Why the Spike hate?

[Taaroko]

This is a my reply to Kean's PM. It is a response to all of you.

I just don't think they would have made season 7 go the way he did with Spike having such a big role in averting the final apocalypse if they wanted him to be viewed as scum of the earth like Taaroko described.

You're entitled to your own opinion and if it's right for you then it's right for you... but it's not what was intended. And as I said I have twisted views of Angel and Faith by my definition. I can admit that. I know I see them way differently than the writers intended and I like my view of them. I mean it's a harsh view... but it's mine. My intention is not to tell you you have to change your opinion because it's wrong per-say... it's just not what was intended. As I said, I feel in interpreting any art you have to look at how the artist wanted it to be interpreted. I would say a fair statement from you is that the writers failed with their intentions for Spike in your eyes. It's fair for me to say the writers failed with their intentions of Angel and Faith in my eyes. Does this make sense?

Again, I'm sorry if anyone was offended by anything I said. I certainly didn't mean your opinions aren't valid. They are. They're just not what I think was intended and while I appreciate having these opinions that differ from the intent of the writers... it is important to me to think about the intent of the writers.

So...you're basing your insistence that the writers intended for us to see Spike the way you see him on an assumption. Not actual evidence. You'll forgive me if that doesn't make me feel any less justified in my interpretation or if I don't take your word for it about the writers' intentions.

Also, "scum of the earth"? That would be characters like Rack and possibly Warren. Not Spike. He does have redeeming qualities, they just aren't enough to make me like him when set against everything else.

 

[Taake]

As I said, I feel in interpreting any art you have to look at how the artist wanted it to be interpreted.

I would say that the second and artist releases their art (whatever it may be - tv-show, poems, a novel, a painting) to the public they relinquish their control and intention to the mercy of individual interpretations. Some like it, some don't. Some love it and see it the way the artist does, others love it for completely different reasons than the artist and so and so on... (as a painter myself I have had my art insanely mistunderstood from my intentions but I can't control how it is percieved by others. Does that make me more right though? I don't think so)

And here I would have to say that 'intention' is not a definite. We don't know for certain was Joss & co intended with Spike or s7 (unless there's some article/interview straight from the horses mouth that deals with this...?).
We only have our own interpretations of what said intentions were.

And even if Joss said "Spike is good. All love Spike" (yes, I'm exaggerating for simplicity's sake 🙂) he would still have released the creation of Spike to the masses. Everyone's interpretation is right in their own way, because your interpretation is based on your experiences as an individual and no one can lord above that, not even Joss.

 

[Kean]

This is a my reply to Kean's PM. It is a response to all of you.

I just don't think they would have made season 7 go the way he did with Spike having such a big role in averting the final apocalypse if they wanted him to be viewed as scum of the earth like Taaroko described.

You're entitled to your own opinion and if it's right for you then it's right for you... but it's not what was intended. And as I said I have twisted views of Angel and Faith by my definition. I can admit that. I know I see them way differently than the writers intended and I like my view of them. I mean it's a harsh view... but it's mine. My intention is not to tell you you have to change your opinion because it's wrong per-say... it's just not what was intended. As I said, I feel in interpreting any art you have to look at how the artist wanted it to be interpreted. I would say a fair statement from you is that the writers failed with their intentions for Spike in your eyes. It's fair for me to say the writers failed with their intentions of Angel and Faith in my eyes. Does this make sense?

Again, I'm sorry if anyone was offended by anything I said. I certainly didn't mean your opinions aren't valid. They are. They're just not what I think was intended and while I appreciate having these opinions that differ from the intent of the writers... it is important to me to think about the intent of the writers.

Since you took it here I'll post this here too.

There writers were far from united in what Spike's story was supposed to be.

David Fury

Spike and the Spuffy relationship are points of great contention not only in the fan community, but also among the writers. Through the years, writer David Fury, for example, has been quoted a number of times saying that Spike is a villain, and not an acceptable choice as a romantic partner for Buffy. His most infamous comment was posted in 2001 on the largest Buffy fan board, The Bronze (now defunct), in response to a number of fans who were clamoring for a Buffy/Spike relationship. He said, "It is beyond my limited imagination to see a strong, independent, female character end up falling for a murderer who would be killling [sic] innocent people were he not suffering from chip affliction," and compared fans of the Spuffy relationship to women who write love letters to imprisoned serial killers. After the Episode "Seeing Red" appeared, he was asked if Buffy and Spike would ever "reconcile". His response: "Never trust your attempted rapist." (DavidFury.net, 2003). Mr. Fury is renowned in fandom for this dislike of this storyline and its fans.

