February 2004 posts
If there is a Buffy movie... -- Darby, 05:43:01
02/09/04 Mon
It won't be Buffy without a central metaphor.
What would be a good metaphor to construct a feature film around?
Should it follow the original and be metaphors for life lessons?
Should it move into Angel territory and take on broader
questions, a la Jasmine?
Would it be appropriate for a Buffy movie to move into
a political arena with its message (assuming such a thing could
get past the Powers-That-Be-Studio-Executives)?
And should the movie tread upon horror movie conventions, as it
did early on? A Buffy treatment of The Ring, or 28 Days
Later, or the other, already Buffyish Screamers?
Curious about what folks would like to see.
If I ruled the Whedonverse, hm hm hm hm hm-hmm...
Replies:
[> Re: If there is a Buffy movie... -- Majin Gojira,
07:20:33 02/09/04 Mon
It will likely be about the "Slayer School" or the effects
of the Slayer Spell, possibly...or it could play like a big-old
reunion peice and all the emotional things about that.
[> Re: If there is a Buffy movie... -- Arethusa, 07:43:23
02/09/04 Mon
How about a movie examining the shifting paradigm of power? When
new groups gain power and old groups lose it, how do they avoid
warfare and expolitation? How do personal relationships change?
What are the different forms of power, and how should they be
used?
Or it could just have a wrestling match between Angel and Spike.
Oil is optional.
[> [> Re: If there is a Buffy movie... -- Irene,
11:01:26 02/11/04 Wed
"Or it could just have a wrestling match between Angel and
Spike. Oil is optional."
Just your type of entertainment, I guess.
[> [> Oil is NOT optional, neither are clothes :)
-- Tyreseus, 02:00:59 02/12/04 Thu
[> It's a major motion pitcher; think "epic,"
folks. -- cjl, 09:55:54 02/09/04 Mon
Possible ideas for a Buffy movie:
1. The Orpheus/Eurydice myth. Angel dies in the last episode of
his series, and is sent to Hell for his sins as Angelus. Buffy,
majorly PO'ed by the cosmic injustice of it all, vows to descend
into Hell to bring him back. The Scoobs reunite to join Buffy
for the trip down (some more enthusiastic than others). Much widescreen
mayhem and spectacular SFX follow. Buffy either (1) rescues Angel
or (2) reluctantly leaves him behind as he has accepted his fate
and vows to continue fighting for goodness even in depths of Hell.
2. A Squadron Supreme/The Authority plotline. A comic book geek
like Joss would love to take a crack at this one. Suppose Buffy
and crew, flexing their newfound authority, try to wipe out all
demonic manifestations on the Earthly plane--i.e., completely
eradicate mystical evil? Is that a good thing, or would they completely
upset the natural balance and destroy the world? Much moral ambiguity
and spectacular SFX ensue....
3. The All-Out Action Blockbuster. The Old Ones have gathered
all their demonic energies and are about to break through the
Cleveland Hellmouth. In the climactic battle, the Rock and Roll
Hall of Fame and Jacobs Field are destroyed, and Cthulu drinks
the Great Lakes as a cool refresher in between battle scenes.
[> It should be about Fray -- Ames, 13:22:49 02/09/04
Mon
The next movie should be about future Slayer Fray, set hundreds
of years from now. That way it won't wreck the potential for further
TV episodes following on from BtVS and AtS set in the present
day. And if it's successful, it will create demand for the fill-in-the-gap
stories, a la Star Trek Enterprise or Star Wars Part 1.
[> [> Why that probably won't happen - -- Darby,
14:12:19 02/09/04 Mon
I believe that it will be hard to interest a studio (well, Fox)
in a "non-franchise" Buffy. As with the first Trek
movie, they will want those familiar faces and known roles. I
don't think it's as critical for Firefly to continue its
tv cast (although Joss disagrees).
Fray will also be way more expensive (or wind up looking
way less convincing as a real future) than a continuation of the
show would be.
Of course, this all flies out the window if Firefly is
successful.
And don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a Fray movie...
[> [> [> Hmm -- Pony, 06:46:36 02/10/04 Tue
They could do a movie with the current Buffyverse cast explaining
the backstory of Fray. Big battle, banishing all the demons -
could work. Though it does kind of effectively end the franchise.
[> [> [> [> Re: Hmm -- Ames, 08:18:58 02/10/04
Tue
> Though it does kind of effectively end the franchise.
Well that won't happen.
How about this: they do a movie version of the story told in the
Fray comics to date, and then launch a new TV series as a follow
on - just like the original BtVS.
In an extra touch, Sarah Michelle Gellar returns to star as the
spirit of Buffy, who appears to guide Fray at critical moments.
:-)
[> [> Ditto...a "Fray" movie would be sweet...
-- Nino, 18:17:02 02/09/04 Mon
I really think Eliza Dushku would make a fabulous Fray...but this
would probably never happen...it'd be too confusing to have a
Slayer that looks all too much like Faith...but ya never know.
[> Disagreeing with a number of the suggestions in this
thread -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:19:25 02/10/04 Tue
If a Buffy movie is ever created, unless it's a made-for-TV or
straight-to-video, then most of the suggestions given so far would
probably be bad ideas.
For a Buffy movie to be successful, I think it would need to draw
heavily from the mainstream audience, and so should be relatively
self-contained rather than a continuation of the show's ending
(not saying it should be out of continuity, just that making it
center around pivotal events from the show will discourge new
viewers).
My personal suggestions:
1) A re-telling of Buffy's origin: how she discovers her calling,
grows from shallow teenager to brave heroine, and fights some
vampire lord munching on the local teenage populas. It would make
a good intro for people who have never watched Buffy before, while
still having interest for most fans, since the show only briefly
touched on these events. The downside is that a new actress would
have to replace Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy, which leaves big
shoes to fill, as well as potentially pissing off fans and decreasing
the film's overall star power.
2) Buffy leaves Sunnydale for the weekend to attend a cousin's
funeral. There she discovers that her cousin was killed by vampires
and is convinced it's not a coincidence. Sure enough, her cousin
was killed to lure her to this new town so she could be captured
by a vampire clan. This clan wants to bring a powerful demon to
earth, but the needed ritual requires it to first develop a physical
body inside a woman's womb. Unfortunately for the vamps, every
woman they've tried to use has died before the demon baby could
come to term, so they find the one woman in all the world who
can survive the strain of bearing this demonic child: Buffy, the
Vampire Slayer. Since this movie would take place almost entirely
outside of Sunnydale, with almost none of the show's cast present,
it wouldn't be too hard for a newcomer to jump right in, and the
new characters (relatives) Buffy's around can serve as an excellent
excuse to have Buffy explain the canon that does need explaining.
Of course, the lack of Sunnydale and the Scooby Gang is also a
downside, and the plot isn't necessarily that great. Of course,
it's difficult to have a great story when everything has to still
be status quo by the end.
