bill.
>> one of the reasons for the darpa autonomous vehicle challenge
>> is the possiblity of autonomous fighting vehicle
>>
>> if an autonomous fighting vehicle kills civilians is it a mass murderer?
>
> Yes.
>
No, but the people who build and implement it are.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Don Sample
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
> > "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:mair_fheal-E61DC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> In article <y6Kdnc0MQYUbN2_Z...@comcast.com>,
> >> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And arguing about the difference between a mass murderer and a
> >>> serial killer (which I agree that Spike is more of a mass
> >>> murderer) is arguing insignificant differences. When Buffy made
> >>> the comparison of Spike to a serial killer, she could have said
> >>> mass murderer and repeat murderer and it would have fit the bill.
> >> one of the reasons for the darpa autonomous vehicle challenge
> >> is the possiblity of autonomous fighting vehicle
> >>
> >> if an autonomous fighting vehicle kills civilians is it a mass murderer?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> No, but the people who build and implement it are.
No, the people who sent it into the situation where it killed the
civilians might be murderers (or might not, depending on the
circumstances.) We are a long way from making a machine with the
ability to distinguish right from wrong.
If you are going to pin the blame on the people who designed and built
it, then everyone involved in designing and building any sort of weapons
are mass murderers.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Rowan Hawthorn
I said "built and implemented."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And I stand by that. A .45 automatic requires a human mind and body to
fulfill its function. It cannot act on its own, and the responsibility
for acts committed with it rests squarely on the shoulders of the
shooter, no one else - because without the shooter, the gun is useless.
An "autonomous fighting vehicle," i.e., a killing machine which can
function independently of human operation, is just that: a killing
machine. Turning something like that loose in a populated area would be
irresponsible to the extreme.
Imagine me using a remote control to put my car in gear and jam the
accelerator pedal down, then sending it down a random city street
without any controls over the steering or brake. You can damn betcha
that *I'd* be convicted of murder in a heartbeat, and rightly so.
Ken from Chicago
"Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AYmdnXXmvM2de2_Z...@giganews.com...
Ah, the "it's merely a tool" defense. Okay. I can see that.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-D053D5...@news.giganews.com...
Nice distinction.
> --
> Quando omni flunkus moritati
> Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Tho I think the "implement" part is just a fancy way of saying those who
"use" the weapon are to blame.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
What if you shot and killed someone with a gun you did not build? Are you
not a killer? (He said deftly avoid the whole legal debate over "murder".)
-- Ken from Chicago
Rowan Hawthorn
I didn't build my .45, but if I shoot someone with it, I'm the one doing
the killing, and it's my responsibility. It's not an autonomous machine
capable of doing the job by itself.
Rowan Hawthorn
*Everything* is a tool. How those tools are used is what turns them
into "murder weapons."
Ken from Chicago
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:S6SdnQc-soTFgm7Z...@giganews.com...
<snip>
Your definition said "built and implemented" not merely "implemented".
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
I agreed with you. No need to argue further. You were right. I was wrong.
-- Ken from Chicago
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
if the implementation was rule based with thousand of rules
the combinatorial effect is beyond
the implementor to completely understand and predict the implementation behavior
Elisi
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> I agreed with you. No need to argue further. You were right. I was wrong.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
Is that allowed here?
Ken from Chicago
It's far from the first time I've admitted I was wrong and someone else was
right. Google it for yourself.
-- Ken from Chicago
Rowan Hawthorn
All right, then, since that phrase apparently didn't compute, let's say
it a different way: *commissioned* for build. The guy(s) who said,
"Make me up one'a them thar fancy shootin' 'bots so I can kill a bunch'a
people."
Rowan Hawthorn
Sorry. Doing too many things at once, here...
Ken from Chicago
If I ORDER a gun built but never use it, I'm a murderer?
If I COMMISSION a car built and someone else runs over and kills someone,
I'm a murderer?
-- Ken from Chicago
Rowan Hawthorn
Ken, are you awake up there? "Implemented" means "used."
tr.v. im搆le搶ent搪d, im搆le搶ent搏ng, im搆le搶ents (-mnt)
1. To put into practical effect; carry out: implement the new
procedures.
If you didn't *use* the damn thing (i.e. put it into practical effect,)
how'd you murder someone?
>
> If I COMMISSION a car built and someone else runs over and kills someone,
> I'm a murderer?
What did I say to begin with? "Built and implemented." Substitute
"Commissioned" for "built" in that same sentence, and you have
"commissioned and implemented." It really makes no difference if the
person who sends an automated weapon out into populated areas built it
with their own hands, or paid someone else to build it.
Ken from Chicago
What does building or commissioning to build have to do with implementing?
It's totally IRRELEVANT whether you had jack squat to do with creating or
even commissioning to build a gun you use to kill someone.
-- Ken from Chicago
Rowan Hawthorn
I give up...
Of course it's irrelevant - "built and implemented" was just the
phrasing that I used, because, realistically, you're *not* gonna buy
something like the autonomous weaponry being discussed here off the
bleedin' shelf. They would be built to order. You know any car dealers
who happen to stock Sherman tanks?
