When Professionals Writers Engage with Internet Fans Things Go Wonky

[shadowkat]

Inspired by recent rants about professional writers who have engaged in snarkfests with fans, pissing off some of them. I thought I'd give you some of the best and most noteworthy, not to mention blood pressure inducing fan and professional writer fights online. I'll let you choose the worst.

1. David Fury in a 2001 post on Bronze Beta in direct response to fans who were critical of his episode "CRUSH" in S5, Fury wrote the following classic line:


Fury says: (Tue Feb 13 09:48:23 2001 216.186.167.140) "...To those who feel my conviction that Spike can never be redeemed and cannot someday end up with our heroine, shows a lack of imagination of my part, I say you're right. It is beyond my limited imagination to see a strong, independent, female character end up falling for a murderer who would be killling innocent people were he not suffering from chip affliction.

I regret I don't have the creative mind that, say, Thomas Harris has when he saw fit to sell out the character of Clarice Starling by having her become lovers with a cannibalistic psychopath, charming and brilliant as he may be.

That's just one of my many weaknesses as a writer.

For those of you who fault my thinking, I can only say I'll try to be more openminded in the future. In the meanwhile, S/B shippers, you can go back to writing your penpals, Richard Ramirez and the Hillside Strangler, and I hope they finally accept your marriage proposals..."

2. Anne Rice Bites Back at Reviewers on Amazon.com

Amazon.com’s policy of allowing readers to post reviews of books might be a helpful feature for consumers, but for bestselling vampire author Anne Rice, it’s been a pain in the neck. Rice was so outraged over the vitriolic response to her latest book, Blood Canticle—apparently the final installment in her bestselling Vampire Chronicle series—that she posted a 1200-word response that requested that unsatisfied readers mail her back the book for a refund. Baring her own fangs, Rice blasted the readers, saying "your stupid arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander…you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehoods and lies." While admitting she reads Amazon.com’s reviews for other author’s works, she criticized the site’s "willingness to publish just about anything." Some posters found the book so unlike its predecessors they doubted Rice wrote it, while others carped about her needing an editor. The author countered saying she wrote "every word of it" and has "no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate" her sentences. "I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status," she said, adding "every word is in perfect place." Rice further asserts that the Chronicles, which began in 1976 with Interview with the Vampire, is an "unrivalled series of books." She, however, praised the positive reviews.

3. Elizabeth Moon's controversial post and fight with people on Islam. The end result was - the author was asked not to be the guest at Wiscon next year. She never submitted an apology. And deleted all the comments to her blog and disabled.
But people kept an archive. The fight is still going on.

4. Aaron Sorkin vs. Fans of the West Wing on TWOP - Sorkin was a frequent poster on TWOPY during the West Wing, posted as Benjamin. Around emmy time, he failed to acknowledge a co-worker, fans commented on it - and Sorkin did not take it at all well. He later enacted vengeance by writing it into a West Wing episode.

And of course there are the ones I remember but can't find - Whedon's numerous snarkfests with fans,
Deknight, Petrie and Fury's on BronzeBeta, notably around the airing of Seeing Red. Marti Noxon's fight with fans. One smackdown between Whedon and a fan regarding Marti's writing of a Mad Men episode on Whedonesque (I think it was MAD MEN, it might have been earlier than that). Notably - Damon Lindenoff's rant against fans of LOST, accusing them of not really being "true Lost fans" if they didn't like the finale.

Sigh late and must get to bed. I think fighting with fans of one's work is a post-modernist thing.
We couldn't do it in the dark ages before the internet and twitter and facebook and fan boards.
Is it a good thing - to be able to converse and interact with the readers and watchers of your work?
I don't know. I think it has it's peaks and valleys. While it's great when people love you, there's always that one person who comes along and kicks you where it hurts and for some reason I've never understood that's the person I remember, not all the raves, the one who sticks in the head.

Writers are a wrecked lot. I think. Human and vulnerable. We're also so critical. Everyone of the writers listed above has written critical reviews and ripped things they loved or disliked apart critically. Whedon certainly has. As has Fury, and Sorkin and notably Lindenof on the Harry Potter film.

Comments

[fenchurche.livejournal.com]

Even though he's sort of "redeemed" himself since then on the subject, I've never been able to get past the opinion I formed of him based on that statement. It was quite a slap in the face to Spike fans at the time and seemed fairly out of proportion to the discussion going on... plus he said it specifically in response to a friend of mine.

