(no subject)
Jun. 9th, 2003 02:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rusty_haloI'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."
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."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-10 12:24 pm (UTC)Oh, sweet fancy Moses. The day I need relationship advice from an actor is the day I start thinking that TV shows are like real life.
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?
Seriously, it's so condescending. And psst...James: you'd probably still be waiting tables if it weren't for the Spike fans. He has the right to believe whatever he wants, but I think he should use a tad more judgement and know his audience.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-10 03:46 pm (UTC)He was just being honest. Would you want him to lie to you? To tell you what you want to hear? Or would you want him to be himself? If you answer yes to the first two - I don't know why you'd be so eager to go to a con to meet/listen to him in the first place.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-10 03:55 pm (UTC)Personally, I go to cons to meet other fans, not to meet James Marsters. Normally I enjoy listening to the man talk, but when he crosses the line into lecturing me about my sex life, I have every right to be irritated.
Yeah, he has the right to say it. And we have the right to be pissed about it.
Re:
Date: 2003-06-10 04:03 pm (UTC)But I think it's rude and unfair for some people (not necessarily you) to be so angry with him for being honest and to insult him by saying things like he "has the brain of a trout" or he'd still be waiting tables if it wasn't for them.
You know, I wasn't ever even the biggest James Marsters fan - but he really earned my respect this weekend. Not just by the things he said about Spike, but the way he spoke - his intelligence. So I'm a little protective of him right now and it makes me really angry that people are disliking him because of an opinion he holds that is different from other people's. It's a shame.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-10 04:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-11 07:50 am (UTC)Oh, I wouldn't! I have no interest in going to cons, because I really don't care what the actors have to say, to be honest. Too many times in the past (yes, Kerr Smith, I'm looking at you) finding out what actors think about their storylines has impacted my enjoyment of them.
And James has every right to have his opinion on Spike, I just question his judgement in this case. I also think saying things like "you don't want to hear it, but it's true" is very condescending.
I'm not a crazed Spike fan, although I've always very much enjoyed the character and James' performances. I was just a bit put off by his comments about the fans being *wrong* to like Spike. No, he shouldn't pander to his audience, but he shouldn't offend them, either (and clearly, a lot of people were).
But whatever, it's not keeping me up at night.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-10 03:52 pm (UTC)As an addendum to my comment - if people wanted to see James being someone besides himself, perhaps they would be better off staying at home and watching Spike.
And secondly, in response to:
And psst...James: you'd probably still be waiting tables if it weren't for the Spike fans.
Actually, James was working in theater - acting, directing, writing as well, I believe. And it's his talent that earned him his place - not the fans. He assured himself his success. Not anyone else.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-11 08:02 am (UTC)Which is exactly why I don't go to cons. A lot of actors are complete idiots and I'd rather just enjoy their work onscreen. (And I'm not saying James is an idiot, I just disagreed with him in this case. But with most actors, I think I'd rather just enjoy their work and leave it at that.)
He assured himself his success. Not anyone else.
I was being tongue-in-cheek with the waiting tables comment, but I have to say that an actor's success in Hollywood is a two-way street. Yes, absolutely, James' talent is a major part of why he's a success, no question. But without loyal fans, the WB wouldn't have renewed Angel on the strength of JM's fanbase. You could be the most talented actor/singer/writer in the world, but if no one follows your work....
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-10 04:57 pm (UTC)I both agree and disagree with what you've got to say. I do think that James tends to idealize women and obviously abusive relationships really hit a nerve with him. But he never actually said some of the things you're inferring from his comments.
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?)
He didn't say that the ONLY MAN she'll ever be able to love is Angel - he did say that she loves Angel. Not the same thing. And he actually did say something positive about Spike in answering that same question - he said that Spike chose his manhood by realizing that Buffy didn't love him in the way he wanted to be loved.
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.)
I totally didn't read it that way either. I don't think he meant starting something sexually. I took it to mean that Spike wouldn't have wanted to start the whole messy B/S thing up again right before the huge battle. Judging from the way they'd been together earlier in Chosen and in Touched, James's answer seemed about right. (and someone else told me that it's in the shooting script that they didn't sleep together, but I haven't read it, so I don't know for sure.)
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.
Again, I so didn't see this as condescending. Despite how you feel about the relationship before the bathroom scene (and I tend to take the side that there were NO good guys - they both fucked each other over a lot) in REAL LIFE it would be extremely unhealthy for a woman to jump right back into a relationship with a man who'd just almost raped her. I think that's the point he was trying to get across, however fumblingly he did it.
I don't really agree with the way he kept saying "his woman" and the fact that he dates 20-year-olds but I don't think the man's attitude towards women is anywhere near anti-feminist or caveman-ish.
And really, at this point, no matter *what* James said, he would have upset people. Spike is such a splitting factor in fandom that pretty much anything he said would have ticked some people off. I'm just glad that he still attends cons and speaks his mind. If I were him, I certainly wouldn't.
PS
Date: 2003-06-10 06:51 pm (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2003-06-10 09:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-10 09:06 pm (UTC)About the only thing I did agree with was, “If a man is bad, he'll be bad to his woman.” (Yes, I thought the following sentence -- “You don't want to hear it, but it's true" was condescending, but I’ll let it slide since it’s obviously far more applicable than I thought.)
How does one get to “idealizing women” from this? Turn it around -- if a woman is a bitch to everyone she meets, she’s going to be a bitch to her boyfriend -- I don’t think anyone would disagree with that one. Our public and private lives cannot be compartmented. The way I treat my nearest and dearest is reflected in the way I treat my co-workers and, albeit more dimly, in the way I interact with the waitresses at the local diner.
