'we like spike' article response letter
Dec. 2nd, 2002 08:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockThis is the response I sent to the editor at NY magazine regarding their article on Spike fans, found here thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
katiedack's journal.
----
to: nyletters@primediamags.com
I read the article entitled "We Like Spike" by Mim Udovitch on your magazine website, from the December 09, 2002 issue .
Frankly, as Spike fan, a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan, and as a female of reasonable intelligence, I found it embarrassing.
First of all, the Udovitch clearly does not even watch the show she is writing about. The article is peppered with inconsistencies that even a brief viewing of episode summaries from just last seasons finally could have calrifies. The msot glaring example: "when he went to Africa two seasons ago to get his soul restored -- don't ask -- he apparently left his leather coat there." This is majorly wrong on two factors-- one, Spike only regained his soul in the very end of last season-- a mere nine episodes ago. And he left the coat at Buffy's house, NOT Africa, which if the writer of this article ever watched the show, she'd know that this isn't a fan fetish detail, its a significant incident represented his character's dramatic change-- as since Spike has a appeared on the show his bad-boy nature has been symbolized & epitomized by that coat, and by leaving it at Buffy's home immediately after attempting to force himself on her, it signifies a dramatic change in his character as a whole, as it is that night that he leaves to get his soul and htus not be evil anymore.
What really irritated me about this article is the idea that everyone who likes Spike's character is a) female and b) only because James Marsters is attractive. The reason peopel actually "like Spike" is because his character was the morally ambiguous person amongst a group of people who see good and evil as a back & white subject. His character is one of the most highly developed on the show, and he has gone from throw-away villian to untrusted ally to wacky neighbor to creepy stalker to self-sacrificing hero suffering from unrequieted love to Buffy's sex-toy & punching bag to a warrior fighting for his soul and his sanity.
The writer's continual evolving of the character and the fact that James Marsters is by now one of the best actors on BtVS are what make Spike great. His attractivess is only a bonus-- like popcorn at a movie. What draw people to Spike is watching his journey over four years on the show from evil to good, propelled only by determination and love. If Spike fans only liked his looks they'd lose interest fast.
I also particularly disliked this quote, which was included:
"He understands in a bigger way," adds Paisley Weinstein, 33.
Understands what? That quote has no context in the article, and is unspecific. It's useless and furthmore makes Buffy fans look stupid.
I also has a problem with this portion of the article:
"He is often tied up or otherwise constrained, which strangely enhances his allure. Last week's cliffhanger left him strapped to what looked very much like a bondage wheel in a crucifixion pose, bleeding suggestively."
This is misrepresentative, as the writer would know if--AGAIN-- he or she ever watched the show. Spike was never tied up in season 2. He was tied to a chair as a prisoner to be used for information gathering in 2 episodes of season 4. then seasons 5 and six went by- not tying up. Then he was tied up in ONE episode of season 7 (9th, and latest), which is what the quote also refers to. And if the writer had any brains she'd recognize that the wheel he was tied to in the described scene was a torture wheel of the kind used in the Spanish Inquisition-- not bondage at all. And he was being bled not for anything sexual, but against his will for a dark ritual by the season's major villain.
This also irritated me--"Whereas Spike is the kind of man or demon -- whatever) who has proven that he would give up the chance to plunge the entire world into living hell in order to save a relationship. In other words, he puts romance ahead of career."
That described incident was five years ago in the show's 2nd season (its in its 7th now), and has nothing to do with person or motivations of the character Spike has become. A better description of Spike would be "a man who changed his entire existence for love of a woman," which is what he did at the end of last season's finale.
Mostly what is embarrassing about this article (besides quoting twelve year olds on his sex appeal-- even actor James Marsters would be embarrassed by that) is the huge mistakes in discussing the show's timeline and the character's. A little research on the writer part would have solved that easily. All the talk is of his sex appeal, and no mention is given to the fabulous writing of Mutant Enemy (creator Joss Whedon's production company) that has ceated one of the most dynamic and multi-faceted characters on tv at the moment, or of why the chracter is so popular-- certainly isn't all sex appeal. People can watch ER for that.
For a fan this article is an embarrassment, and for a major magazine, well... it doesn't make you look good, that's for sure. It strikes me as pointless and tacky. If you want to write about it, have an interview with actor James Marsters, and use that as a starting place for discussion on the show.
Please, teach your writer's to do *reasearch* on something before you pay them for writing badly about it.