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

Yes. Our boy David has had to do some severe backpedaling in the intervening time for that one.

[ubi4soft.livejournal.com]

If I understood correctly, he start backpedaling after LMPTM when he was accused of writing Spike to favorably.

[cindergal.livejournal.com]

I forgave him when he eventually said Spike was morally superior to Angel. ;-)

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

I should say that the "hilarious" part for me is that he had to eat his words about six months later. That kind of thing always comes back to bite you...but that it did so quickly is just beautiful. I'm sorry about your friend, though. Grrrr.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Is there a more extensive account of fandom interaction with David Fury (like the Aaron Sorkin one) because I'm sure there's some chapters I'm missing here.

[enisy.livejournal.com]

Buffy Season 5, around the same time as the comment shadowkat67 posted:

David Fury: Okay! Okay, you've convinced me. I was wrong!!! Wrong, do you hear?!! I now DO think a genuine relationship - a love story - could evolve, and redemption could be achieved, if Dawn started dating one of the Gentlemen. Again, I'm sorry I didn't see it before. ;-)

David Fury: Face it, Buffy and Spike will never be together. He's a killer and can never be changed.

David Fury: Okay, I know I'm stepping in it again, but let me try and explain...
Angel and Buffy cannot be together because it's the sweet torture of their doomed relationship that makes us care. Desiring something forever out of reach makes their relationship epic... like Cathy and Heathcliffe (not the single chick and the cat from the comics).
Romeo and Juliet would never have been a play if their love wasn't doomed. If they lived happily ever after, all our longing for them to live happily ever after, to somehow beat fate, would evaporate and we'd all be left unsatisfied. Well, me, anyway.
Spike and Buffy together, though... Boy that I'd like to see. Those two should definitely fall in love and marry and have kids... Let's get it on.
Such is the humble opinion of this much-maligned hack. *sniff*
(Okay, how long before this creates a big brawl at the Bronze, I ask you.)

Buffy Season 6:

David Fury: Hey, about the Buffy/Spike thing... My stance is the same as ever. But I'm gold with the context we've been working with. Buffy is in a dark, screwed up place. Boinking her way through it with Spike is supposed to be repellent. And, of course, erotically twisted. We're not making statements here. We're telling stories. And sometimes heroes go through dark, screwed up places before coming out the other side. Just saying...

Post-Buffy Season 7:

Interviewer: In Buffy's Season 5, you were fairly adamant that Spike was not redeemable. Then in Season 7, you seemed to change your mind, solidifying that when Spike moved over to Angel. What made you change your mind?
David Fury: Ah, yes, the Spike debate again. It was my personal conviction, based on the show's mythology, that a soul-less vampire like Spike was incapable of being redeemed. Otherwise, Angel having a soul was irrelevant. Spike could be domesticated, sure, he could be conditioned via the chip in his head not to kill, but he was still a soul-less killer. My opinion shifted after two things happened: Spike was given a soul at the end of "Grave," and I began to see that Spike was an anomaly in the vampire world.

During and after Angel Season 5, he is known for:

- Wanting Spike to win the fight in "Destiny" on grounds of him having become "the better man", and getting in a fight with DeKnight over it.
- Arguing against the Spike/Harmony sex scene.
- Pitching a finale to Joss in which Spike wins the Shanshu and can now go to be with Buffy (which Joss rejected because he thought Spike had more of a future, plot-wise and characterization-wise, as a vampire).

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Thanks, enisy!

He does seem to be a convert, but wow did he 'sin' before seeing the light.

It doesn't seem like he ever apologized for his nasty behavior when it comes to how he treated fandom, though. Or did he?

[enisy.livejournal.com]

Not that I know of.

(FTR: S5-era comments were on a fanboard, S6-era comments were also on a fanboard, post-S7 comment is from an interview, and the bulletpoints are from a Sacramento Q&A in 2005.)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Nope.

Though, actually, if I remember correctly that actually was his apology that he was forced to make. Or maybe that came later. Honestly, it's hard to remember as the 'apology' was every bit as offensive as his initial snitfit. It was basically along the lines of "sorry if you were offended that I called you a serial killer lover who should write the Menendez brothers love letters in prison but you are. Hah!"

[enisy.livejournal.com]

Right you are.