3: Compact a seasonal arc. Take one of Buffy's arc stories and
find a way to condense it down to movie size. If this were done,
Seasons Five or Seven would be my preference (both just feel like
they could be done well in a more fast paced manner to me). Here,
while some fans may find it redundant, at least everyone will
know they're beginning with a workable story.
Of course, all this is based around the movie staying mostly within
show continuity, which doesn't necessarily have to happen. There
could be seperate show and movie continuities, or simply no movies
at all.
(Sorry I couldn't do anything with themes; just not my forte,
I guess)
[> [> Only way to do it: back to basics.. -- ZachsMind,
06:27:06 02/11/04 Wed
Gotta agree with Finn on this one.
If they did a show with all the main principal actors in attendance,
it'd be little more than a "return to Mayberry" kinda
thing. Either a tv movie or straight to video. Not worth the time
of most principals. Let's face it, we'll never get SMG or Hannigan
again in any major capacity. ASH may not even be interested in
the Ripper BBC thing anymore. Most of them simply have moved on
to bigger and better things.
No, what needs to happen is either scrapping all that has gone
on before and starting from scratch, or taking ONE supporting
player from either Angel the series or Buffy the series and building
a new show around that person. Either option is not a guaranteed
moneymaker. Getting the funding for that would be a bit of an
undertaking.
If they scrapped the continuity of previous series, they'd have
more room for stories, and have a better chance of aquiring a
mainstream audience. However, they'd risk losing the interest
of the small but loyal fan base still surrounding Joss' BuffyVerse.
If they retooled an old character and put him or her in a new
setting, they may or may not appease the loyal fan base, and they'd
risk losing the interest of a more mainstream audience not privy
to all the intricate past histories of these characters. Either
way is a gamble.
I would say start completely over. Back to the equivalent of season
one, or perhaps back to the original film script, rewritten, knowing
everything that is known now about the characters. For example
one distinct change would be to include Dawn from day one, and
offer hints about her future but not go into it for three or four
years. All the baddies that were known about by the end of the
first series would be in attendance in some form throughout. Make
the original story breathe with more life than ever before.
It's all a pipedream though. Sometimes, you just can't improve
upon greatness. Perhaps it's best just to leave things be and
move forward.
[> [> [> Re: Only way to do it: back to basics..
-- phoenix, 03:22:06 02/12/04 Thu
I've been through various ideas, but I can't really imagine a
movie that wouldn't be something of a dissapointment after the
cornucopia we were treated to during seven years of Buffy.
I'm afraid I'm still holding out for that Faith spin-off...you
know, the one that's probably never going to happen. It would
still be taking place in the Jossverse, but with a character different
enough from either Buffy or Angel, to open up a whole new range
of story telling possibilities. It would also provide a place
for old Buffy characters, like Willow or Xander, or, heaven help
us, even Andrew, to pop up from time to time, when Angel inevitably
reaches the end of its run. So I think that would be my preferred
option for continuing the franchise; and IMO the one with most
likelyhood of success.
Having said that, Fray, the movie, does sound interesting. I would
definitely go and see it, and I haven't even read the comics.
Hmmm.
However, the cynic in me thinks that the Angel and Spike oil wrestling
movie might actually be the most commercialy successful if the
ever made it (-:
Lindsay's motives (Spoilers
up till ATS 5.12) Added Speculation on series -- Seven, 08:46:55
02/09/04 Mon
After reading Masq's analysis of "You're Welcome," I
think that I have come to my conclusion as to why Lindsay would
come back after all this time, taking such extreme risks.
I think that Lindsay answers this in his banter to angel during
their (Blade 1, Wesely Snipes/Stephan Dorfish) battle.
(Not word for word)
"When you think about it, all my schemes, all my careful
planning? That was pretty sweet huh? Reason enough to come back."
Many people, including myself, thought it was odd that Lindsay
would come back after his decisions in "Dead End." But.
We must remember that Lindsay's fatal flaw is his desire for power.
It is my belief that Lindsay didn't want to work for the Partners
anymore, but he has come up with another plan.
Eve: He's still the center of your universe.
This is true for Lindsay but it is also true for who? Uhm, the
Senior Partners. Not W&H (who is now AI) but the SP. What if Lindsay's
return was (as Masq suggests as a possibility) a power play? Not
one for more power, but for Ultimate Power? he doesn't want to
work for the Partners, he wants to BE ONE.
What better way to convince them but to Royally screw with
Angel's life?
In the end, what happened to Lindsay? He got a meeting with the
big whigs. So maybe the idea wasn't so crazy.
On another note, I am still developing my "Senior Powers"
theory, but I won't be able to conclude until after this season.
If ME doesn't contradict me anytime soon,and my reasoning that
the Senior Partners and Powers that Be are one and the same, then
they would likely have an opening with the destruction of Jasmine,
making Lindsay's move timely.
So is this a likely possibility? Thoughts?
7
Replies:
[> Why? -- Irene, 16:23:37 02/09/04 Mon
Why would Lindsey mess with Angel's life? Why take all this trouble
to get petty revenge on a vampire? Because Angel became the CEO
of Wolfram & Hart's Los Angeles branch? Why would Lindsey bother
with all of this, considering that he had turned his back on Wolfram
& Hart near the end of Season 2? This I do not understand.
[> [> Well that was kinda my point -- Seven, 19:29:13
02/09/04 Mon
It wasn't so much that he cared about the petty vampire. To Lindsay,
in my opinion, Angel was a means to an end. The fact that he doesn't
like him was an added bonus.
Lindsay may have had numerous trouble staying away from W&H when
he left. or maybe he didn't. One way or another, he probably wasn't
living the high life that he did when he was with W&H. That
is something that he said (in Blind Date) was his primary motivation.
He never wanted to be the loser, or the poor guy. He wanted to
be better. He wanted to be the best. Now, I speculate that he
is vying to become a Senior Partner (the highest that he can possibly
get in his mind) and to get thier attention, he puts Angel through
the loop.
I wasn't saying that he was after petty revenge. Lindsay did it
for power.
He doesn't like Angel for numerous reasons (His hand, Darla, Kicking
his ass a lot). Now the Senior Partners simply GIVE everything
to Angel when it was Lindsay who had to play by all of W&H's
stupid rules? Lindsay was pissed the more he thought of it.
This wasn't revenge. It was a power play.
7
[> [> [> Re: Well that was kinda my point -- Merlin
of Chaos, 07:14:59 02/10/04 Tue
Hi, new here (been lurking for a little while - anyway...
My personal feeling/speculation is that Lindsey is
working for the Powers that Be - that his stuff with Spike
about being sent by the powers to make him into a champion
was all a truth hidden in a lie.
And that his real purpose all along was to expose the SP's
"fail-safe" to the Fang Gang, in furtherance of their
subversion of W&H.
Look at how he used a sword against Angel instead of wood -
I don't think Lindsey's that stupid.
Look at how he tells Spike about his missing hand, and then sends
him to "kill" Cordelia right in the middle of W&H (probably
knowing that Spike doesn't fully trust him) when
he probably could have killed Cordy much easier himself (or had
the more reliable Eve do it.)