Jane Espenson

Writer Jane Espenson, on the other hand, believed differently. When asked in an interview about the Buffy/Spike Relationship, Espenson said that it didn't "work out" not because Spike was evil, had no soul, and tried to rape Buffy, but because Buffy "finds it so hard to love." She goes on to say, "I love Spike. I was very worried about the attempted rape...it's very hard to come back from." (Candy, 2002.) In another interview, Espenson says that the Buffy/Spike relationship was her favorite storyline on the series: "...my number one has got to be the Buffy and Spike love story. I think that is just a gorgeous story. Spike and Buffy have something so much more complicated [than her relationship with her first love, Angel] that it's got that romance and all this other stuff on top of it which makes it so interesting for me." (DiLullo, 2003.) Does "all this other stuff" refer to the violence and attempted rape?

Joss Whedon

Creator Joss Whedon said, " [The Buffy/Spike relationship] was something that we on staff have been debating for years, and we figured our ambivalence was exactly what we wanted to project, and we used that on the show. We knew that we couldn't come back from an attempted rape to a romantic sexual relationship. But what we did want to say was that we could come back to a place of trust between these people. That man could redeem himself... that was the best possible message to get out there." He went on to warn that rapists shouldn't be "demonized," as that makes them look like "monsters," and absolves them of responsibility for their actions. (Sanderson, 2003).
Given the reported "ambivalence" of the writing staff in regard to the nature of the Buffy/Spike relationship and their apparent dismissal of the seriousness of rape, it is hardly surprising that there was anger, confusion and dissention among fans. The viewpoints expressed in fandom can generally be broken down into two categories: casual viewers and "Spikistas," hyper-dedicated fans of the character of Spike. The opinions of the former group tend to run fairly close to Mr. Fury's, and express horror over the attempted rape and disgust over the relationship in general. The latter group's opinions parallel more with Ms. Espenson's, with people endeavoring to excuse or deny Spike's behavior, or blame the incident on Buffy if they address the attempted rape at all.

Source:http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/35167/messages_about_sex_and_violence_in.html?cat=40

Who Spike is is a matter of extreme contention amongst the writers. How could we ever be expected to see him a certain way?

 

[zobothehobo]

Ok people... my little statement was taken SOOOO far out of control.... I meant it to be a little "wow that surprised me, it's so different from the way I feel and the way I feel it's supposed to be looked at" and it turned into this! Please understand I meant no harm and I'm sorry it effected so many people so negatively. That was not my intention. Beyond this post, I'm not going to comment on it anymore because I feel it's been taken way out of proportion and I feel like everything I say just makes you all more angry and hurt and that's again, not my intention. I'm not good with words... I'd never describe myself as the wordsmith so I'm sorry if sometimes what I say isn't what I mean. I generally never mean any harm (including this time) and I'm very sorry if sometimes it sounds like I do.

 

[Icarium]

Okay, moving on to the stuff of more substance now. Spike is a jerk, with or without his soul. And considering how intuitive he seems to be, there's no excuse for it. His insensitive remarks aren't made carelessly like Cordelia's or cluelessly like Anya's, they're deliberate.

I hate to (sort of) defend Spike but Cordelia's rude remarks tend to be just intentional as Spike's. Not that this makes Spike any less of a jerk, mind you.

And while I'm on that subject, since someone else brought it up and I don't want to let it go unaddressed, I don't think his stalking compares at all to whatever Angel(us) did. Angelus was stalking her as a predator stalks his prey for the purpose of messing with her head, and Angel's "lurking" was out of a desire to make sure she was okay and, occasionally, to pass information to her. Spike, on the other hand, goes sneaking around nicking her knickers, making a creepy shrine, and using Harmony to indulge in creepy fantasies (I can't stand Harmony either, but I still felt awful for her during those scenes). And then he surpasses all previously known definitions of creepy by threatening Warren into making a robot version of her, and having sex with it. I cannot express my horrified disgust strongly enough.

I love to put it like this - the moral of Spuffy seems to be "Don't give up, crazy stalkers, eventually the girl will sleep with you". Disgusting doesn't even begin to describe it. David Fury's infamous remark about the most hardcore Spuffy is very rude, no doubt, but I do think he was onto something.

I just don't think they would have made season 7 go the way he did with Spike having such a big role in averting the final apocalypse if they wanted him to be viewed as scum of the earth like Taaroko described.

Well, of course the writers didn't want Spike (or Buffy for that matter) to be viewed as scum. But many fans ended up thinking exactly that nevertheless. Intentions count for little, it's the end result that matters.