"Okay, I see comments I've made in an interview have once again sparked some controversy. Let me stress these are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of management (and they cannot be reprinted without the expressed written consent of Major League baseball.) Now...
To those who feel my conviction that Spike can never be redeemed ... [see original comment]
Your simple-minded pal,
David Fury"

[enisy.livejournal.com]

Found some more:

David Fury: (on favourite characters) As things went along and as the characters developed, I think I began to really love writing Spike. Spike was a wonderful character that went through a lot of changes over the years and those changes were really interesting to incorporate into the character without undermining who that character was. It was really very interesting having him go from villain to anti-hero to hero, which is kind of what happened with him. I think he became the most rewarding character to, ultimately, write about...

Also from the Sacramento Q&A (copied and pasted from the original report):

"Fury commented that the only campaign he'd heard of on the Internet concerning the [Angel] finale was the one where Spike and Buffy end up together. Some girls then started shouting "Angel and Buffy!" At which point Fury went into this very sarcastic riff about how the real ending was going to be that Spike dies, Buffy returns, and she and Angel ride off into the sunset together. Which means, IMO, that the one thing we can be sure of is that the show is NOT going to end that way!"

Heh.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Wow, he seems like he can be quite a nasty piece of work, sometimes. That's just... vicious.

You know, there's a disturbing niggle in the back of my mind wondering about powerful men writing stories about powerful women, including romance which they sell and play up, who then mock and deride the female fans who enjoy those stories.

[enisy.livejournal.com]

I just posted that to show how "Our Simple-Minded Pal" went from mocking Spike/Buffy fans to, in the space of a few years, mocking Angel/Buffy fans. :P

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Heh. I'm bad for thinking a snarky comment about him going to work on 24 (i.e. the torture was way more upfront there).

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

He was pretty doggedly consistent about the soul thing, so he gets point for being internally consistent (if frequently offensive).

[rahirah]

In the Succubus Club interview with Drew Goddard, it was rather amusing to listen to Fury trying, with audible perplexity, to work out some way in which Spike must be a super-special vampire in order for him to have gone to get a soul. He actually suggested that maybe Spike had been turned wrong and kept a piece of his soul, or something. Goddard, on the other hand, was of the opinion that Spike didn't need to be a super special vampire; his behavior was more than adequately explained by vampires keeping their human personalities, albeit not their human morals.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

It does seem like Fury's more rigid and dogmatic. Which makes sense, doesn't it?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Quite rigid and very precise writer, with clear rules. Clear boundaries. And into the rules of the verse. Whedon is the opposite, a far looser writer, who liked to play outside the lines. Fury to give him credit did reign in Whedon a bit, while Whedon loosened Fury up. As did Marti Noxon and Jane Espenson - who were looser writers than Fury was and more emotional. In commentary - Fury admits that Marti often wrote the emotional scenes for him which he couldn't handle - specifically in Primeval. And Espenson did it in Sleeper. He's a slower writer due to the desire for precision.

He wrote great stuff for Spike, but I avoided him online and used to avoid his interviews - because at the time, he often made my blood boil. Now, not so much. He pissed off some Lost fans too - when he went online after Lost and quipped in some interview or other that the Lost writers had no clear plan and that's why he left for 24. Because he couldn't work without a clear plan in place.

[ubi4soft.livejournal.com]

Aaaand after LMPTM
http://offline.buffy.cd/www.cityofangel.com/behindTheScenes/bts3/fury3.html
"The way I do that is, I've always been the proponent that Spike is Ð whatever his sensitivity or other factors that he exhibits ultimately not good for Buffy. I think it comes across in "Lies" that he doesn't kill Wood but he would kill him. And the fact that Spike really works the guy over and takes the coat back and puts it on - that is Wood's mother's coat and Spike is going to continue to wear it. Spike is ultimately not a good guy. Yes, there are a lot of elements to him that are good and I see them but to paint him anyway heroic I have a hard time with that to a point. I can see him being heroic on some levels. There are a lot of antiheroes that rise to the occasion but if he makes that complete journey, then he is Angel. If he becomes the thing that has no moral ambiguity, that's Angel."

But he changed his mind in AtS 5

[enisy.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, I remember that. (LOL @ Angel having no moral ambiguity. Oh how the mighty have fallen.)

[angearia.livejournal.com]

He must be living in a constant state of mental whiplash.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Angel having no moral ambiguity. That's hysterical!