I said: "I didn't build my .45, but if I shoot someone with it, I'm the
one doing the killing, and it's my responsibility."
I said: "It really makes no difference if the person who sends an
automated weapon out into populated areas built it with their own hands,
or paid someone else to build it." (i.e., *purchased* the weapon.)
IOW, the person who puts it to use bears the responsibility. Period.
Ken from Chicago
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
<snip>
>> What does building or commissioning to build have to do with
>> implementing? It's totally IRRELEVANT whether you had jack squat to do
>> with creating or even commissioning to build a gun you use to kill
>> someone.
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> I give up...
>
> Of course it's irrelevant - "built and implemented" was just the phrasing
> that I used, because, realistically, you're *not* gonna buy something like
> the autonomous weaponry being discussed here off the bleedin' shelf. They
> would be built to order. You know any car dealers who happen to stock
> Sherman tanks?
Your innocence is so moving:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_robot
> I said: "I didn't build my .45, but if I shoot someone with it, I'm the
> one doing the killing, and it's my responsibility."
>
> I said: "It really makes no difference if the person who sends an
> automated weapon out into populated areas built it with their own hands,
> or paid someone else to build it." (i.e., *purchased* the weapon.)
>
> IOW, the person who puts it to use bears the responsibility. Period.
Then we agree. Exxxxxcellent.
> --
> Rowan Hawthorn
>
> "Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
> Vampire Slayer"
-- Ken from Chicago
Rowan Hawthorn
> "Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e46dnUuIKJ49pWjZ...@giganews.com...
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> What does building or commissioning to build have to do with
>>> implementing? It's totally IRRELEVANT whether you had jack squat to do
>>> with creating or even commissioning to build a gun you use to kill
>>> someone.
>>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>> I give up...
>>
>> Of course it's irrelevant - "built and implemented" was just the phrasing
>> that I used, because, realistically, you're *not* gonna buy something like
>> the autonomous weaponry being discussed here off the bleedin' shelf. They
>> would be built to order. You know any car dealers who happen to stock
>> Sherman tanks?
>
> Your innocence is so moving:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_robot
>
Not so much innocent as you'd think. That kind of hardware is
expensive. A contractor would certainly keep a demo; might even keep
one or two live models ready to go. But either way, you'd have to go to
the source to get it, it's not something you'd find in the nearest gun
shop. BTW, the models shown on Wiki are too small to carry enough ammo
to be a viable "autonomous fighting machine." Even a human foot soldier
could carry more than either of the small 'bots pictured. Look at the
CYRANO link for a more realistic version of what you'd need to actually
fight battles with. It's basically a small tank, no doubt with the
accompanying price tag.
>> I said: "I didn't build my .45, but if I shoot someone with it, I'm the
>> one doing the killing, and it's my responsibility."
>>
>> I said: "It really makes no difference if the person who sends an
>> automated weapon out into populated areas built it with their own hands,
>> or paid someone else to build it." (i.e., *purchased* the weapon.)
>>
>> IOW, the person who puts it to use bears the responsibility. Period.
>
> Then we agree. Exxxxxcellent.
>
I wasn't arguing anything else.
Ken Arromdee
Elisi <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Serial killers are humans who've become screwed up beyond normal
>understanding. They're doing what's very _unnatural_ for a human.
>They're sick.
There's no such thing as natural and unnatural. Really. It's like saying
that homosexuality is unnatural.
What exactly do you mean when you call serial killers sick? That they like
hurting people? Vampires like hurting people. That they can't function as
part of normal society? Neither can vampires. That they don't think like
you or me? Well, vampires don't, either.
Vampires are a lot like serial killers, except they're physically much better
at it. "Unnatural" is just a word; both vampires and serial killers are
doing what's unnatural for you or me.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
Ken from Chicago
"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ed832t$llj$2...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article
> <mair_fheal-E61DC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
>>if an autonomous fighting vehicle kills civilians is it a mass murderer?
>
> incapable of forming concepts like "civilian".
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
> "You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
> on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
Civilian = unarmed AND nonattacking AND "far" from potential dangers.
Unarmed = has no detected firearms, polearms, bladed arms, blunt weapons.
Nonattacking = not attacking with a weapon or vehicle or barehands.
Potential dangers = hazardous chemicals, radioactive materials, explosives,
vehicles, etc.
At least that might be how one might program that into machines.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> In article <1156694053....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Elisi <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Serial killers are humans who've become screwed up beyond normal
>>understanding. They're doing what's very _unnatural_ for a human.
>>They're sick.
>
> There's no such thing as natural and unnatural. Really. It's like saying
> that homosexuality is unnatural.
Natural = "significantly" common.
> What exactly do you mean when you call serial killers sick? That they
> like
> hurting people? Vampires like hurting people. That they can't function
> as
> part of normal society? Neither can vampires. That they don't think like
> you or me? Well, vampires don't, either.
Sick = self-destructive and / or non-empathic.
> Vampires are a lot like serial killers, except they're physically much
> better
> at it. "Unnatural" is just a word; both vampires and serial killers are
> doing what's unnatural for you or me.
> --
> Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
>
> "You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
> on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
Vampires also have weaknesses that people don't have.
-- Ken from Chicago