Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Readers respond to Jaime J. Weinman's rant "Why Spike Ruined 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'"
May 14, 2003 | Read the story.
Jaime J. Weinman makes a good point about coolness, and Spike ruining the last season of "Buffy," although of course Spike isn't really bad, he's just badly written. The most interestingly written character this season is the far-from-cool Andrew: I'm in mourning for the rest of the cast.
On the other hand, Spike used to be cool and well-written. So was Oz. So I think the real problem must be the terrible, horrible, untrue-to-the-characters story lines.
Last season, Willow was (at least half of the time) badly written. This season, everybody, all of the time, except for Andrew and Anya, is boring, mopey and prone to President Bush-style speechmaking. Boring, boring, boring! Even the villains are boring. I loathe Marti Noxon. Bad writing is worse than a stake through the heart.
-- Kelly Link
Jaime Weinman's lament about Spike's alleged "ruining" of Buffy fails to take into account an important detail: The Scoobies aren't in high school anymore. Weinman is longing for a show that hasn't existed for several seasons, not just this one. Willow is now an überwitch, Xander has become a kind of unofficial watcher, and even annoying little Dawn suddenly knows how to kick ass. How is all this Spike's fault?
I happen to disagree with Weinman's assessment of the show as well as Spike's role in it. While many programs have "jumped the shark," and Buffy has veered dangerously close to doing that throughout its run (see any episode with the Initiative), Whedon and Company have always pulled it back from the brink brilliantly. In fact, Buffy is going out on a high note. Has there been a villain as straight-up creepy as Caleb in recent memory? I think not. And the First's ability to exploit the emotional chinks in the gang's armor is also quite chilling, recalling Hannibal Lecter's onion-stripping assessment of Clarice Starling during their first meeting.
As for Spike, Weinman sees him all wrong. Spike has never been the "cool guy" as she claims. He's the uncool guy trying to BE the cool guy. In life Spike was William, a pathetic milquetoast who couldn't have gotten laid in a whorehouse. His afterlife has been spent trying to reinvent himself, and after he regains his soul we once again see the insecure man he once was, now trying to live with his carnage. Sure he has his James Dean moments, but that's clearly not who Spike is.
Spike's transformation has been one of the most interesting aspects of the show, and he fits in perfectly with Weinman's celebration of the uncool. He's way off base on this score.
-- Todd Prepsky
I would just like to briefly comment on the article by Jaime Weinman. I'm sorry that the writer has so grossly misunderstood the show that he attempts to critique.
I began watching the show only because of Spike. His story resonated with me because, despite his bravado, Spike is truly the outsider. He is the one with his face pressed against the glass looking into the world that Buffy shares with her friends and wanting to be a part of that with her. He is the one who has suffered the pain of being an outcast in the face of the mocking and disdain of the core-four clique. He has been the butt of their jokes and the punching bag for the resolution of Buffy's Season 6 self-hatred issues.
Spike's journey in the name of love is the most impressive story line I have seen on television and is worthy of all the praise that has been heaped on James Marsters for his portrayal of Spike. To dismiss Spike's story with the overused Fonzie comparison is to truly deny oneself the pleasure of watching the story of a character of true depth and beauty unfold. I'm sorry Jaime Weinman can't see the beauty while wearing the blinders that are so prevalent on Television Without Pity as well.
-- Laura Adelmann
I just wanted to express my support for Jaime J. Weinman's article about the rise of Spike-decline of "Buffy" correlation. I can imagine he has been besieged by abusive and incoherent rants that berate him for daring to question the presence of this hunka hunka burning love and redemption figure on television.
The presence of Spike on the show has been, from the end of Season 2 on, an obvious manifestation of the desires of the producers to work with sexy James Marsters and his willingness to work shirtless.
I grudgingly admit, over the years, the use of Spike has had some interesting results. The sexual relationship with Buffy in Season 6 was well portrayed by Sarah Michelle Gellar as a symptom of deep self-loathing and depression. It was heartbreaking, but I felt like I was supposed to think it was H-O-T.
Spike's had some funny lines over the years, but I'd sacrifice them all to keep the focus on the core-four cast members, whose characterizations in the present season have been reduced to agents of plot movement and ridiculous exposition. Buffy's focus on Spike in the face of his conscious and unconscious decisions to hurt and kill, blindly supporting him against the wary protests of her closest friends, has made her a completely unlikable character to me -- something unthinkable for me before this season.
And I feel better knowing that I'm not alone in blaming Spike, because he ruins everything he touches.
-- Nora McGunnigle
I have watched "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" from its beginning and have read thousands of articles written about the show. NEVER have I been so upset about what someone, who is obviously so one-minded, that I've actually seen red!
The character of Spike is so much more than what the writer of this article states him as. I have watched Spike's development over the years and if anything, he HAS proven that a soulless evil demon CAN CHANGE. There was no reason for this change, other than his love for Buffy. He has repeatedly gone completely against his nature (evil souless creature) and proved himself in more ways than one.
Spike has ALWAYS showed more humanity than any other vampire on the show or of any mentioned. He has shown his ability to love and has worn his heart on his sleeve countless times. That fact alone sets him apart from all the others.
The quest to regain his soul was in itself an act that goes against everything he is. An evil soulless creature that "should not" care one way or the other, but he did and does. Why? Because of the love for a woman who cannot return his love because of moral issues. He did not regain his soul for any other reason than to prove to Buffy that he does indeed love her. To show her he CAN be a good man despite what he is.
James Marsters is a brilliant actor who has created a character with more depth than any other on the show in my opinion. He cannot be faulted for his ability to bring a character to life and to create a fan base for that character. There are people who hate Spike, and that is their right to do so, just as it is mine to love the character. For the author of your article to personally attack James Marsters for his ability to "act" and bring his character to life is a low blow.
The development of Spike over the years has been what kept me interested in the show. I doubt very seriously I would have continued watching if it weren't for the Spike story line. The chemistry between James Marsters and Sarah Michelle Gellar was amazing to watch and I will miss it. And as for Spike ... I'll be tuning in each week to catch him on "Angel," to see where he goes and what happens next. A character like that won't be forgotten and I'm sure thousands will agree with me.
-- Rhonda Hefner
