rusty_halo | (no subject)

Current Mood: angry

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I'm going to write up a full con report in a bit, but first I have to get this rant off my chest. (I really apologize for the rant. I'm trying to be a more positive person and I don't want to be known as someone who is always bitching. But this has been upsetting me very badly all weekend and I'm hoping I'll feel better if I get it all written and posted. I promise to write a con report covering all the positive stuff in just a bit.)

James Marsters didn't say a single positive thing about Spike all weekend.

He said:

The Spike/Dawn friendship was supposed to horrify us because poor little Dawn was getting corrupted by Big Bad Spike.

It's our fault that Spike tried to rape Buffy. If we had just hated Spike in season six like we were supposed to, the writers wouldn't have had to write the bathroom scene to show us that we were wrong. (Yes, he actually said this).

The Buffyverse is a very black and white moral place (I agree with that). Spike didn't fit in (I agree with that--because Spike was too complex, realistic, and GRAY for the simplistic black & white moral structure of the Buffyverse). But according to James, Spike didn't fit because he was EEEEVIL, on the "black" side, yet the audience sympathized with him. Basically, we women were too blinded by James' abs and cheekbones to see the "truth" of how rotten and bad Spike was.

He wishes he'd played soulless Spike darker, instead of subverting the writing by being too sympathetic. (Which is bullshit -- David Fury just did an interview saying that Spike was always "special" and "unique" even without a soul. That's the WRITING, not the acting. And Drew Greenberg just did an interview explaining that the scene in "Smashed" when Spike tries to bite the woman is meant to be ambiguous--Spike wants to WANT to bite her, but he doesn't actually want to bite her. That's the man who WROTE the episode. So James is WRONG when he says it's entirely his fault that the audience sympathized with Spike.)

Spike was absolutely right when he said that Buffy didn't love him. Buffy loves Angel, end of story. (Oh, yeah, that's so feminist--the idea that a woman's high school crush is the only man she'll ever be able to love in her life?)

In his opinion, Spike and Buffy didn't have sex the night before the battle in "Chosen." Because "Spike wouldn't have started anything at that point." (Oh? Because it was BUFFY who came down the stairs into Spike's room, not the other way around. But of course, it's always the man who is responsible for what happens sexually; woman are too pure and perfect to be held responsible for THEIR behavior.)

Repeat after James: "If a man is bad, he'll be bad to you." "You don't want to hear it, but it's true."

Okay, you know what? I'm an adult woman. I don't need some TV actor giving me advice on my love life. I can't get over the ridiculous, stupid, condescending attitude that James Marsters has toward women. He idealizes women--this is not a good thing. This is not a feminist thing. When men idealize women, they create this fantasy picture of what a woman is that has absolutely nothing to do with WHO she is as a person, as an individual human being. This idealized portrait of a woman also takes away a woman's responsibility for her own actions, because she's just a sweet little lady--she could never do anything wrong. She has to be PROTECTED by the big strong men around her -- from the other scary BAD men that the GOOD men don't approve of. (And this also goes with ASH's comment that Giles was right to try to kill Spike because any parent would want to protect their daughter from an abusive relationship. Hello! Yeah, it was an abusive relationship--in which BUFFY was the abuser! But oh, no, she's just a poor meek little woman! Nothing's ever her fault.)

And people kept defending him, going "Oh, he just doesn't want to teach women to idealize men who treat them badly." Yeah, but that's not what happened with Spike and Buffy! I was IN a shitty relationship where I was getting used. I know exactly how they work. And who did I identify with? SPIKE. Spike is the one who was getting used and abused, both emotionally and phsycially, by Buffy. Buffy was the one with all the power in that relationship. They met when and where she wanted, NOT where he wanted. She had the control over what they did and didn't do. She was the one who refused to tell anyone, when he wanted to be open, she was the one who refused to TALK when he wanted to talk, etc etc etc. She is the one who BEAT HIM HALF TO DEATH AND LEFT HIM LYING IN AN ALLEY, and never even APOLOGIZED or told anyone who mattered what she had done! I am so fucking sick of hearing what an abuser Spike was and what a victim Buffy was, because that is absolute bullshit. People are so blinded by their conceptions of traditional gender roles, in which women are passive and victimized and men are active and aggressive, that they didn't even SEE what actually happened on TV between these two characters. They just take this situation and fit it into the pre-existing cultural structures without any real analysis of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Also, again, James didn't say a single positive thing about Spike all weekend. All he did was LECTURE us on how WRONG it is that we are fans of the character! Hello!? Spike went from a villain-of-the-week to a hero who DIED TO SAVE THE WORLD. That is an absolutely amazing redemptive journey; that is more growth than *any* other character on the show has experienced. Why can't James say something about that? Why can't he say a single positive thing about the character that the audience he's surrounded by LOVES? People have traveled all this distance because we love this character. The reason James is getting paid to show up at this convention is because people love the character. The reason Spike was ever brought back as a regular was because we love the character. Where the hell does he get off INSULTING us and tell us we're WRONG for loving the character?

And aside from the gender thing (and I'm still so pissed off about James's attitude toward women that I can barely type), what is so wrong with the fact that we saw something GOOD in Spike all along? Yeah, Spike was bad early-on. Of course he was. He was a *vampire*, he killed people, blah blah blah. But starting (for me; others saw it at different times) when he put down that shotgun and tried to comfort Buffy instead of killing her, we saw something good in Spike. Not that he WAS good; of course not. But we saw a SPARK of something beautiful, something that, if allowed to grow, would have been so amazing. And actually--it did grow! From small compassionate acts to being tortured to protect Dawn, taking care of Dawn all summer, fighting for his soul, and finally saving the world. Those of us who saw the spark all along, we were RIGHT! That beauty and goodness that we saw in evil Spike grew and grew, and we were vindicated when he saved the world. (And I think the finale sucked ass, but the fact remains that Spike saved the world). We were right all along--we saw something with the potential to be amazing and we watched it grow into something truly beautiful. We saw that no matter how badly you've fucked up in your life, you have FREE WILL, and you can CHOOSE to become a better person. It was Spike's STRUGGLE to better himself that meant so much to me.