JM was only puncturing the “romantic hero” stereotype and cliché so beloved by the young and foolish. (And if that doesn’t describe 16-year-old Buffy’s attraction to Angel, I’ll eat my hat!) He also pointed out that one of the most glaring inconsistancies of Spike’s character – his utter devotion to the women in his life and his need for their approbation when he doesn’t give a toss about anyone else other than himself – was finally addressed in LMPTM. JM commented that the backstory makes Spike more pathetic than romantic, but it also makes him more *REAL*.
As JM said, “Nice guys rule!” and they do….but one of the major differences between his take on the character and ours is that we could see glimmers of a nice guy in pre-soul Spike and we believed that he *COULD* change. He had a long way to go, but it was happening because of the choices he made. (Essay question #78: Spike as the personification of free will)
However, JM’s analysis of Spike’s inherent evilness is based on what Joss and the writers have told him -– and he’s often said that the writer is god and that it is outside the actor’s purview to question the words that he’s given. Speaking from his experience as a director, JM believes that such interference unbalances the creative process and can hinder or even harm the story. When it’s all over and the last BtVS/Angel episode has aired, it will be interesting to ask JM what he thinks of the way the writers handled the character and the storyline…but while he’s still playing the role, it’s unrealistic to expect him to intentionally second-guess Joss’s vision.
As for the rape scene, JM said that it was incredibly painful to portray and that what the audience sees isn’t acting – it’s simply terror and a desperate desire to be anywhere else. While I believe it was traumatic and upsetting for him, I also believe it was the reaction of a few, deeply stupid fans (“Hey James, you can rape me any day!”) that made it impossible for him to deal with that particular storyline or view it with any degree of impartiality.
I don’t like or agree with his analysis of Spike and I devoutly hope that it isn’t used as the basis of the character during the next season of Angel…but it *IS* an intriguing insight into what Joss may have been thinking and has led me to re-examine my own preconceptions -- and that’s never a bad thing.
If you get a chance to see JM, do it. He’s articulate, funny and even better looking in person!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-10 09:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-12 09:49 pm (UTC)(takes deep breath) Sorry, been raped, touchy about idiots that make irreverant comments in reference to the act.
As for James, I agree that his POV on the Spike character is based on the ever-changing minds of the show's writers. I find complete and utter fault with the "If a man is bad to the world, he'll be bad to his girl" line, however, having been witness firsthand to quite the opposite. I think, sometimes, that "his girl" can be the one shining thing he has to look towards (regardless of whether we're talking about Spike, but let's assume that we are...)and that makes him want to be a better man for her, if nothing else. I mean, look at the drastic change in S5 Spike. Before "Out of My Mind" he was still thoroughly entrenched in the idea that he was the BIG BAD VAMPIRE and he was going to get the damned chip out and Scoobies Beware!!! Now, take a look at the gradual, and even staggeringly quick, changes he went through to gain the trust and love of one Buffy Summers. Being a friend to her in S6 and letting her treat him that way? My gods, he could HIT HER BACK and not get electronic backlash and he STILL played Buffy's Punching Bag! The boy was Love's Bitch, no qualifiers about it. He reverted to his baser "evil instincts" in the Bathroom Scene, no doubt about it; but look at what our boy did to make up for it? The "terrible pre-soul Spike" that James referred to saw what he'd done and immediately rushed halfway across the world to rectify the situation and make it so that he'd have a leash on his demon. I will argue this till they cart me off to the funny farm in a fashionable white jacket: No matter how terrible you are, you can change, you can be a good person, and you can be worthy of love, no matter WHAT past transgressions.
[/end rant]
As for the "dating 20 year olds" thing, I'm not really finding a problem with that since a.) I'm 20 and b.) if he and I ever met and he thought he liked me, that would just be a point in my favor, right? [self deprecating laugh] However, I have two children currently under the age of 2, think that would hurt my chances? ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-18 12:46 am (UTC)In a way, I felt like the gender message sent in Season 6 was that only men can be abusive. And any wrong women commit is excusable. What sort of message is that to send to your audience? I thought it was damned irresponsible.
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, you know? It wasn't just us who saw that spark. The JUDGE saw it, way back in Season 2. He said, directly, that Spike was not purely evil -- like Angelus -- that Spike was "contaminated" by a spark of humanity. Therefore, the writers created Spike from the very first as an unusual vampire with a capacity for human emotion. I won't be made to feel deluded for seeing what they explicitly told me was there.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-24 09:50 pm (UTC)Hell, I hurt sometimes. I don't take anybody out into an alley and beat the shit out of them. And if I did, I'd expect to be held accountable for my actions.
Yes, exactly. It's inexcusable that Buffy was never held accountable for her horrible abusive behavior.
I felt like the gender message sent in Season 6 was that only men can be abusive. And any wrong women commit is excusable.
Yes, I felt the same message. It's so very frustrating. And now I can't take any of their "girl power" stuff seriously at all, because to me feminism is about equality, it's not about immunity for women to behave just as poorly toward men as men have traditionally behaved toward women.
I won't be made to feel deluded for seeing what they explicitly told me was there.
Yeah, seriously. David Fury himself even acknowledges now that Spike was "special" all along. Yet he still stands by his comments calling us serial killer lovers. We saw the potential for redemption before Fury did, we rooted for it, and we were right--Spike really did turn out to be capable of great acts of heroism. How he gets "Spike fans are morally depraved" out of this, I really can't figure out.