The Bronze (now defunct), in response to a number of fans who were clamoring for a Buffy/Spike relationship. He said, "It is beyond my limited imagination to see a strong, independent, female character end up falling for a murderer who would be killling [sic] innocent people were he not suffering from chip affliction," and compared fans of the Spuffy relationship to women who write love letters to imprisoned serial killers. After the Episode "Seeing Red" appeared, he was asked if Buffy and Spike would ever "reconcile". His response: "Never trust your attempted rapist." (DavidFury.net, 2003).

Fury! Fury! Fury! Too bad he later relented (AFAIK)

 

[Taaroko]

I meant it to be a little "wow that surprised me, it's so different from the way I feel and the way I feel it's supposed to be looked at"

Yes. Exactly. The way you *feel* it's supposed to be looked at. This is perfectly fine. What wasn't was when it came across as if you thought I was wrong *because* the writers actually in undisputed fact wanted us to see Spike your way. Which you failed to prove, and which Kean has now disproved with actual evidence.

I wasn't offended, though, and I know you weren't trying to offend me. I'm much happier when people say what they think than when they try to be all politically correct about it. I just didn't feel you had the right to speak for the writers like that without evidence and use it as a basis for discrediting my opinion.

 

[Taake]

And let's move on from that particular piece of business. These things do tend to get a little heated but no one intended harm 🙂

 

[StarSlayer]

I love to put it like this - the moral of Spuffy seems to be "Don't give up, crazy stalkers, eventually the girl will sleep with you".

Lol, I'm not going into a shipping war but come on. One can argue that's a moral of Bangel as well. 😛
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Icarium]

Please. You can argue that's a moral of Bangel as well. 😛
Posted via Mobile Device

So? I can't say I give a fig about Bangel either. Two wrongs don't make it right.

 

[The Unspoken]

Spikistas? Please, that article is about as objective as Willow on magic crack.

If we're going to boil it down to something as simple as 'Spike is a disgusting rapist', we might as well do the same regarding how Angel snapped Jenny's neck and made her corpse into a romantic surprise for Giles. It isn't that simple, but if you make it out to be, you're the one trivializing the issue of (attempted) rape.

 

[Taaroko]

Spikistas? Please, that article is about as objective as Willow on magic crack.

If we're going to boil it down to something as simple as 'Spike is a disgusting rapist', we might as well do the same regarding how Angel snapped Jenny's neck and made her corpse into a romantic surprise for Giles. It isn't that simple, but if you make it out to be, you're the one trivializing the issue of (attempted) rape.

The bias of the article doesn't negate the opinions of the show's writers presented therein, and the point of quoting it was to show that the writers' opinions of Spike are far from being united in his favor.

And I'm pretty sure nobody was boiling it down to "Spike is a disgusting rapist". He is far from being the only soulless vampire with rape and attempted rape on his resume, after all, and the general policy regarding soulless vampires is to kill them. That's not something soulful Spike can help, and he is no more responsible for any of it than Angel is responsible for Angelus killing Jenny, so it would be unfair to blame him for it. Soulful Spike gives me plenty of his own reasons not to like him.

 

[prophecygrrl]

Spikistas? Please, that article is about as objective as Willow on magic crack.

If we're going to boil it down to something as simple as 'Spike is a disgusting rapist', we might as well do the same regarding how Angel snapped Jenny's neck and made her corpse into a romantic surprise for Giles. It isn't that simple, but if you make it out to be, you're the one trivializing the issue of (attempted) rape.

I can't rep you twice in a row, but geezus the Joss Whedon one was biased as heck. The first two are more or less direct quotes, but the third is just ridiculous.

Kean agrees: The article being biased or not is irrelevant. It was posted so the writers opinions could be read. Ignore everything else in the article but what the writers say still stands and speaks for itself.

Thanks for posting all the writer's opinions, but I gotta say, again, the bias of that last Joss Whedon one is entirely relevant. Most of the contentious points, like Joss saying "rapists aren't monsters" and things like that, are NOT direct quotes. I highly doubt Joss Whedon, iffy as some of his feminist views are, would say that- and interpretation of that attitude in the text is HIGHLY subjective, like we've all (basically) said. I don't think it can be argued that the bias is irrelevant, sorry.

And the David Fury comment is just plain rude. I know people have that opinion and that's fine, but comparing Spuffies to women who write serial killers in prison? Fury was condemned for that comment for VERY good reason. That's not only rude. It's offensive and I'd argue sexist and even ableist, if we're going to imply that Spuffy fans are all just hysterical and lonely women, or we're all 'delusional'. I'm not gonna lie. It hurts to see some people on this thread cheering David Fury without qualification.