And somehow this makes me morally depraved? Because personally, I think the people with moral issues are the ones pushing this view that says "Once you screw up, that's it. You life is over, and you may as well just go kill yourself, because once you're labelled 'bad' that's ALL you can EVER be, and no matter how hard you fight and struggle and try to change for the better, you'll always be NOTHING."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

::applauding loudly::

Can't really follow up or add anything. You've said it all, and you've said it perfectly. Wish we could forward your rant to Mr. Marsters and the gang at ME for future reference.

Thanks for posting this.

::pets you::

Thanks.

Man, I would really just love to sit down with him for an hour and talk about all this stuff. Although I doubt it would make a difference; he's got like 40 years of cultural conditioning to get over. We really ought to make him take some women's studies classes or something, lol.

I just wish he could understand how HURTFUL it is for him to say these horrible things about Spike to people who love and who deeply IDENTIFY WITH Spike.

eh, perhaps it is cranky james dealing with something we don't know about. Sounds like he's projecting some angst from somewhere else onto the Spike persona. Could be way off, just strikes me as a vibe more than anything else.

What did Clem say? Issues? Think he's got issues with Spike at the moment.

Yeah, you know, I think I'm going to go with KellyHK on this one. Just like many of us have a tendency to see ourselves in characters and lay certain feelings and issues of our own on them, James no doubt does, too. Those comments are quite out of line with what I've read/heard from the writers over the last couple of seasons about their intentions for Spike, so I'm going with the "James has a personal issue" theory.

I do wonder if things like that stupid Salon article that said Spike ruined Buffy and basically blamed the fans for liking him to the detriment of the show have gotten to him. That article, like James's comments apparently, also smacked of a rather outdated sexism.

Exactly what I was thinking - 2 years later!

(deleted comment)

Cause right now Spike would be laughing at him.

LOL! That is so true! And he'd probably call him some English thing like Pillock, or Wanker.

(deleted comment)

Yeah ... your post has thrown me for a loop, Laura. Is he saying the stuff that we say on his face as he played Spike was a lie? Because it was HIS ACTING and INTERPRETATION that made me believe in Spike's remptitive journey, not the writing. In fact, the writing contradicted what we were being told from their acting!

I don't buy Buffy/Angel because I was TOLD they were in love. I believe in Buffy/Spike because I SAW it on their faces.

So as Kly says, The amazing thing is that he managed to play the Spike he did while having absolutely no conception of who the character actually was. I mean, that's astonishing.

This is all very upsetting.

>>it was HIS ACTING and INTERPRETATION that made me believe in Spike's remptitive journey, not the writing. In fact, the writing contradicted what we were being told from their acting!<<

That's basically what he's saying. That it's his fault, and his mistake, that we liked Spike, because he "subverted the writing" by portraying Spike too sympathetically.

But I still think that's nonsense. Go rewatch "Intervention" or "The Gift" or "Afterlife." Spike's heroism in those episodes (and many others) is in the WRITING. Certainly, the acting adds quite a bit, but it's still in the writing. James has no reason to blame HIMSELF for the fact that the audience liked Spike. "I couldn't live, her being in that much pain; I'd let Glory kill me first," "Till the end of the world," "147 days," "Every night I save you." That's the WRITING.

I also suspect that if the audience hadn't liked Spike so much, and JM hadn't played him so sympathetically, we never would have gotten a redemptive journey at all. Spike probably would've been castrated for the audience's "pleasure" like Caleb. James should be proud for playing Spike so well, not angry at himself.

Hmmm ... unfortunately I generalized there. I'm talking about episodes like As You Were and Seeing Red where were supposed to suddenly disbelieve everything we'd seen between Spike and Buffy thus far.

I totally agree with everything you've said, Laura, and am extremely upset by him negating his performance and his character.

In fact jainieg's objections to my post are correct, although her attribution was not and her language was surprising. In my haste to comfort Laura and my irritation at what JM said, I attacked James personally and should not have done so. I have no reason to think that JM is either an ass or a moron. My apologies to anyone who was offended by my saying otherwise.

I tend to think that I ample reason to believe that his opinions on Spike are asinine - and moronic - but that's a different question.

I've deleted my original post (now that I discover that I can do that). K

I think when it comes to acting he's an idiot savant. But instead of drawing really complicated pictures of architecture, he can play a morally ambiguous vampire. It's a gift.

>>Oh well, write the moron off, but not the character!<<

Y'know what? That's a good idea.

*unfriends drinkthepoisonx with a clear conscience*

Calling a person names simply because they don't share the same views you have is not only wrong, but it's also really fucking childish. James is entitled to his opinion just as much as anybody else is - I'm not saying he's right, granted - I disagree with him about a lot of what he has to say about Spike. But what good does it do to call him an ass or a moron? If there's any asses around here, it's you guys.

Grow up, y'all - seriously.

Then you should unfriend me (Klytaimnestra) not drinkthepoisonxx, since she didn't call JM either an ass or a moron: I did. I doubt, however, that I was on your friends list in the first place.

>>I doubt, however, that I was on your friends list in the first place.<<

Nope - and you're not gonna be... that much you can count on.

Okay, but you could try apologizing to Laura.

I did NOT call James any names at all. Re-read my post, if you care about being fair at all. I commented on James' OPINIONS, which I have every right to comment on. He made them fair game when he stood up and lectured us for two hours. I did not call him an "ass" or a "moron" or whatever else; I said that his ATTITUDE is condescending. I happen to think that James is a very sweet and friendly person with a very close-minded and sexist view of his character and of his female fans. Other people have posted comments calling him names, but I adamantly did NOT.