Even what is called his "disheartening" campaign against
Angel ultimately is just getting through to Angel how much he's
been "selling out" and priming him for Cordy's getting
him back on track - which I think might have been Lindsey's plan
all along (though probably not Eve's.)
Why would Lindsey be working for the PTB? Aside from having a
conscience and gone off to do some soul-searching, his biggest
"beef" seems to be with the SP - what better way to
get at them than by helping Angel?
Maybe I'm biased cause I like Lindsey, but I like this explanation
for Lindsey's behavior better.
[> [> [> [> Son!!!! :) -- Corwin of Amber,
08:41:43 02/10/04 Tue
Welcome to the board!
Answer re: "The Gift"
montage on DVD -- KdS, 11:27:39 02/09/04 Mon
Someone asked in an archived thread whether the high speed "previously
on BtVS" montage at the start of The Gift is on the
Region Two S5 DVDs. I've checked mine, recently acquired, and
the answer is yes.
Replies:
[> How do you find it? -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:27:47
02/09/04 Mon
Because I've watched the episode three times in a row thinking
I must be daft or just stupid, but I can't find it.
[> [> This is Region Two DVDs -- KdS, 23:51:37
02/09/04 Mon
Simply start the episode and it's there right at the beginning.
[> [> [> Maybe on Season 7 DVD set -- Ames, 08:11:46
02/10/04 Tue
A recent report on the contents planned for the S7 DVD set says
that it will include the pre-Gift montage missing from the S5
R1 DVD set, as a kind of half-hearted apology to R1 fans for screwing
up.
Comments about Buffy; Spoilers
S1-7, Chosen; Angel: Damage. -- Age, 11:33:55 02/09/04
Mon
The following is a posting I did within the thread begun by HarryParachute
that got archived very quickly because I had taken much too long
before posting it. I'm reposting it now in case it was missed.
I'm also taking the liberty of adding a couple of paragraphs of
analysis at the end to reinforce my ideas.
The original thread posting was:
Gruding Apologies and Clarifications on a previous utterance --
HarryParachute, 17:49:24 02/04/04 Wed
My posting within that thread (here reproduced) was:
Some Comments; Spoilers for Buffy-S1 to 'Chosen' ; Angel to 'Damage'
-- Age, 01:42:52 02/07/04 Sat
It doesn't necessarily follow that because 'Buffy' has inherited
a certain meaning from an earlier era due to the vampire myth
that that meaning has been embraced, and in fact doesn't the series
conclude by underscoring that fear of miscegenation is not intended
through the romantic liaison between Wood and Faith?
The rigid oppositional thinking that you propose may have begun
the series, vampires and demons as strictly evil, but this was
to portray the perspective of the characters who, much younger
in age, would have thought more in terms of black and white. However,
season four saw the Scoobies entering the adult world after high
school, with the series showing a deconstruction of the rigid
oppositional thinking as demons were downgraded from inherently
evil to being approximate to animals. In this season the hybrid
Oz is saved by Riley who acts AGAINST his career as soldier due
to the influence of Buffy and the Scoobs, and is declared an anarchist.
Season five begins with Buffy hunting down vampires, acting more
like one of them, out of fear of death. If she's quick enough,
if she gains enough power, she'll even be able to stake death
itself, as the device, Glory the immortal childish female hellgod
delusion, represents; but Buffy has to make a choice, the same
choice that is put forward throughout the series: she has either
to grow up and realize that death, mortality is part of her, and
not some feared vilified other she can stake; or she can pretend
that she can stay young forever, become as like Glory, sacrificing
Dawn, the representative, described as Buffy's daughter, of the
next generation that could never have life without the death of
the former.
Season six continued the deconstruction of oppositional thinking
with the writers putting a wholly human face on the Big Bads of
the season, the three nerds, the children who don't want to grow
up. The three Scoobs are quite clearly shown that they are not
the paragons of virtue and purity that would see them in rigid
opposition to the evil vampires: Buffy's liaison with Spike; Xander's
being behind the events of the musical episode and Willow's abuse
of magic. Not only this but we have the introduction of demons
such as Clem(ency) who could through his name represent that which
those who are inherently evil could never have. And all this playing
out as Spike's redemption arc is beginning.
Season seven shows the last ditch reaction of a fascist metaphor,
The First, with its army that will exterminate the human race.
It is fascist (if I can bend the meaning of it somewhat) in that
it is trying to prevent the mixing not of races, but of sexes.
There being more than one slayer is the deconstruction of a belief
system, the belief that only one woman in all the world could
be strong. This physical strength, traditionally defined as a
male attribute, could not be allowed to show up in more than one
woman for fear that the rigid oppositional definition of men and
women would be seen to be violated. The true outsider, the vilified
other in 'Buffy' is the feminine (and women) as symbolized by
the movement at the beginning of the series of Buffy and her mum
to the male dominated suburbs. The opposition in 'Buffy' isn't
racial, but gender defined. (Note here that the slayers in 'Damage'
are headed not by a woman, but by a feminized male, Andrew, in
fact the quintessential representative of the male culture vilified
other in his nerdness, his homosexuality and in the allusion to
Christ, a figure associated with the feminization of a culture
through the number of slayer accompanying him. The slayers, though
super strong, have ceded power in this instance to Andrew the
male, suggesting the continuation of the power sharing that Buffy
began in 'Chosen'.)
So, I think that Buffy and her Scoobies, having gone through their
change in perspective over the period of the series would not
build an army of strictly good versus evil, the pure versus the
impure. In fact the slayers assert their strength in 'Damage'
only because they are defending one of their own from what would
have been perceived as a continuing victimization by Wolfram and
Hart; and who can blame them as even Angel is a victim of Wolfram
and Hart having been made the offer to join the firm when he was
most vulnerable.
I think the term feminazi misses the point; the slayers do not
represent a feminist movement or even an ideal of feminism, but
simply the change in our culture, exagerated to make dramatic
TV, where women now can be strong if they want to or can be. The
slayer power is foremost physical because the attribute most denied
to women in a male dominated society was physical strength. The
movement of the series has always been towards equality and deconstruction
of oppositional thinking told through a representation of the
feminization of what has been a male dominated culture bringing
true equality where women can embrace male attributes and men
can embrace female ones.
Having said that, it would be na·ve to think that the literal
creation of a bunch of super women wouldn't entail some problems,
(having power isn't a panacea as season six already warned us);
Whedon gives us one type of problem in 'Damage.' However, I tend
to view the series metaphorically, ignoring the exageration that
is necessary to create an action packed drama. For me the spell
cast in 'Chosen' simply represents the change in our society,
the deconstruction of the male/female oppositional culture.
I want to make it clear that I am not in favour of censorship.
If you use the word feminazi, that's up to you. And I can understand
your concerns when on the face of it Buffy seems to be creating
an army of super strong women. But I think the conclusion you've
come to goes against the basic theme of the series itself. The
movement has been away from fascism not towards it. Whedon's main
theme of people having to grow up and take responsibility for
their lives is anarchic in nature. It basically says that we govern
ourselves. (And I would suggest that the focus on gender in 'Buffy'is
a subcategory of the anarchic theme, for if we are having to follow
an imposed definition of what a male or female is, then we are
no longer free to be ourselves. We would be like puppets, the
walking dead, being possessed by a culture as if for example we'd
been possessed by a demon.)