Sorry to go a bit off topic here, but I didn't feel comfortable just biting my tongue on this.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

yada yada

prophecygrrl, I dont think the purpose of the post was to glorify David's response or to vilify Jane's, it was meant to illustrate that even the writers did not see eye to eye on the character so we as fans would have even a harder time.

 

[prophecygrrl]

prophecygrrl, I dont think the purpose of the post was to glorify David's response or to vilify Jane's, it was meant to illustrate that even the writers did not see eye to eye on the character so we as fans would have even a harder time.

Not the post itself, because I *do* think posting the writers' opinions is relevant considering the conversation was about the writers' intent at the time. But I do have a problem with some of the comments relating to the post [ETA: I mean the David Fury quote], and I don't think the last Joss Whedon one was appropriate to use as a counterpoint given the bias in that article. I'm generally okay with character hate because I think it's important for people to be able to express unpopular fandom opinions without condemnation, but there is a line. As long as we're trying to work towards civility here, I think it's important that said civility be extended to both sides of the debate.

 

[Kean]

Thanks for posting all the writer's opinions, but I gotta say, again, the bias of that last Joss Whedon one is entirely relevant. Most of the contentious points, like Joss saying "rapists aren't monsters" and things like that, are NOT direct quotes. I highly doubt Joss Whedon, iffy as some of his feminist views are, would say that- and interpretation of that attitude in the text is HIGHLY subjective, like we've all (basically) said. I don't think it can be argued that the bias is irrelevant, sorry.

The part I bolded in the Joss Whedon section was the point I was hoping to make. As Scobro said: it was to illustrate the division within the writers room on the issue of Spike. And the part I bolded is an absolute direct quote from IGN interview. I can give you a link to it if you want.

Nowhere did I say that what the author of article thought should be taken into consideration.

And the David Fury comment is just plain rude. I know people have that opinion and that's fine, but comparing Spuffies to women who write serial killers in prison? Fury was condemned for that comment for VERY good reason. That's not only rude. It's offensive and I'd argue sexist and even ableist, if we're going to imply that Spuffy fans are all just hysterical and lonely women, or we're all 'delusional'. I'm not gonna lie. It hurts to see some people on this thread cheering David Fury without qualification.

That's an issue you would have to take up with David Fury, not me. Once again I posted his comments to illustrate the difference of opinion amongst the writers, not to champion any other person's stance.

 

[Icarium]

Thanks for posting all the writer's opinions, but I gotta say, again, the bias of that last Joss Whedon one is entirely relevant. Most of the contentious points, like Joss saying "rapists aren't monsters" and things like that, are NOT direct quotes. I highly doubt Joss Whedon, iffy as some of his feminist views are, would say that- and interpretation of that attitude in the text is HIGHLY subjective, like we've all (basically) said. I don't think it can be argued that the bias is irrelevant, sorry.

Chosen DVD commentary (pasted from http://stormwreath.livejournal.com/53253.html):

The idea behind their sleeping together was very important. It was that their relationship had enough trust in it: that it was physical and romantic but not sexual. That was, of course, in response to the rape issue of last year, when he had attempted to rape her because he didn't understand the boundaries of their relationship – he was soulless. But having gotten his soul and having fought to become a person, we wanted to say this man can be redeemed from that.

Not – and I've said this before, but I'll say it again – not in a Luke and Laura "he rapes her and they get married" way. Not in an "all is forgiven" way. Just in the way of he's still a human being who did a wrong thing and we still count him as a human being. I think that's a very important message, that their relationship should be complicated, and yet come to a place of trust. Without saying "Okay, now they're going to become lovers again", because I think that would be wrong. I think that's the wrong message. It's a very fine line.

Plus, considering the endless preaching in the latter season of BtVS about "redemption" and "second chances" (in reality more of sweeping sins under the carpet), it's very easy to believe Joss has said "rapists aren't monsters". As for Fury, I am frankly a lot more disturbed by Espenson's remark (assuming it's not misquotation) - Spuffy didn't work (In S6, I presume based on the date) "because Buffy finds it so hard to love." What?!? Gee, I wonder why she would have a problem loving a monster...

And very true about the writers disagreeing - how can they keep Spike (or anybody else) in character if they disagree that much about what his personality is? No wonder sometimes an episode where Fury writes Spike as a monster was followed by an episode where Spike is selfless and wonderful. Make up your damned minds, writers! That's not ambiguity, that's inconsistency, pure and simple.