If you want to unfriend me because of what OTHER PEOPLE said in my comments (which I have NO control over) then fine. Good riddance.

sorry to have caused the fuss Laura! I've also responded to that post to claim responsibility. Feel free to delete my comment if you want.

Er...I'm friending you BECAUSE of your rant. Needed to be said. I'm also friending Klytie. In fact, after this I doubt you'll need to cry much over anybody de-friending either of you. ;)

You rule, Laura.

Thank you. :)

Someone going to Tampa *has* to point out to him that if we felt the same way he did, he wouldn't have the same number of fans and wouldn't be getting his cushy con gig deals, his vanity band, or his regular status on Angel.

I'm just saying.

Actors--hate 'em. Except for Mark Derwin and Nancy Grahn. :)

The more I hear, the more I'm hoping I'll have the guts in Tampa to actually stand up during the Q&A and say something along those lines. Only, you know, in the form of a question, and worded so it sounds polite, while still making the point... all assuming I don't lose my ability to speak English or any other coherent language like I usually do around celebrities.

Fenchurch

If you do that, there's a nice packet of swag with your name on it. Or a big kiss, your choice.

I'd settle for a new chapter or two of "Bag of Bones." ;-)

Gah! That's a win-win situation for me! Do it! Both of you!

Hee! I just got the next chapter back from one beta this morning, still waiting to hear back from the other beta.

I'd better hear about someone putting the smackdown on JM!

I'm writing my thoughts out on a notecard so I won't choke up. And I'm gonna jump up and down if I have to in order to get picked to ask a question. If anyone has anything they'd like me to include, go over to my LJ (at http://www.livejournal.com/users/voodoo_in_tx ) and let me know!

...rather a lot. I'm not a James Marsters fan because I agree with his opinions on Spike or Buffy or world affairs, for that matter. I'm his fan because the guy is amazingly talented and provides an incredible performance for me to enjoy, week after week. He also seems to be a pretty nice, giving guy when meeting fans, which definitely is a plus. But I'd still be his fan if he never made a con appearance anywhere, and I'd still want him on AtS next year. Because he's one of the most intriguing performers out there, and that's what gets me watching.

I said he'd have fewer fans--not that he'd lose all his fans! I know some people like him independent of the character, but a lot love Spike and are sad to see James expressing drastically different ideas about the character.

You are so right to be upset. If I was there, I think I probably would have left. I never thought SMG understood her character on a very deep level but I always had a lot of respect for JM because he seemed to understand and respect his character the way his fans do. But what he said was so wrong. As for his high-handed attitude towards women, that doesn't surprise me at all. We all know about his notorious dating preferences and to me it just further adds to his immaturity in regards to male/female interpersonal relationships. What he said was such a denegration of his character. I'm fuming and I wasn't even there.

I'm pretty sure I can't say anything that you haven't already covered but I kinda feel like commenting anyway. Hope you don't mind.

But starting (for me; others saw it at different times) when he put down that shotgun and tried to comfort Buffy instead of killing her, we saw something good in Spike.

For me it was in his devotion to Dru. I mean sure he was evil but if he didn't have something different about him could he have cared for Dru for such a long time and not, I don't know, have just got sick of her and left her someplace, or staked her outright? I suppose her being his sire could have something to do with that devotion but of course I/we didn't know that when he first showed up.

All he did was LECTURE us on how WRONG it is that we are fans of the character! Hello!?

Well that's just rediculous. I mean... does he want to be out of work and have his character unloved? Obviously. Does he not want fans?

I sincerely beleive that Buffy was just as much if not more responsible for the horrors of the spuffy relationship in season 6. Maybe its just me but I always found the AR to be completely out of character.

Hmmm. Maybe he's just an asshole? Of course I've kinda thought that for a long, long time but... this is pretty much just confirmation. Then again I have this theory that meeting the actors who play the characters that you love can only end in disappointment... but that could be cos I'm a pessimist.

Sorry he pissed you off doll.

Huggums,
S.

Oh, Laura, that just plain sucks. I too would be hurt, not to mention deeply confused, by JM's comments. Why is he whitewashing (or, uh, blackwashing) Spike and what he created? It's horrifying.

I used to want SMG to shut up because I didn't think she had a clue. Now, I honestly think JM doesn't have a clue. Who is telling him to act this way and why?

Oh well, la la la, he's an actor, and Spike is a wholly separate being, open to our interpretation. I can't hear JM! Can't hear im!

I have to say I'm pretty hurt and disappointed in what James had to say. I always commended him for seeming to understand the character really well, and I'm just blown away at how his perspective is. And I'm really upset by this whole "blame the audience" thing. That's just ridiculous.

Wow. Thank you for posting this, Laura.
Well, perhaps I'm hiding in the land of DeNile, but his comments (while outrageous) seem inconsistent with his earlier comments about Spike and this makes me wonder what prompted the change. (although even last summer he was preaching things like "Spike is BAD, BAD I tell you.") It makes me wonder how much of what he said was really his own input and how much of it is 'the party line'. From what you described, he's almost apologizing for the character's popularity and is backpedaling, and this invites a question about what's going on behind the scenes.
Or again, perhaps I'm just making excuses. If JM truly thinks so, I'm very sorry.

I don't really want to speculate about his personal motivations, but I get the impression that a lot of his dislike of Spike stems from his discomfort with the attempted rape scene. I can understand that, but I still really dislike the IMO sexist way he goes about lecturing his fans about the character and about our love lives.

I'm really sorry JM's talk sucked so badly, Laura. I can't imagine what would give him the idea that lecturing fans, instead of just talking to them, is acceptable behavior--especially when they've paid a wad of money to see him.

I quit reading interviews with BtVS actors months ago, because while I love their performances, there's a reason they're paid for acting, not thinking. They're good at one. The other? Not so much.