Additional Paragraphs:
The slayer as female is central to the meaning of the series as
she is the subversion (in its empowerment theme) of the vilification
of women through their being the reminder to men of the latter's
mortality due to sexual reproduction: if only Eve hadn't... The
slayer, representing the vilified role of the woman, uses a symbol
of the natural world, wood, shaped as a phallus, to lay to dust,
by striking at the heart of the matter of a myth-possessed male,
the notion, as represented by the unnatural (read: unnatural as
abstracted) immortal, Peter Pan metaphor of the vampire, that
men can be as if gods and live forever young. Buffy's staking
vampires is akin metaphorically to saying that having a phallus
doesn't make men superior to women, but rather makes them equally
mortal and equally valuable for the continuation of new life.
The phallic stake (symbol of traditionally defined male attributes)
wielded by female slayers represents the idea that in the natural
world female and male attributes occur both in men and women to
varying degrees. One could say that the act of slaying isn't even
about literal killing, but about the dusting of myth. (Note that
the use of the scythe, a symbol associated with death through
harvesting, in the spell of 'Chosen' is a further demonstration
of the role of mortality and reproduction in the stereotyping
of women. The use of the scythe in this episode is a reclamation
by women of their vilified role in the biological process of bringing
new life into the world.)
Also, The First Evil in season seven, being incorporeal, powerless
in a physical sense, and associated with death, is the ghost of
the vilification of women in a male dominated society, who, in
raising an army as a means of becoming real, physical, represents
a solely male culture that places women in opposition and thus
denigrates the feminine as the vilified other in an attempt to
project and destroy all that is perceived as weak and bad in men.
(That Caleb draws his power from the First is simply a representation
of the false notion that men can do without women; also, Buffy's
rejection of the Shadowman's power demonstrates that what is needed
is not a greater accumulation of power, but a sharing of it, ie
a different, more feminized culture. And, of course, the First's
interest in Spike is due to the results, the soul, of Buffy's
feminizing influence on him.)
Note also that the slayers needed to go down into the hellmouth
in 'Chosen' for four reasons: firstly, to demonstrate that women
can be physical and brave, and thereby deconstruct the male dominated
female stereotype; secondly, to eradicate symbolically the ghost
of the notion that indeed women are the vilified other, as symbolized
by The First, from their subconscious, represented by the hellmouth;
thirdly, to symbolize the fight that women have had against the
notion of male superiority as the uber vamp name implies, with
the deaths of some of the slayers portraying in metaphorical terms
the psychological effect of the notion of male superiority; fourthly,
to demonstrate the ultimate futility of reliance on physical power
alone as clearly the small band of slayers were outnumbered and
eventually would be overrun.
The spell in 'Chosen', performed by Willow, the new spirit against
the old spectre, is meant to usher in a new culture, a more feminized
culture whose heart is that of power sharing. It is the newly
re-feminized, but definitely NOT emasculated male as we were clearly
meant to perceive through Whedon having Buffy counsel him to retain
his physical aggression and power, Spike, who destroys the First's
army in a symbolic act of letting in light to the subconscious
(hellmouth), rather than maintaining it in a strictly male cultured
repressive way; and, more importantly for the vampire metaphor,
accepting death, rather than clinging to the unnatural belief
that he can live forever. Accepting the feminine in himself, associated
with mortality, is the same as letting go of women (and the feminine)
as representative of the weakness that men wanted to believe that
they could conquer and destroy as if it were an army they were
facing. Hence, Spike does not maintain his fight against the First's
army physically once the amulet begins to work (if he did this
would have symbolized his keeping the oppositional dichotomy of
death as vilified other to be destroyed); rather, he does nothing,
and sacrifices himself (accepting death) and the army gets dissolved
to nothing to symbolize the subconscious letting go of the need
or desire to objectify women as the vilified other. The vampire
army metaphors turn to dust because their psychological referent
no longer exists.
This letting the light in, the end of repression, is performed
in a smaller way by Dawn during her battle, implying that the
next generation will escape to some degree the damage of the strictly
male culture. But it is only the supernatural metaphors of the
series, the slayers and the vampires who descend or emerge from
the hellmouth, reinforcing the notion that indeed a metaphorical
rather than a literal reading of the show should be done, with
both the males and females embracing attributes traditionally
defined to be aspects of the other. The potentials 'go down' into
their subconscious, excise the male dominated notion that they
are the weak vilified other and come out strong. They always were
strong, that was their Potential; but that strength couldn't be
embraced due to the culture they had internalized. The events
of 'Chosen' aren't about creating an army of super strong women
(the strength is just a sci-fi/fantasy exageration) but the removal
of a belief once and for all.
This belief is the referent of the wound that Buffy receives from
the uber vamp during the battle; the name uber vamp implies obviously
the notion of male superiority that women have been fighting against;
and the sword (made of an adulterated substance, stainless steel,
rather than natural wood) through the back is symbolic of the
betrayal of women by men in their childish desire to be as if
gods. Note that the uber vamps lose much or even all of their
superior strength in 'Chosen' to further undermine the notion
that males are superior, ie much of what takes place requires
a metaphorical reading. Also, I think that the disposal of the
individual potentials by the Bringers is meant to highlight the
isolation of women in a male dominated society who, unable to
work, own property or develop their physical strength would be
easy pickings in a culture of power, and if the First does represent
the ghost of the vilification of women through the male dominated
opposition between the sexes, then the murder of the potentials
by the First's agents is metaphorically the representation of
the belief that women are weak and bad killing off the potential
of women by having them internalize, as if it were a (phallic)
knife to the gut, such a belief; this isolation (the slayer is
always alone) in the face of the notion of male superiority may
be behind Buffy's defeat by the first ubervamp; and then the subsequent
dusting of the vamp in the arena is the lesson for the next generation
that male superiority is a myth to be dusted, or in referential
terms, a belief to be uprooted from the subconscious.)
The last image of The First Evil is that of Buffy; but, the real
young woman, the title character, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, tells
this spectre of the male culture's stereotype to finally and for
always get out of her face, get out of her. We then see a symbolic
reunion of men and women through Buffy and Spike. And, once the
town and hellmouth (belief structure and the psychological structure
of repression based on it) that patriarchy (the mayor) built has
been destroyed, the Sunnydale sign falls back into the crater
(meant to symbolize openness) implying the end of labeling.
One last thing. Even the humorous banter about shopping in 'Chosen'
isn't gratuitous, but is meant to convey the idea that the women
of 'Buffy' will still shop, an activity that has been associated
with females. Men will still play sports; women will still shop;
but the reverse will also happen now. It's up to each individual.
(Sorry for the convoluted paragraphs as I tend to write in parentheses.)
Age.
