[we can be heroes/ just for one day....]

Suddenly, it occurs to me that it's never even a question in my mind, whether to redeem Spike or not (in a fic). My first instinct would be-- of course, isn't that what you'd do to anyone who could use it? Heh. What does a character like that -do- if they're not growing, being reformed to some degree? They die, right? Eventually, all criminals either rule and become the law or they are destroyed by the law. I don't want Spike to die, since clearly he's not going to defeat Buffy (nor would that be a good idea). Thus, I want him "redeemed". Pretty simple, eh?

It's just that... I don't think people's personalities really change, whether they're killing people or not. I mean, this is an interesting question, and I have little real background to go on, in terms of criminal psychology stuff. I realize people write "unredeemed" characters because darkness is interesting and so on. I personally find people's whole personality interesting (or not), rather than their darkness-- if I like the character, anyway. So it's weird to me to think of this one aspect of them as "them", and then to ask yourself-- do you want to -keep- that.

It seems to me that Spike is defined more by how he's different from other vampires than how he's the same. I mean, the sameness clearly exists, but it's the differences that make him interesting, no? And it seems like people think "redemption" would mean making him the same as other -humans-, rather than just allowing him to be -Spike- (who he is), except a version of himself that has learned certain things. It's a balance. But no matter what, shouldn't characters change, and for the better, in stories? I mean, as an ideal.

I think to me, "should Spike be redeemed" is equivalent to "should Spike grow and change". I wonder why so few other people seem to see this question in a similar way. Is it just a religious brainwashing thing? People seeing "redemption" as this moral dilemma, and if you morally oppose the majority (whatever -that- means), then you morally oppose redemption. I've seen this. And then people -support- redemption because they want Spike (or whatever ambiguously moral person) to be "good". I don't want Spike to be good. I don't want anyone to be good. Good & bad are simplistic and narrow concepts. How about being who you are, allowing yourself to change as your life changes?

( I like it when people change. I am starting to think this makes me weird. )