![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The JM kerfuffle
I once went to hear German author Gisbert Haefs read from his works. Afterwards I bought a book of short stories and asked him to sign it for me. He meticulously crossed out his name on the title page and replaced it with his signature. I was surprised and asked him why he'd crossed out his name and he said it was enough for his name to appear once on a page, twice would be vanity.
He's a very charismatic man, btw and an author whom I really admire, just saying.
Anyway, it has occurred to me that James Marsters probably is NOT vain enough to watch BtVS religiously again and again, that he does NOT know chunks of dialogue of the other characters by heart, and that IF he watches the show at all it's an entirely different experience for him than for his fans.
Heck, when he watches it on screen he probably sees his colleagues doing their job, rather than the characters. I also doubt that he's around when Joss and the other writers break the stories.
So, JM is probably not the right person to ask for a valid interpretation of storylines, arcs, metaphors etc.
Thus JM's views on Spike are certainly interesting but should be taken as an opinion rather than pearls of great wisdom. Just because his perception is different, doesn't mean he's an asshat. Besides, what he thinks should have little bearing on our appreciation of the show.
I can see that it scares JM that his fans are so willing to forgive Spike everything. What he probably does not understand (how could he) is that many Spike fans identify with Spike's outsider role. There is this shiny little group of friends, a tightly knit group of people who stand up for each other and claim each other as family, even Anya and Tara. It's shiny but Spike isn't allowed in. I've always identified with the underdog, the one doomed to fail because of poor planning, poor impulse control or plain rotten luck. I couldn't help identifying with a character who gets frustrated no matter where he turns.
How is JM supposed to understand that phenomenon?
And the fact that violence towards women makes him deeply uncomfortable is to his credit. He's a good actor, seems smart and tries to be a good guy. IMHO There's nothing wrong with that.
He's a very charismatic man, btw and an author whom I really admire, just saying.
Anyway, it has occurred to me that James Marsters probably is NOT vain enough to watch BtVS religiously again and again, that he does NOT know chunks of dialogue of the other characters by heart, and that IF he watches the show at all it's an entirely different experience for him than for his fans.
Heck, when he watches it on screen he probably sees his colleagues doing their job, rather than the characters. I also doubt that he's around when Joss and the other writers break the stories.
So, JM is probably not the right person to ask for a valid interpretation of storylines, arcs, metaphors etc.
Thus JM's views on Spike are certainly interesting but should be taken as an opinion rather than pearls of great wisdom. Just because his perception is different, doesn't mean he's an asshat. Besides, what he thinks should have little bearing on our appreciation of the show.
I can see that it scares JM that his fans are so willing to forgive Spike everything. What he probably does not understand (how could he) is that many Spike fans identify with Spike's outsider role. There is this shiny little group of friends, a tightly knit group of people who stand up for each other and claim each other as family, even Anya and Tara. It's shiny but Spike isn't allowed in. I've always identified with the underdog, the one doomed to fail because of poor planning, poor impulse control or plain rotten luck. I couldn't help identifying with a character who gets frustrated no matter where he turns.
How is JM supposed to understand that phenomenon?
And the fact that violence towards women makes him deeply uncomfortable is to his credit. He's a good actor, seems smart and tries to be a good guy. IMHO There's nothing wrong with that.
no subject
Thank you!
no subject
Thus JM's views on Spike are certainly interesting but should be taken as an opinion rather than pearls of great wisdom.
Word, chica -- I totally agree. Thank you for writing this.
And the fact that violence towards women makes him deeply uncomfortable is to his credit. He's a good actor, seems smart and tries to be a good guy. IMHO There's nothing wrong with that.
So very true. And the fact that he's so willing to appear at cons and interact with his fans (while remaining so down to earth) is one of the things I admire about him.
no subject
The broo, of course, was that this rapist (the elusive "bad boy" that we all love) grew into a leading man. Tony Geary was a bit freaked because he didn't like that women would scream out "rape me!" when he was in public. It blew his mind that people (women) were taking this rapist and idolizing him.
I think, in some ways, that has to be bothering James. Spike, in his mind, is an evil (formerly) soulless demon who does NOT deserve happiness. Too see all these women swooning (I love that word, LOL) over the character, I'm sure, bothers him greatly.
It's all a matter of your point of view. I view Spike diferently than James does. I think Spike DOES deserve happiness. I feel he earned it BUT it's my opinion.
To call someone names because they do not AGREE with your opinion absurd and a personal pet peeve of mine.
I just wanna yell out "grow the fuck up".
no subject
Too true. I've always thought that when an actor watched a movie or TV show he was in, he wouldn't be paying too much attention to the meaning behind the words. Instead, he would remember how long it took to nail that scene or how hard that day was when they were filming a snippet of dialogue. Probably, he's thinking the same thing about the other actors and their characters. It would be really difficult to move past that entirely, at least with a filmed medium that, once made, never changes (unlike a play).
And the fact that violence towards women makes him deeply uncomfortable is to his credit.
As others have already said...word. I would be disturbed if he said anything but. I'd rather have him a little hard lined on Spike's character then not care what he (Spike) did in the past.
It's gotta be hard to play a villain that actually does evil things on the show. i.e. the attempted rape. JM seems to have been rather traumatized by the scene. It would be rather hard to do something like that and not feel a little less then loving towards the character.
Not that I agree with all his sentiments, but I can totally see where they are coming from.
no subject
Thanks for writing this. You nailed most of my thoughts on the subject and put them into words way more articulately than I ever would, because of my infortunate habit of rambling way beyond the point!
no subject
no subject
another good and rational contribution to the JM kerfluffle. Thanks, Steph.
While I believe everything that can be said HAS been said by now and won't pick it up in my journal, I'm always grateful for some level-headed comment.
It is totally understandable, in my eyes, to fly off the handle and be quite frank in one's journal as an initial reaction to something: of course, everybody has a right to express her or his views (mind that asshat or other insults really weren't used all that often), it's just that all these fiercely emotional replies and further threads tend to blow the whole thing out of proportion.
Which applies to each and every true kerfluffle, I guess. & ;-)
no subject
no subject
NOT vain enough to watch BtVS religiously again and again, that he does NOT know chunks of dialogue of the other characters by heart, and that IF he watches the show at all it's an entirely different experience for him than for his fans.
Exactly! No one's interpretation is ever fully whole and complete, and his insights are fascinating when we compare them to some of the dominant fannish interpretations -- but nothing's going to be the final word. I once heard that Woody Allen only lets his actors see the portions of the script for their characters, because if they knew the entire film, it might contaminate their performance. I think that's a more extreme example of the partiality of perspective I'm trying to get at.
And the fact that violence towards women makes him deeply uncomfortable is to his credit.
God, absolutely. And getting fans whose interest in a character can often blind them to his or her complexity a little shook up and pondering the fact of the attempted rape is all to the good.
Thank you so much for this. Very well-done!
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2003-06-13 04:53 am (UTC)(link)Word. I didn't read the kerfuffle itself, just some of the post-kerfuffle discussions and the UPI report, and from that he seems like a really decent guy. Really, I was never that interested in the actor, but after reading this I heart the guy.
His view on Spike is a bit extreme even for me, but like others mentioned before, it sounds like he's had one strange encounter of the fannish kind too many... one of those scary fangirls who're convinced the mean Slayer asked for being raped, after abusing the poor helpless vampire so badly :0p.
Astrid