Replies:
[> Really interesting! Thanks for reposting! -- Pony,
11:51:07 02/09/04 Mon
[> It's great to see you back, Age! -- Masq, 11:57:44
02/09/04 Mon
[> Nicely done. -- Sophist, 12:31:31 02/09/04 Mon
[> The Themes of Chosen -- Random, 13:25:19 02/09/04
Mon
Incredible metaphorical/symbolic analysis, Age. Great to see you
posting again. Some counteranalysis...
The fascist -- more properly, Nazi, given the Germanic origins
of "uber" -- reading of S7 is dead-on. However, I'm
not entirely certain about the dichotomy you see. If the uber-vamps
are essentially masculine (a conclusion that really can't be drawn
from the word "uber" as it essentially means "more,
over"), it is a very problematic masculinity. One must assign
gender roles a priori in order for that to work. Presumably,
you are arguing that the culture itself has implanted these roles,
and that BtVS not only subverts them, it blurs them. So the ass-kicking
young blonde girl takes on the more traditionally masculine attribute
is a subversion, but, as I hope to demonstrate, not as obvious
as it appears.
One assumes that the uber-vamps, predating humans as they do,
are essentially sexless. They don't come from humans, and in the
dubious theology of the Buffyverse, one cannot easily invoke a
tradition of genesis for sex roles. In JudeoChristian tradition,
for instance, God created humans "man and woman" in
His own image. Most traditions have a similar theme of the division
of the sexes emerging from the nature of ther creation and/or
creator. (The question of "demon sexuality" is problematic,
but we rarely see overt demonstrations -- just connotative ones,
such as personality. Even with "mothers" and "fathers",
such as Lorne's parents, could easily be stylized descriptions.
And the impregnating Hacksaw demon is apparently female...yet
we could be looking at parthenogenesis. Conclusion? We have no
real proof except the very important point that the demons that
walk the earth are already "tainted" with humanity.)
Perhaps the FE's declaration in "Lessons" wasn't too
far off after all -- perhaps it essentially comes down to "It's
not about dichotomy" and we can insert "beyond male,
beyond female..." in the list. What is power, after all?
It is the ultimate tool, the ultimate expression of self. It is
essentially neutral, just as the FE and the ubervamps are essentially
sexless. The shifting forms of the FE bespeak something deeper
than lack of corporeality -- the bespeak a certain lack of identity.
Caleb, on the other hand, is overtly a representation of misogynistic
male power. He lends enormous credence to the issue of gender
relations. But one must consider something else. His identity
as a priest has been much discussed in terms of religiona and
religion-bashing, but there is something more there. The priest
is, ideally, celibate. (I'm assuming he was a Catholic priest
because that's most convenient to my thesis :wink::) He is the
deliberate repression of sexual desire. Essentially, he is castrato,
overtly male but functionally emasculated. It is actually an abolishment
of the dichotomy in a way. He represents the victimization of
women, not the victimization by men. A subtle but extremely
important distinction
So here's my central thesis of S7 and of BtVS in general. The
FE has declared war on humanity, not just the female portion.
It seeks to abolish all distinction, good/evil, right/wrong, male/female.
That is the gist of the return to the beginning, a return to the
point before artificial conventions had complicated every issues,
especially those of power and identity. The parallels to fascism
fall apart slightly when considering that fascism is a human
institution, and the FE makes no real distinction of the Other
within humanity. The brilliance of Joss' vision is laid
clear...he returns to the essential feminist metaphor by offering
us a profoundly counterintuitive option: to preserve the distinction
and dichotomy, to maintain the status quo . And it works because
he has shown us the dangers in trying to destroy discrimination.
Discrimination is used in a pejorative sense almost exclusively
now, but what BtVS recalls is that it merely means making a distinction.
And that is the message Joss is sending -- empowerment doesn't
mean abolishing distinctions. It doesn't mean emasculating the
males or transforming the females in some manner to make them
more "masculine." He is essentially demonstrating that
one does not need to tear down or destroy the pre-existing conventions
in order to transcend them. It is a deeply profound thought...the
idea that sexlessness and lack of discrimination can actually
be an evil leads one to the conclusion that the feminism in Buffy
is not the blurring of gender roles or the abolshment of victimization,
but the realization that it really is about power. Just
not in the sense that the FE meant. It's about the power to be
a female, or a male, without sacrificing individuality and effectuality.
There can be no emasculation because the empowerment of the female
has nothing to do with the male, nor does the empowerment of one
individual have relevance to another.
Power, as I said, is neutral. It is the manner that the individual
wields it that matters. That was, for better or worse, what it
came down to in "Chosen."
(And, given my analysis, the final message of BtVS could easily
be a political one, a condemnation of the totalitarian brand of
communism.)
A couple points that I noted but had no real importance or place
in the main body here:
With regards to Wood/Faith, I'm not sure that the "romantic"
modifier really fits, though it certainly was a liason (somehow,
I have trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that anything
Faith has done thus far qualifies as romantic...raunchy and reprehensible
are two adjectives that spring more easily to mind, heh.)
The male-dominated 'burbs? I would have thought that it would
be more of a nuclear-family dominated area.
(Sorry for the convoluted paragraphs as I tend to write in
parentheses.)
;-) Hey, preaching to the choir here...I've written (and, sadly,
posted) a few essays (though it seems like more) that had more
extensive parenthetical content than standard (i.e. non-parenthetical)
narrative content.
[> [> Can you clarify a couple of issues for me?
-- Rahael, 15:19:38 02/09/04 Mon
I understand that the FE wanted to abolish distinctions between
right/wrong and evil/good. When did it want to create people who
were sexless? And how are these dichotomies equivalent?
right/wrong
good/evil
male/female
(and here, right here is a stunning demonstration why some of
us rather like the blurring of some distinctions - not to erase
away material reality, but to destroy the harmful associations
that binary distinctions sometimes have by their being able to
be lined up like so)
What is power, after all? It is the ultimate tool, the ultimate
expression of self. It is essentially neutral, just as the FE
and the ubervamps are essentially sexless.
Power does not lie around waiting to be used up. It is created
during the 'expression of self'. It is given off during our interactions
with each other. it courses around the body(politic).
The FE is not sexless. Indeed, sexuality is a big part of its
preoccupation. it's all about the bad little girls who need to
be killed. It's about Adam and Eve and sexual transgression. but
perhaps I'm missing the sexless parts of the FE. Yes, it takes
on many identities, but all those identities are indeed gendered
and highly charged with sexuality.
Being celibate does not mean you lose your gender or your sexuality
either. You are just not having sex with other people.
And some of us may not have liked the implications of Touched,
but I do not believe that Buffy and Spike not having sex and having
what appears to be a celibate romance (indeed, B/A is all about
celibacy!) is a deliberate part of the Evil Plan of World Domination.
Also I am interested in your endorsement of 'discrimination'.
I can go along with 'discriminating' between good and evil, between
morality and immorality, but what kind of implications are you
imaginining when you discriminate between 'male' and 'female'?
perhaps it essentially comes down to "It's not about dichotomy"
and we can insert "beyond male, beyond female..." in
the list.
you insert 'beyond male and female' into the mouth of the FE in
order to then equate it to being 'beyond good and evil', as part
of the FE's Evil Plan of World Domination.