I never read them either. The writers' interviews are interesting, though I avoid them until the end of the year (or the series) - interesting to see what they thought they were doing. But the actors only get one little piece of the show - their own - to study thoroughly, and their talent is not writing. If they have a talent for interpretation it's a bonus.

I was thinking, though, that perhaps a lot of this is because he was thinking "in character". One thing that was perfectly obvious throughout S7 was that Spike didn't think that much of himself. He began by thinking of himself as a "bad, bad man" and ended by believing, even though the look on her face ought to have told him otherwise, that Buffy didn't mean it when she said she loved him - because, deep down, he believes he doesn't deserve love.

And if JM is Method (is he? I think I read something somewhere to that effect), he really feels that Spike he's playing is bad and unloved. That doesn't mean that the writers think the same thing - it doesn't even mean that Buffy thinks the same thing. It means that JM plays a Spike who believes that. Different question.

Heh, I was just saying pretty much the same thing to a friend on AIM who'd just read this. And yes, James is very much a Method actor. He explained his whole process to us in Chicago, and talked about how he spent the first half of S7 in deep depression because of what he had to dredge up to get Spike to that place. So yeah, that's my theory, that James *has* to believe this stuff about Spike, because this is what *Spike* would believe about himself. He can't afford to be all "Yay Spike!" and still be able to get to where he needs to be to bring all these layers to the table.

I do want to point out that in Chicago he did say a lot of this stuff, but he also said a lot of very positive and hopeful things about Spike's growth and his redemptive path, *and* his feelings for Buffy. It's a shame he didn't get around to saying any of that this time. Like somebody else said, you also have to wonder if all this media stuff -- TWoP's attitude, that Salon article, etc. -- just outright hating Spike is getting to him. Still, you'd think he'd have the sense to know that those aren't gonna be the people he's talking to at a fan convention.

I'm glad you guys got to hear some positive stuff. His relentless negativity at this con was seriously depressing.

You're probably correct about his motivations as a method actor. Still, I'm particularly annoyed by the way he goes about lecturing us about our interpretations of the character and about our SEX LIVES.

That doesn't mean I hate him as a person; he's probably a cool guy. But I disagree with his opinions, and I think it was very foolish of him to share them in such a harsh and condescending way a to an audience who is THERE because they love the character.

There's really no way to speak to him in depth at a CON, but I really do think you should write to him and express your feelings. I honestly think he has no idea that this stance is actually belitting both his own work and his fans. I think it would be good to send him some letters so that he can have some realistic perspective on what his fans are thinking.

I was at the con this weekend, too, and I've been struggling with the same feelings you have, because, as I said to some friends, it was very clear to me after hearing him speak that James just. doesn't. get. Spike. My personal opinion is that the AR really damaged his conception of the character, leaving him in a place where he can no longer accept the possibility of redemption or goodness in him, at least as regards any relationship with Buffy. I think he's totally off base (for a million reasons, starting with what motivated the attack, what rape really is, the fact that he used it as a springboard for an amazing transformation, and, yes, rape is awful, but other things are worse), and I would love to sit him in a room and recite him chapter and verse as to where--other than his acting, for which he now seems to blame himself--the character's journey was limned. But in the end, I just have to accept that, despite his talent, he has no real sense of the story he was serving--which fits with his own stated belief that actors are there to recite the pretty words and hit their marks, not understand the big picture--so his opinion as to how he played a particular scene has merit, but his opinion of what the scenes meant when all put together has none. Still, it was both frustrating and hurtful to hear him, I have to admit.

I think you're right about the AR damaging his view of Spike.

Yes, James has every right to his opinion. And we have every right to be hurt by his opinion, and to express our disagreement.

wow, amazing.
and very well-said.
i've always been a fan of JM's political views but that is just ridiculous.
I hope he comes this way in a convention soon so i can ask him a little something somethin.

::stunned and horrified::

With you 100%. What stupid things to say. Buffy was the bad boyfriend, for crissakes. If you just reversed the gender roles, no one would even think of calling male-Buffy the victim.

I'd always thought JM was one of the cool ones (in a geeky way) -- everything I'd read about him before seemed to imply that he was smart, that he respected the writers and the fans, etc. I guess it's good that I'm disillusioned before Tampa.

Oh, well. I guess I'll just add his to the list of things that make me believe BtVS (and Spike in particular) just had a life of it's own, and no one, neither writers nor actors, could stop Spike from going along his merry way and subverting canon all the while. I've never been able to link JM and Spike -- as

devilpiglet once said, he must have pulled that character out of his ass. JM is the real anti-Spike -- and if we could interview the character, he'd probably be annoyed at being associated with JM.

Grr, Argh. I hope the AtS writers ignore what he wants.

Grr, Argh. I hope the AtS writers ignore what he wants.

Sounds as if they have so far, thank heavens!

Have you read Kristen Smirnov's great essay about abuse and gender role reversal on BtVS? If not, it's here if you're interested. She says everything I wanted to say, much more articulately that I did.

Hee! I was quoted! Cited! Today, Laura's journal; tomorrow, the world! (Piglet waves to a now-horrified hecatehatesthat)

Anyway, I did want to include some context for that statement, culled from my report on the Chicago con. This was the paragraph it appeared in:

"One more note: gotta say that this whole Method acting deal is working for him because damn -- the man I met yesterday was not Spike. Not even in the same time zone. Dude, he must have pulled that character out of his ass. And, strangely, that made me like him even more. I realize I can't make a judgement based on a fifteen-second encounter, but he acted like a stand-up guy. Look, if I were in his place I'd be getting self-esteem vibes at cons and indulging in vanity projects and chasing nineteen-year-old tail too. As celebrity vices go, they're pretty tame. So good on him for helping to breathe life (so to speak) into Spike and good on him for being cool otherwise."