 

[InsaneMystic]

This one might just be me overthinking things to a ridiculous level, but I can't help imagining how horrible he must smell all the time what with how much he smokes. Ew. I have zero tolerance for that smell, and I always find it weird when the other characters fail to comment on how gross it is, considering that, with the exception of Giles in his Ripper days, none of them has ever smoked. And I'm not too fond of the drinking either, but I don't remember that being quite as regular as the smoking. Either way, the result is that I don't like some of his defining personal habits, so we're already off to a bad start.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with pretty much everything else in your post, but this part, actually, is where we may find common ground. 😉

 

[prophecygrrl]

The part I bolded in the Joss Whedon section was the point I was hoping to make. As Scobro said: it was to illustrate the division within the writers room on the issue of Spike. And the part I bolded is an absolute direct quote from IGN interview. I can give you a link to it if you want.

Nowhere did I say that what the author of article thought should be taken into consideration.


That's an issue you would have to take up with David Fury, not me. Once again I posted his comments to illustrate the difference of opinion amongst the writers, not to champion any other person's stance.

I don't have a problem with you posting the opinions. I think you were right for doing so because they were relevant in context. Maybe you just didn't see my last post yet or maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I was talking about the reaction on this thread to those opinions. Just as people were offended by Zobo's "twisted" comment, I have a problem with people thinking Fury's comments are okay, which was implied by comments like wanting to shake his hand or joining his cheering squad. I really didn't want to single anyone out for this, but those types of comments are not okay either. Particularly when Fury's comments are, as I believe, somewhat sexist and derogatory- not just of the opinion [ETA: shipping Spuffy opinion], but of the people who hold that opinion.

Chosen DVD commentary (pasted from http://stormwreath.livejournal.com/53253.html):

"Not – and I've said this before, but I'll say it again – not in a Luke and Laura "he rapes her and they get married" way. Not in an "all is forgiven" way. Just in the way of he's still a human being who did a wrong thing and we still count him as a human being. I think that's a very important message, that their relationship should be complicated, and yet come to a place of trust. Without saying "Okay, now they're going to become lovers again", because I think that would be wrong. I think that's the wrong message. It's a very fine line."

but those comments are SO far from this:

He went on to warn that rapists shouldn't be "demonized," as that makes them look like "monsters," and absolves them of responsibility for their actions. (Sanderson, 2003).
Given the reported "ambivalence" of the writing staff in regard to the nature of the Buffy/Spike relationship and their apparent dismissal of the seriousness of rape, it is hardly surprising that there was anger, confusion and dissention among fans. The viewpoints expressed in fandom can generally be broken down into two categories: casual viewers and "Spikistas," hyper-dedicated fans of the character of Spike. The opinions of the former group tend to run fairly close to Mr. Fury's, and express horror over the attempted rape and disgust over the relationship in general. The latter group's opinions parallel more with Ms. Espenson's, with people endeavoring to excuse or deny Spike's behavior, or blame the incident on Buffy if they address the attempted rape at all.

I see accusations of rape apologism here, sexist wording (Spikistas, really? Gendered term used in a condescending context, much), and taking Joss's and Espenson's comments to very extreme interpretations.

 

[soulunsung]

And the David Fury comment is just plain rude. I know people have that opinion and that's fine, but comparing Spuffies to women who write serial killers in prison? Fury was condemned for that comment for VERY good reason. That's not only rude. It's offensive and I'd argue sexist and even ableist, if we're going to imply that Spuffy fans are all just hysterical and lonely women, or we're all 'delusional'. I'm not gonna lie. It hurts to see some people on this thread cheering David Fury without qualification.

Sorry to go a bit off topic here, but I didn't feel comfortable just biting my tongue on this.

Crap, I deduced you by accident when I was giving you rep. I really do hate my mouse sometimes, such a touchy little critter. But, I just wanted to go ahead and point out, that I agree EMPHATICALLY with you re: David Fury's quote.

I was a bit offended by that, as well.

 

[Taaroko]

Through the years, writer David Fury, for example, has been quoted a number of times saying that Spike is a villain, and not an acceptable choice as a romantic partner for Buffy. His most infamous comment was posted in 2001 on the largest Buffy fan board, The Bronze (now defunct), in response to a number of fans who were clamoring for a Buffy/Spike relationship. He said, "It is beyond my limited imagination to see a strong, independent, female character end up falling for a murderer who would be killling [sic] innocent people were he not suffering from chip affliction,"

This is why I want to shake his hand and join his cheering squad.

and compared fans of the Spuffy relationship to women who write love letters to imprisoned serial killers.

And this is not. This is very rude.