Also, am a little puzzled by your description of Chosen. How is
Buffy breaking down the traditional delineation of slayer power
- one girl in all the world, *only*, to all the chosen girls -
how is that reinforcing dichotomies? By making it only woman,
and thus reinforcing gender distinctions?
There can be no emasculation because the empowerment of the
female has nothing to do with the male, nor does the empowerment
of one individual have relevance to another.
The empowerment of Buffy Summers actually did have a hell of a
lot of relevance to other people. It empowered Spike, a man...pire.
It empowered Xander and Wood. It empowered Faith and Willow. It
empowered a whole host of girls around the world.
I may be picking too much at what is clearly a jokey comment,
but how can Wood/Faith be raunchy and reprehensible but a sexless
celibate is also equivalent to an evil? So when is sex okay?
You actually may be quite right that S7 was nothing about blurring
gender distinctions and all about reinforcing traditional ideas
of men and women. But you also bring up some puzzling arguments
that actually contradict this.
The best, most inspirational description of Chosen is that the
empowerment of Buffy Summers empowers all human beings. Because
no man is free when a woman is suppressed, and vice versa.
[> [> [> Certainly -- Random, 16:06:52 02/09/04
Mon
You actually may be quite right that S7 was nothing about blurring
gender distinctions and all about reinforcing traditional ideas
of men and women.
Interesting take on my words. A radical misinterpretation, but
interesting. All I said -- repeatedly -- was that I perceived
Chosen and Season 7 as being about the individual, about transcending
the roles and social conventions. I noted that I didn't see Joss
as tearing down anything so much as building up. As far as blurring
gender distinctions, I've never noticed an attempt to somehow
dissolve the uniqueness of any individual. Buffy isn't somehow
"less feminine" or "more feminine"...she's
simply Buffy. A woman with power and choice. Of course, the complicated
issue of whether she gave the large numbers of Potentials a choice
is another issue altogether, one I chose not to address.
When did it want to create people who were sexless? And how
are these dichotomies equivalent?
right/wrong
good/evil
male/female
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I noted that it was waging war
against all humanity and abolish everything except its
power. I wasn't saying that the FE was a social reformer or crusader,
but essentially a general out to destroy all human life. Hence
the "return to the beginning." Not much room left for
any social constructions after that. This whole "creating
people who are sexless" thing hadn't occurred to me, but
it's an interesting idea for a sci-fi novel. My usage merely referred
to the lack of sexual distinction (and any distinction) in a world
populated only by ubervamps, and the attendant symbolism.
you insert 'beyond male and female' into the mouth of the FE
in order to then equate it to being 'beyond good and evil', as
part of the FE's Evil Plan of World Domination.
No, I merely used that point as an extrapolation of dichotomies...which
both are instances of in current social constructions.
Power does not lie around waiting to be used up. It is created
during the 'expression of self'. It is given off during our interactions
with each other. it courses around the body(politic).
Are you talking Foucault and his ilk? Interesting theories, most
of which I agree with only conditionally or not at all. Certainly,
I believe the articulation and expression of power is the only
way for it to have any substantial meaning, but that has little
to do with my point, which was essentially that power is not innately
dichotomic. Perhaps I should have left out the more superfluous
language in making that point.
The FE is not sexless. Indeed, sexuality is a big part of its
preoccupation. it's all about the bad little girls who need to
be killed. It's about Adam and Eve and sexual transgression. but
perhaps I'm missing the sexless parts of the FE. Yes, it takes
on many identities, but all those identities are indeed gendered
and highly charged with sexuality.
We can just agree to disagree. It killed those girls because they
were Potentials. And since only females can be Potentials, as
far as we know, the killings were by default gender-specific.
If you're talking about the misogyny, I see that in Caleb, but
not the FE. I regard them as separate personalities. If the FE
said something, perhaps you can quote for me, because it's been
a while since I watched S7. But your take on the gendered, sexually
charged aspect is interesting. I happen to disagree simply because
it's also taking on a great deal of the personalities of the shapes
it assumes. I interpret that as something of a mask, rather than
an essential trait of the FE. YMMV.
Being celibate does not mean you lose your gender or your sexuality
either. You are just not having sex with other people.
I am quite aware of that. But thanks for clearing that up, just
in case. I was speaking of the symbolism of having a celibate
character. I even threw in words like "functionally"
-- i.e. in function, in performance.
Also I am interested in your endorsement of 'discrimination'.
I can go along with 'discriminating' between good and evil, between
morality and immorality, but what kind of implications are you
imaginining when you discriminate between 'male' and 'female'
As I said quite clearly, I used the word "discrimination"
to mean "making a distinction." It's not merely healthy
to be able to make distinctions, it's pretty much unavoidable.
I may be picking too much at what is clearly a jokey comment,
but how can Wood/Faith be raunchy and reprehensible but a sexless
celibate is also equivalent to an evil? So when is sex okay?
Yeah, you're picking up way too much. Especially since
I was quite clear that I was referring to Faith personality...I
was riffing on how she has been presented in the past. It was,
as you say, clearly jokey. Me, I'm a Wood/Faith shipper. They're
beautiful together.
[> [> [> [> Yes I was picking up too much --
Rahael, 08:43:54 02/10/04 Tue
I didn't understand that all you were trying to say was that the
FE was going to kill all human beings and thus all human civilisation
would disappear, along with all 'distinctions', 'discriminations'
and dichotomies.
How is this different from Glory? You could have made a much bigger
case for her. She used Dawn, the made up self identity to collapse
the walls of the universe. All sense of self undone, on a human
level, on the level of the universe. By sacrificing her one self,
Buffy would save and preserve the boundaries of the world - and
the humans that inhabited it.
There is an important point to be made about the importance of
boundaries and the order it gives to the wordl we see - it is
the order we put in, but it is nonetheless meaningful.
I just got confused because you kept going on about sexuality
and gender and the FEs sexlessness and you seemed to be wanting
to say that preserving the boundaries between male and female
identity was important.
I would have said that preserving the boundaries of selfhood be
more important - whatever the gendered identity. Too many people
use that binary to restrict the identities of women.
You say that it's just an accident that the FE is pursuing Women.
Because the Chosen are women, it's just an accident that all his
victims are female. I dont' think Joss 'just happened' to make
Slayers and the Chosen female btw. I think it was a very conscious
decision, as he has kept stating very often!!
While the FE may have taken many identities, and you ascribe any
sexual preoccupations down to the chance persona I think you are
just dismissing whatever doesn't fit into your thesis.
The FE Buffy is very very sexual. I think it is very important.
Both the FE Buffy and FE Dru is very concerned with torturing
shirtless Spike.
Anyhow, what was your thesis, apart from the fact that the FE
was going to 'end it all'? I may have, as you put it 'radically
misinterpreted it', so I wait for you to put me right.