And

drinkthepoisonx? You're the best. Fandom has been kind of a swirling hole of ugliness lately, but every day I'm glad I got to know you (really know you). I'm very proud to be your friend. Soon I'm going to come to New York and eat vegan Cheetos with you.

devilpiglet, you are such a lovely person. Thank you for being so sweet.

Yes, you absolutely must come visit! You bring your wonderful self, and I'll prepare lots and lots of yummy food, and it'll be great. :)

Trying this again:

Well, I can certainly understand why you are upset, sweetie. I'd hate to fork over the money for a con and have James spout off about how, essentially, there's nothing worthwhile in Spike.

OTOH, I agree with

kellyhk in that there are probably some other issues affecting his words. It's my personal opinion that James is quite upset with a lot of the Spike/Buffy story. The attempted rape is still obviously affecting him, and not in a very healthy way. He made numerous comments before that event about how Spike is a ruthless killer who is good to the people he loves, and used to joke around quite a bit about being Buffy's "boy toy". So I feel that he is massively overcompensating.

Yeah, a fair amount of young girls turn up to see him at conventions, and he's taking responsibility upon himself here. I get the impression that he thinks that if he played Spike just a little bit more Eeeevil, the attempted rape wouldn't have happened, and he probably wouldn't have had to parade around naked so much.

Oh yeah, the shirtless thing. Something else that never seemed to bother him too much until after the attempted rape. Probably because he feels it's sexualizing someone who is capable of such an act. Hell, the guy won't even sign pictures of himself shirtless anymore.

Buffy loves Angel and not Spike? Again, he's commented that Buffy should never, ever be with Spike because of the attempted rape. It's an emotional reaction, and no story about souls is going to change that feeling for him. it's different for us, but he's the one who had to play it - and he's mentioned many, many times how he feels about characters who resort to rape or domestic violence.

The down side of all this, of course, is that he's insulting fans who love Spike in the process. I highly doubt that it's intentional, and again, this is all just my interpretation based upon comments that he's made in the past.

I agree that the best thing is to pose some positive, thoughtful questions at the conventions that get our point across.

Bub,
I think you've hit the nail right on the head. What you said makes so much sense. I think that James cares more about making sure he doesn't send the wrong message than he does about sending the right one. Does that make sense? Someone said on BAPS earlier that Buffy is still viewed as a teen show and therefore a lot of the audience is perceived as younger and impressionable. If it were targeted to an older audience, as happens with soap operas, then perhaps his interpretation of Spike might be different.

Elizabeth

Yes, I think you're correct about where JM is coming from. It still doesn't change how hurtful his comments are, especially to people who understand and identify with Spike so strongly. And he, of course, has every right to his opinion, but I think it's incredibly foolish for him to personally insult a bunch of people who just paid to see him because they love the character so much. And the way he keeps lecturing us about our sex lives? I'm sorry, but that is just condescending and sexist and irritating, and I have every right to be annoyed by it. He has the right to say it, and I have the right to be pissed off in response.

Yes, I would love to hear some positive, thoughtful, and brief questions for JM at cons. Plus, anything is better than "You're so hot! Can I have a hug!?" and the other typical con questions.

Awww, Laura, I think you and I are soulmates. WORD to everything you said.

But... About *James* making his comments... I had this theory for awhile. Maybe I am completely off-base, but I've believed for quite some time that Joss Whedon LOVES his ass kissed and HATES being criticized by his employees, and that this attitude permeates ME's corporate culture. What James said - it seems to me EXACTLY, word for word, what ME used to say about the character and his fans. And I can't help but think that all James does is repeat the party line, that he serves as his bosses' apologyst in taking upon himself the blame for their screw-ups.

*They* screwed up. They let Buffy and Scoobs abuse Spike. What they put on screen was unconscionable. They never realized the full measure of Buffy's depravity, they severely underestimated the number of fans who identified with Spike instead of Buffy, and they didn't get, in time, how horribly cruel and sadistic the character of Buffy Summers was coming across. And guess what? It was Joss Whedon's baby. *He* was the one behind the "life as a big bad" storyline, and *he* was the one who authorized AR.

So to admit now that they screwed up, that Buffy wasn't exactly a helpless victim but a sadistic freak to Spike the whole time, and Spike actually had that seed of goodness which Buffy was too blind to see? They can't do that without admitting it was Joss Whedon's fault for coming up with this crap and SMG's fault for not playing her character more sympathetically. So they blame James. And he repeats it.

JM (and Spike) is a patsy in this situation. He is the employee that his bosses made to take the fall for their screw ups. Just like they tried to make the character he played into a fall man on the show. He can't come out and say "Spuffy sucked, Buffy was an abusive bitch and I have no clue why Spike would ever tolerate her crap, and the writers screwed up majorly when they let the heroine to turn into an abuser", even if he thinks that (maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but we don't know *what* he really thinks about all this, IMHO).

ME blames Spike and JM, and they would NOT admit they made the heroine of their show into a terrible abuser (because it's stupid, and it hurt the show, and they don't want to admit how far they erred in what they put on screen). "Spike was evil, it's all JM's fault he played him too sympathetically, Buffy was right to treat him like crap, and Fox insists on B/A4eva". This is ME's talking, James is just their faithful mouth piece. It's not like he has any choice in this either - from I've seen, you HAVE to kiss the writers (and espicially Joss's) ass in order to work at ME. JMHO.

*sigh* You know, this always happens. I read something, formulate an opinion on it, go to post it, and realize that someone's already said exactly what I wanted to, albeit probably more intelligently than I would have XP

All this completely contradicts many other things that I've heard JM has said, and I'm completely shocked by it. I don't expect much better from the writers and from Joss, it's what they've been spouting all along, but James seemed to come across much more intelligently, and fairly, in other articles, interviews and transcripts. I've read articles many, many times where he's said that he played Spike with more soul than was written, but never one where he said he regretted that.