~Sara Weir
San Jose, California
-----
katiedack's journal.----
to: nyletters@primediamags.com
I read the article entitled "We Like Spike" by Mim Udovitch on your magazine website, from the December 09, 2002 issue .
Frankly, as Spike fan, a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan, and as a female of reasonable intelligence, I found it embarrassing.
First of all, the Udovitch clearly does not even watch the show she is writing about. The article is peppered with inconsistencies that even a brief viewing of episode summaries from just last seasons finally could have calrifies. The msot glaring example: "when he went to Africa two seasons ago to get his soul restored -- don't ask -- he apparently left his leather coat there." This is majorly wrong on two factors-- one, Spike only regained his soul in the very end of last season-- a mere nine episodes ago. And he left the coat at Buffy's house, NOT Africa, which if the writer of this article ever watched the show, she'd know that this isn't a fan fetish detail, its a significant incident represented his character's dramatic change-- as since Spike has a appeared on the show his bad-boy nature has been symbolized & epitomized by that coat, and by leaving it at Buffy's home immediately after attempting to force himself on her, it signifies a dramatic change in his character as a whole, as it is that night that he leaves to get his soul and htus not be evil anymore.
What really irritated me about this article is the idea that everyone who likes Spike's character is a) female and b) only because James Marsters is attractive. The reason peopel actually "like Spike" is because his character was the morally ambiguous person amongst a group of people who see good and evil as a back & white subject. His character is one of the most highly developed on the show, and he has gone from throw-away villian to untrusted ally to wacky neighbor to creepy stalker to self-sacrificing hero suffering from unrequieted love to Buffy's sex-toy & punching bag to a warrior fighting for his soul and his sanity.
The writer's continual evolving of the character and the fact that James Marsters is by now one of the best actors on BtVS are what make Spike great. His attractivess is only a bonus-- like popcorn at a movie. What draw people to Spike is watching his journey over four years on the show from evil to good, propelled only by determination and love. If Spike fans only liked his looks they'd lose interest fast.
I also particularly disliked this quote, which was included:
"He understands in a bigger way," adds Paisley Weinstein, 33.
Understands what? That quote has no context in the article, and is unspecific. It's useless and furthmore makes Buffy fans look stupid.
I also has a problem with this portion of the article:
"He is often tied up or otherwise constrained, which strangely enhances his allure. Last week's cliffhanger left him strapped to what looked very much like a bondage wheel in a crucifixion pose, bleeding suggestively."
This is misrepresentative, as the writer would know if--AGAIN-- he or she ever watched the show. Spike was never tied up in season 2. He was tied to a chair as a prisoner to be used for information gathering in 2 episodes of season 4. then seasons 5 and six went by- not tying up. Then he was tied up in ONE episode of season 7 (9th, and latest), which is what the quote also refers to. And if the writer had any brains she'd recognize that the wheel he was tied to in the described scene was a torture wheel of the kind used in the Spanish Inquisition-- not bondage at all. And he was being bled not for anything sexual, but against his will for a dark ritual by the season's major villain.
This also irritated me--"Whereas Spike is the kind of man or demon -- whatever) who has proven that he would give up the chance to plunge the entire world into living hell in order to save a relationship. In other words, he puts romance ahead of career."
That described incident was five years ago in the show's 2nd season (its in its 7th now), and has nothing to do with person or motivations of the character Spike has become. A better description of Spike would be "a man who changed his entire existence for love of a woman," which is what he did at the end of last season's finale.
Mostly what is embarrassing about this article (besides quoting twelve year olds on his sex appeal-- even actor James Marsters would be embarrassed by that) is the huge mistakes in discussing the show's timeline and the character's. A little research on the writer part would have solved that easily. All the talk is of his sex appeal, and no mention is given to the fabulous writing of Mutant Enemy (creator Joss Whedon's production company) that has ceated one of the most dynamic and multi-faceted characters on tv at the moment, or of why the chracter is so popular-- certainly isn't all sex appeal. People can watch ER for that.
For a fan this article is an embarrassment, and for a major magazine, well... it doesn't make you look good, that's for sure. It strikes me as pointless and tacky. If you want to write about it, have an interview with actor James Marsters, and use that as a starting place for discussion on the show.
Please, teach your writer's to do *reasearch* on something before you pay them for writing badly about it.
~Sara Weir
San Jose, California
-----