[> [> [> [> [> And added to all this, the latter
part of Age's post -- Rahael, 08:56:45 02/10/04 Tue
About allowing more to identity, which was where I was going with
the self identity thing. Should have read Age first.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes I was picking up too
much -- Random, 09:50:15 02/10/04 Tue
I'm glad some of your confusion was cleared up somewhat. Insofar
as how it differs from Glory, I can think of a couple important
points, such as the fact that Glory wasn't attempting to destroy
civilization and take ascendancy on Earth. The possible deaths
were, to her, completely incidental. Hence there was no motives
to ascribe other than returning to power in her own dimension.
More importantly, though, the subject at hand was S7 and "Chosen."
You say that it's just an accident that the FE is pursuing
Women. Because the Chosen are women, it's just an accident that
all his victims are female. I dont' think Joss 'just happened'
to make Slayers and the Chosen female btw. I think it was a very
conscious decision, as he has kept stating very often!!
Not exactly my point, though. I am aware that the original premise
of the show revolved around subversion of sexual politics, and
that an on-going theme is the empowerment of women. But that doesn't
invalidate my thesis that the FE within the narrative context
was targetting the Potentials only insofar as they stood in the
way of absolute power. After all, the FE's agent, Caleb, took
out the Watcher's Council, the bastion of the Patriarchy, as well.
While the FE may have taken many identities, and you ascribe
any sexual preoccupations down to the chance persona I think you
are just dismissing whatever doesn't fit into your thesis.
I tried to make clear that this was interpretive. I offered my
perception -- that the personas were not integral to the FE itself.
But more to the point, the sexuality of the personas in no way
invalidates that point. It's still a matter of how much of the
identity and behaviour of each shape can be ascribed directly
to the FE. I would see the "sexuality" as ancillary
to the focusing of the FE will. It's not accidental that the FE
can only assume certain shapes, those of the dead. This hints
at a paradigm wherein the FE itself is limited by the personalities
of those individuals. Still, as I said, a mask. Once again --
ymmv. Clearly, you don't see the FE in that way. I do. I don't
see any evidence that there was a single unifying sexual identity,
and the shifting in fact reinforces that sexuality was only an
incidental point, not an integral trait.
So to argue that I'm simply "dismissing whatever doesn't
fit into [my] thesis" is a highly dismissive means of addressing
it. I could say the same of you, then, by saying you're dismissing
my observations when they don't fit into your thesis of the FE's
sexuality. I'd be wrong, though, for the same reasons.
Anyhow, what was your thesis, apart from the fact that the
FE was going to 'end it all'? I may have, as you put it 'radically
misinterpreted it', so I wait for you to put me right.
My "radical interpretation" observation was in response
to your
You actually may be quite right that S7 was nothing about blurring
gender distinctions and all about reinforcing traditional ideas
of men and women
one, so I imagine the confusion has been cleared up, unless you
still believe that I said a word about "reinforcing the traditional
ideas of men and women." I noted my thesis a couple times:
in S7, Joss was more pre-occupied with empowerment of the individual
that destruction of social conventions. Certainly, there has always
been an element of societal subversion, but I was merely arguing
that, in S7, the individual took ascendancy. I didn't praise
existing biases and gender roles. I was merely arguing that I
consider S7 to be a natural evolution of the feminist thought
from blurring gender roles to concentrating of the women (or men)
themselves as individuals.
Y.M.M.V.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re 'my confusion' --
Rahael, 10:11:11 02/10/04 Tue
My mistake is trying to read metaphorical meaning in Buffy villains
it appears. I try to go beyond the plotlines of 'Glory tries to
go back home' and try to link in The Gift to what I see as the
larger theme of self identity and boundaries in S5.
Similarly, I'm trying to grasp if you give the FE any more metaphorical
meaning than 'Destroy civilisation!'
I always think BtVS has some emotional-metaphors to offer.
I still don't know whether you give the FE any real meaning. Anywho
I largely became convinced that the lack of identity of the FE
really speaks of nothing more than a vast emptiness of purpose
and meaning.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Re 'my confusion'
-- Random, 11:33:10 02/10/04 Tue
I personally consider finding metaphorical meanings to be a good
thing. I could hardly argue against that, seeing as that is what
I did. I use literal events and descriptions to argue that
the symbolism of the FE was the destruction of the individual
and that opposing it was a matter of elevating the individual
over the collective. I'm not sure exactly why you think that my
use of symbolism and metaphor in general means you've made a mistake.
If you think I've somehow implied such, I apologize.
As far as Glory, you're more than free to interpret the metaphor
as you wish. I see other metaphors in her, but since you didn't
explicate what you meant about Glory being relate to the FE on
a metaphorical level, I can't really comment on your point. I
tried to outline why I didn't see a parallel. What do you
think about it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Re 'my
confusion' -- Rahael, 12:01:09 02/10/04 Tue
I was interested in the focus and slant you had on gender and
sexuality in S7, and the importance of preserving some dichotomies.
I understand your focus about the annhilation of self, though
I see the FE's focus as being rather incoherent, changing thematically
and in terms of metaphor from every two eps or so.
That could be down to the changing of persona - the FE being literally,
each persona it inhabits, and with no grand plan at all.
Glory has a wealth of meaning and metaphor, not only the ones
I've outlined above. That's because S5 was a fantastically rich
season, ambiguous in all the right ways, but coherent at the same
time.
I brought up Glory because all the points you make about the FE
fit her, and in a more coherent way. No, it wasn't her primary
motivation, but she was multifaceted. I'm interested in seeing
if the FE has that level of complexity.
I like the FE to have a meaning in terms of gender politics because
it imbues the entire of S7 with some meaning, that goes from beginning
to end. But I've already gone on way too much about S7 here, so
I'll stop.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Re 'my confusion'
-- LittleBit, 12:07:58 02/10/04 Tue
It seems to me that neither Random nor Sophist are trying to say
that Glory as the villain has no metaphorical meaning beyond "tries
to go home." They were both, in my understanding, simply
saying that the destruction/domination of the world wasn't Glory's
goal, as it was in the case of the Master, Angelus, the Mayor,
Adam, Willow and the FE. This observation in no way negates the
existence of metaphor in the character of Glory as villain. Glory
wasn't discussed in depth by either because the focus is season
7.
As far as the FE and meaning, that's a hard call. As much as I
liked season 7, I still have to say that the FE was never realized
as a villain; there were too many shifts in direction to give
a good characterization. Much of the discussion happening between
Age and Random is partly searching for what the metaphorical meaning
of the FE was, and from different points of view, meaning that
can be supported by not only metaphor but by what we were shown.
Indeed, both Random and Age are 'wanking' somewhat in light of
the insufficient development of the FE's motives. But, it's a
discussion I'm finding interesting. Had the FE succeeded in eliminating
all the Potentials, and killing Faith and Buffy, the loosing the
army of Uber-vamps upon the world, what would have been the outcome?
Destruction of civilisation as we know it, certainly. Possibly
a destruction of humanity to the point where the continuing existence
of humans is no linger possible. A world where the demons rule.