I completely resent the implication that we've been "blinded" by abs and cheekbones, and I hate it when people tell me that that's the only reason I love Spike.

I'm going to Tampa as well, and my expectations for the con have just dropped considerably. I really hope I'm not disappointed further by him, because, reading that, it almost feels like I've been betrayed. This is someone that I admired for his opinions and honesty, and the fact that he cares about his fans. So, I really, truly hope that those of us who think it's something going on behind the scenes are right, because I'm not sure how I would take the fact that he seems to have completely changed his viewpoint into something that appalling and untrue.

For the record, I fully agree with everything you said (for me, also, it was the moment when he put down the gun that
I started seeing something completely different in Spike), and so I've friended you back :)

I think I'm going to write him a letter, actually, explaining to him my views on Spike, and asking what makes him feel what he does toward him, because this is something that I would expect from some of the anti-Spikes that I've talked to, certainly not JM himself.

-Glop

Ooh, neat, I've got a soulmate. But now you know that neither of us can ever love anyone else, because we're meant to be 4eva! ;)

Seriously, though, we really ought to hang out more. Are you coming to

herself_nyc's gathering on the 21st?

You know, I really think that James does believe everything that he's saying. And I think it's because of his idealization of women; in his mind, it would be impossible to even conceive the idea of a woman, especially a small, blond, pretty woman, abusing a man. The actual facts of the situation are meaningless; he's just fitting the sitatuion into his particular interpretation of social gender roles. Plus, he's so personally hurt and upset by the attempted rape scene (which he has described several times as "the worst day of [his] life") that he is incapable of seeing the situation in any kind of unbiased light.

I really wish someone would show him Kristen Smirnov's domestic abusive essay (here), which says everything I wish he would "get" about why we identify with Spike and about how Spike was the victim and Buffy was the abuser.

But now you know that neither of us can ever love anyone else, because we're meant to be 4eva! ;)

...but we can never be, and our love has to be tragic. Angsty, teary, and tragic. Oh, joy. ;-P

Are you coming to herself_nyc's gathering on the 21st?

Yep, I'll be there. Wheeeee!

As for James - I think he believes it to the extent that *Spike* believes it. James is a Method actor, and as such he completely internalizes his character.

There's no doubt in my mind that *Spike* believed every piece of crap Buffy threw at him - "a soulless evil thing, a monster, nothing good or clean inside", blah-blah-blah. That's why he went to get a soul, because he believed every nasty thing she ever said about him. And I suspect James internalizes the character to a degree where *he* believes whatever Spike believes - Spike was evil, didn't deserve Buffy, and she never loved him. Add to that his bosses' official opinion, and it's no wonder he's supporting ME's party line so wholeheartedly.

I suspect that James' own feelings about rape in general have affected the way he views the character; additionally, he's probably had the mutant enema lecture on "why spike is bad" and "why spike fans write loveletters to serial killers" long enough to addle any healthy brain.

Ignore it, sweetie. JM is not Spike, he just plays him on TV. And whatever TPTB(and I include JM in this) may have to say about it, cannot detract from what we SAW with our own EYES on the screen. Consider the source of our opposition- Joss, the hack, and a staff of writers in serious need of psychotherapy. Then view their opinions accordingly. As for JM, well- he's too much the professional to not give a hundred percent to his performance, no matter how he personally views the character. I suspect his acting will continue to be stellar and moving.

huh. I was at the Con and I saw both Q&A's and got a totally different impression than you did.

James(and really all ME employees) so needs a course in public relations.

"Spike is bad, Spuffy was bad, you should be ashamed of the fact that you like him, too bad you were all too clueless to figure this out when BTVS was still airing,
SUCKERS....and oh, by the way, be sure and watch me next season on AtS! Thank you and goodnight!"

Yeah, that'll bring the fans over in droves.

The one bit of good news is that the AtS writers seem to embrace the gray and won't insist that Spike simplistically fall into either the white or black hat category. I can only hope that Jeff Bell and company spend next season trying to deprogram James from all the "Spike is bad" conditioning he's received from the usual suspects over at BTVS. Some Stuart Smiley-type affirmations, perhaps...

You know, I was at the convention also, and I'm on the flip side of everything you posted. I was not supportive of the Buffy/Spike relationship - especially in its abusive incarnation ("Smashed" - End of Season 6). So I cheered at his comments. Because during that time, I read so many "Buffy was asking for it", "Buffy deserved it" comments regarding SR that I wanted to scream because some people just didn't get it - it was infuriating to me and it seems it was infuriating and frustrating to James as well.

But I'm not here to debate Buffy/Spike.

After the first Q&A, I got my autograph from James. I told him that I really respected his honesty in his comments on the issue when, as I told him, there were plenty of people in the audience who would probably want to lynch him for his statements. He looked so appreciative of me saying that and told me "It's only my opinion." I told him that I thought it was great because it meant he was respectful to his craft, and again, he looked appreciative.

Look - you love Spike. Yay. You love James because he's a great actor. Yay again. James does not write the show. I tend to believe what he says about Spike because he's kind of got this in with Joss - the guy who wrote the show - who probably gives him direction and insight into the character he created.

But for everyone to be so hateful towards James for his opinion - it really makes me sad. Because this is an incredibly talented man who was just honest - and he shouldn't be put down or condemned for it.

And, also - the negative stuff he said about Spike was pre-soul. IIRC, he said positive things about post-soul Spike. And to interpret his comment about "Spike wouldn't have started anything" in "Chosen" as a statement of women's sexuality is just absurd. They shared a special night in "Touched" just holding each other. Spike said it was the best night of his life. He's had sex with her before - obviously it was just the proximity of her - the closeness - that touched his soul. I thought this comment was really portraying Spike in a positive light - and I wish people could see that.

I could post for hours on this, but I just wanted to get that out.

Phew.

Flame away, I'm sure.

I NEVER "put down or condemned" James Marsters. I disagreed with his OPINION; I never said ANYTHING about him as a person.

My comment was more of a general response to the entire commenting thread than to yours alone.

If only there was a "reply to all" feature.

It just makes me really sad and angry to see people exhibiting such hatred towards someone for stating their opinion. He has a right to it just as much as you and I. You don't have to agree. But I think people should respect.

I respect the man. I don't respect the opinion.

I have no hatred at all toward JM. From what I've seen, he is a perfectly nice person. I've been lucky enough to chat with him a few times, and every time he's been completely cool (and I have responded by being polite and respectful as well).

However, I disagree vehemently with his opinion on certain matters, and I have every right to express my disagreement, especially in my own LJ.

James has a right to his opinion. So do you, and so do I. It would be nice if we could ALL debate our opinions in a civilized manner without attacking each other personally.

First of all, you absolutely have a right to post your opinion in your own Live Journal. And I'm not attacking you or anyone else.

I've just been home for a day now from this convention and I've heard so much anger aimed towards James, someone who I came to truly respect over this past weekend. And it's upsetting. And your post has become kind of a gathering of that opinion and I chose to express mine where it can be seen by those my opinion contradicts.

I don't think I was rude. I don't think I was disrespectful. But I wanted to say what I had to say - just as you did.

One thing I'm glad to hear is that James said nice things about Spike post-soul; because I was really puzzled about that - I mean, if JM couldn't tell that post-soul, Spike had been redeemed, then I really, really wasn't watching the character he thought he was acting!

But I can easily see that pre-soul, JM and ME thought they were telling a story about a "bad boyfriend" but it didn't come across that way, and it bothers them that they somehow missed it. It took me until late in February of S6 before I finally had an epiphany and thought, wait - the whole reason I'm not understanding this story is that I don't think that Spike is as evil as ME thinks Spike is. Once I grasped that the season made sense (though JM is right, it didn't come across that way -their execution wasn't good).

But in S7 we've got a redemption story happening, quite obviously, on all levels, and I would have been astonished if JM hadn't realised that.

Feeling vastly relieved now! Sure, I can buy an evilish S6 Spike, though it took me awhile to grasp it at the time. But if I wasn't looking at a redeemed S7 Spike then I really DIDN'T get the story!

re: sex during the blackout - JM is right, IMHO, Spike would never have started anything, after the AR, or indeed post-soul. But Buffy had an awfully purposeful look in her eye ... we were quite deliberately left to believe, each one of us, whatever we want to believe.

>>And your post has become kind of a gathering of that opinion and I chose to express mine where it can be seen by those my opinion contradicts<<

Well, maybe you ought to be more careful about who you address your comments toward, becaue regardless of who you intended them for, when you post accusations in my LJ, they go to me, not to the other people who commented and who said harsher things that I said. I really don't appreciate being accused of things that I didn't do; I've never been hateful toward or personally insulted James Marsters.

Again, I apologized and clarified as soon as there was a question.

And alternately - I don't think you would have wanted me to reply to every single commenter in the thread as it would have flooded you with emails.

I don't respect the opinion.

You can still respect an opinion and disagree with it at the same time. If you won't respect one made out of blunt honesty, why should anyone respect yours?

It wasn't like he went overseas far away from any cons and sniggered to news reporters about the fans. He addressed the situation in a potentially mobbish situation honestly.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it."

"Potentially mobbish situation"? Where the hell did you get that from? He was standing in front of a perfectly well behaved audience with a ton of security people around him. There was no "potentially mobbish situation."

And don't you dare lecture me about free speech. I'm a *huge* advocate of free speech. But just because I agree that people have the RIGHT to say what they want, I still don't have to respect their opinions. If some politician wants to claim that homosexuality is immoral and should be illegal, I'll defend his right to say it, but there's no way in hell that I'm going to respect that bullshit. And if some jerk wants to accuse my best friend of being a bitch, I'll defend his right to say it, but again, there's no way in hell that I'm going to respect that opinion. And if James Marsters says something that I find rude, condescending, and sexist, then he has every right to say it, and I sure as hell don't have to respect it.

I'm not asking you to respect my opinion. I'm asking you to debate my OPINION instead of attacking me as a PERSON, which plenty of people are doing. (And which I NEVER did; my comments are about James Marsters' opinion, not about the man as a person).

::wades into the kerfluffle, peeking around:: I'm just chiming in to tell you,

lavellebelle that I'm pretty much in agreement with a lot of what you said. While I was never gung-ho about "Spuffy", Spike was easily one of the better characters on the show after a while in terms of sheer facination.

Does that make Spike a good guy? Hell, no. Darth Vader's certainly not, and I think he kicks arse. And my three favorite Slayers characters are Xellos (pure Mazoku), Valgaav (Mazoku/Dragon who gets more than a bit insane and almost destroys the world), and Zelgadis (badboy Chimera who doesn't exactly walk on the right side of the line) Bad boys are facinating. Doesn't mean they're good guys.

Reading over the post, I agree with some -- not all, but some -- of what JM said about the character.

I also agree that he has every right to be honest about it. But that's just me. I guess I'm old-fashioned and backwards like that for actually appreciating honesty, forthrightness, and knowing where I stand.

Maybe if old women would quit grabbing his bum and teenybopper girls would quit treating and talking to him as if HE was Spike and trying to get SPIKE to fall in love with THEM and middle-aged women would quit treating him like a lust object, he wouldn't have gotten fed up. I do think he could have said it better, but sometimes, there's nothing that's gonna be straight shooting and blunt honesty from the hip when you get pushed too far.

Kudos to that man. Maybe I don't agree with him on every point, but he's earned my respect.

I really apologize for the rant. I'm trying to be a more positive person and I don't want to be known as someone who is always bitching.

No, because that's MY job! Hee!

Snerk, I'm sorry, but I loved this rant, although I'm bewildered as to why people are getting so wound up about what JM said. He contradicted himself with all this stuff. And furthermore? If he's going to idolize women, do you think he could demonstrate it by hanging out with, you know, actual women? Instead of girls who are still getting their braces taken off?

I can't figure out why he'd do such an about face so suddenly, but I figure Marti Noxon has finally gotten her wish and made a Jamesbot, and is letting it make his con appearances, while she keeps the real JM captive in her basement.

Whatever. James isn't going to change my opinion of Spike. I know what I saw. What I don't know is why he so obviously changed his illegal substance of choice and started saying this. I'd like to find out, though. It must be good stuff.

Hehe, I love your rants, Gin.

Wow. Wasn't at the con, was pointed here for the shallowest of reasons (looking for details on that movie James is doing with Derek Jacobi and Sean Bean), but just read this and it's wonderful -- I loved what you said about people not being able to see past cultural stereotypes in the Buffy/Spike relationship when slapping on labels like "abuser" and "abused" and the problems with putting women on pedestals in the name of feminism. Would like to link to this post...

Thanks. I'm glad you liked the post, and of course you're welcome to link to it.

You might also be interested in this excellent essay by Kristen Smirnov about domestic abuse and gender role reversal on BtVS.

I'm so sorry. Hate to say it but I'm now rethinking going to Dragoncon. Maybe to get an autograph but I so disagree with what he said at the con you went to. And, while, yes, he's entitled to his own opinion, I disagree with his opinion vehemently.

And, I'm sorry, but it hurts me that he's apologizing for his portrayal of Spike in S6. That portrayal (not his cheekbones or abs) was the one thing that kept me watching that year. For him to say it was a mistake/miscalculation really, really disappoints me.

Part of it is that I *seriously* identified with Spike the character throughout S6. Even the AR, to an extent. To be told that I was misinterpreting the character as sympathetic and not seeing him as the bad, abusive, completely wrong for anyone good boyfriend kind of shakes me. Kind of, what does it say about me that I so identified with this character that he was my window to the show?

Of course, it says nothing in the end. But it's still upsetting to me.

And, crap, but I hope that the Angel writers aren't listening to his vision of Spike on AtS next year. Ugh.

(P.S. I know you don't know me but a link was provided to your account at a board I visit -- having read your post and the responses I felt the need to throw in my two cents. Hope you don't mind.)

Thanks. Of course you're allowed to respond. I'm glad to hear that you understand where I'm coming from. :)

*licks you* *licks you some more* *licks your icon just so it doesn't feel dismissed* yummy :D

>>Repeat after James: "If a man is bad, he'll be bad to you." "You don't want to hear it, but it's true."<<

I've been pissed of ever since I've first heard that sentence... it seems to be one of JM favourite lines on cons cause I've heard it on several records and read it in several transcripts from many different conventions and I couldn't agree more with what you're saying about James idealizing women... I'm not extremly feminist (hell, I like it when a man buys me flowers and opens the door for me *snicker*) but that statement lets one think that women aren't smart enough to decide what's good for hthem and what's not... Î've seen a lot of discussions which started out from such quotes and in the end there was a lot of fighting and yelling and calling names and what not... I don't know if James really meant it the way you (and I) take it, it might have just slipped in the discussion or he might not have thought about it long enough or whatever, but since he's constantly repeating it I have to assume that he actually knows what he's saying... and everything I do, is disagreeing... which is my right (and yours ;) *licks you some more*

>>Hello! Yeah, it was an abusive relationship--in which BUFFY was the abuser! But oh, no, she's just a poor meek little woman! Nothing's ever her fault.)<<
I'm tired of hearing how Spike treated buffy wrong and what he did to her and HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU STILL BE A FAN OF SPIKE AFTER 'SEEING RED'... I could go into a full ramble about spike's journey(sp?) and his redemption but I think your last paragraph covered it quite nicely, so I'll leabe it at that...

just because I'm intersted... why didn't you like chosen? :D

Hehe, thanks. *licks you back*

Yeah, James has said that line at every con I've been to. I think it's demeaning and sexist and condescending and stupid, and it irritates me that this man thinks he has some right to dictate how I behave in my sex life.

Yeah, he's entitled to his opinion. And I'm entitled to mine, which is that his opinion is asinine. Doesn't mean I have a problem with him as a a PERSON, but I do have a problem with his OPINION.

As far as the gender stuff, there's a great essay that covers it very well:
http://www.btvs-tabularasa.net/essays/DomesticAbuse.html

I never did write up a finale review, but

chase820 covered it pretty well at:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/chase820/27131.html

I have to look at those essays when I get back from my holiday.. THANKS!

(damn, I love essays ;D)

I have read that essay and totally agree with it. You might also want to read Barb C's review of season 6 on her site. It could be that JM was horrified by having to play a character who would do something so personally abhorrent to himself and felt he had to retroactively represent the character as more evil than he was.

And as for Buffy and Angel, Angel has done horrible things with a soul as well as without (example: the lawyer buffet; were all the people evil, Unlikely.)

As for ASH's comments. perhaps he felt it had to be justified otherwise his character was a blind jackass who didn't question the source of Wood info.

And how is this a feminist ending? She kisses the guy who hurt her more than anything and than tells him she may be ready for him in the future. Dru much?

end rant maybe more later

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 2

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

Re: he's an ass

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I'm gonna try!

Hmmm, I disagree with that...

Re: Hmmm, I disagree with that...

Unbelievable.

no subject

grrr, argh indeed

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

actors interviews

Re: actors interviews

Re: actors interviews

Write Him

I Totally Agree!

Re: I Totally Agree!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Just To Clarify...

Re: Just To Clarify...

Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

I have a theory

Re: I have a theory

Re: I have a theory

Re: I have a theory

no subject

no subject

poor misguided James

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

RE:Essay