A 'return to the bginning.'
Is the FE emptiness? Is it the representation of the loss of all
humanity...a return to the 'beginning' before there was man? Even
in biblical terms that could be described as the void before there
was life. Yet the FE refers to leaving the mortal coil, and leaving
it out of balance in the process. Later the FE expresses the desire
to be corporeal, which doesn't quite mesh. The FE uses the dead
to manipulate the minds of the characters, then is seen using
Caleb to effect changes. Does the FE need physicality to be fully
effective? Can evil not invade the mind? Or is that what happened
with Caleb...seduction by the FE?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, that was
the limit of my comment about Glory -- Sophist, 12:33:33
02/10/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> First Evil
as Villain -- Claudia, 14:45:13 02/10/04 Tue
I think that most people are confused by the First Evil as a villain
is because they expected it to be like other villains - corporeal
and with the ability to inflict physical pain and suffering.
I believe that Joyce had best explained what the First Evil was
all about in "Bring Home the Night". The FE was the
spirit of evil, pure and simple. It was the spirit of evil that
resided in all of us. Which is why it used corporeal beings to
its bidings.
Instead of continuing the balance of good and evil, the First
Evil feared a prophecy in which a Slayer resurrected from the
dead and a souled vampire would realign the forces of good, using
a legendary scythe. However, this same scythe would make it possible
for the First Evil to grow in power, after taking over the body
of the Slayer. After Buffy's second return from the dead and the
return of Spike's soul, the First Evil read the signs and saw
an opportunity.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: First
Evil as Villain -- LittleBit, 17:10:57 02/10/04 Tue
Actually, I wanted the First Evil to be incorporeal, insidious
and seductive, working against Buffy and the scoobies through
their dreams and fears. Instead, the FE ended up wanting to be
corporeal for some reason.
But the question being addressed here is "what is the metaphorical
meaning of the FE?" The motive of the FE was never made entirely
clear, because of the changes in direction that were made, thus
leaving room for not only different interpretations of the purpose
of the FE within the show itself, but in the metaphor that the
FE represents.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> First
Evil in "CWDP" -- Claudia, 10:26:31 02/11/04
Wed
I think the First Evil said it best in both "Conversations
With Dead People":
FIRST EVIL [as Cassie] (mocking): "Oh, baby, you left such
a big hole. It hurt so bad. (serious, leans in) You don't know
hurt. This last year's gonna seem like cake after what I put you
and your friends through, and I am not a fan of easy death. Fact
is, the whole good-versus-evil, balancing the scales thing - I'm
over it. I'm done with the mortal coil. But believe me, I'm going
for a big finish.";
and in "Touched":
THE FIRST/BUFFY
I envy them. Isn't that the strangest thing?
CALEB
Well, it does throw me a tad. I mean, they're justÉ well,
they're barely more than animals, feedin' off each other's
flesh. It's nauseatin'. But youÉ you're everywhere. You're
in the hearts of little children, you're in the souls of the rich,
you're the fire that makes people kill and hate. The fire that
will cure the world of weakness. They're just
sinners. You are sin.
THE FIRST/BUFFY
I do enjoy your sermons.
CALEB
And you're in me. Gave me strength no man can have.
THE FIRST/BUFFY
You're the only man strong enough to be my vessel. And I
know you feel me butÉ I know why they grab at each
other. To feel. I want to feel. I want to wrap my hands
around an innocent neck and feel it crack.
CALEB
Amen."
[> [> [> [> [> A couple of thoughts -- Sophist,
09:51:13 02/10/04 Tue
I already explained my own view of S7 and Chosen a few months
ago, and I'm stickin' to it. There are some interesting points
in this thread. I just have a couple of thoughts to add.
How is this different from Glory? You could have made a much
bigger case for her. She used Dawn, the made up self identity
to collapse the walls of the universe. All sense of self undone,
on a human level, on the level of the universe. By sacrificing
her one self, Buffy would save and preserve the boundaries of
the world - and the humans that inhabited it
In Glory's case, that was really a side effect rather than the
intent of the scheme.
There is an important point to be made about the importance
of boundaries and the order it gives to the wordl we see - it
is the order we put in, but it is nonetheless meaningful.
I just got confused because you kept going on about sexuality
and gender and the FEs sexlessness and you seemed to be wanting
to say that preserving the boundaries between male and female
identity was important.
I would have said that preserving the boundaries of selfhood be
more important - whatever the gendered identity. Too many people
use that binary to restrict the identities of women.
The whole relation of gender to self-identity is very complex.
JMHO, but I see gender as an objective fact given to us by nature.
I doubt that gender can be separated from self. However,
the exact interpretation of the gendered self heavily depends
on culture. While there must be some interpretation, the
cultural dependence means that it is necessarily limited. Or maybe
expanded; after all, how does a spider feel about gender? Well,
most male spiders feel eaten, but aside from that....
Anyway, my point is that if we preserve the boundaries of self,
we inexorably preserve the boundaries of gender.
The FE Buffy is very very sexual. I think it is very important.
Both the FE Buffy and FE Dru is very concerned with torturing
shirtless Spike.
I saw the FE's behavior through the expectations of the victim.
That is, Nikki Wood appeared to Robin in some form which met his
expectations of how his mother might appear. Same with the Mayor
to Faith. In the case of FE/B and FE/Dru, they appeared to Spike
as they must have appeared to him in his vampire state. The fact
that torturing him was "necessary" made this all the
more likely. Plus, of course, the ratings.
For me, the FE said less about the persona it adopted than about
how the target saw the persona. YMMV.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A couple of thoughts
-- Random, 10:02:03 02/10/04 Tue
I saw the FE's behavior through the expectations of the victim.
That is, Nikki Wood appeared to Robin in some form which met his
expectations of how his mother might appear. Same with the Mayor
to Faith. In the case of FE/B and FE/Dru, they appeared to Spike
as they must have appeared to him in his vampire state. The fact
that torturing him was "necessary" made this all the
more likely. Plus, of course, the ratings.
For me, the FE said less about the persona it adopted than about
how the target saw the persona
Oh, very nice indeed. I think I just may modify my thesis a little
there. And possibly examine some larger aspect in that light.
After all, the corruptive element would be much more important
now. I need to think it over. But first I need to go reply to
Age.
Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [> [> man/woman -- Rahael,
10:06:38 02/10/04 Tue
Well I was trying not to get into the complicated issue of gender.
I would agree that self identity is gendered. But there is the
whole minefield of essentialism that underlies the entire of S7s
view of gender and indeed, that of many posters here. So I tried
to stay out of it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Existessentialism
-- Sophist, 12:41:02 02/10/04 Tue
Hey, if Sartre can coin his own words, so can I. My word means
that while something -- in this case, gender -- can be an objective
"given", the meaning attached to that given is
not determined by any "essence".
Frankly, I'm making this up as I go, and I probably wouldn't take
this idea quite so far, but I do mean it mostly. The fact of gender
may place some very broad constraints on identity, but most of
identity is culturally added. I don't know if that puts me in
the "essentialist" camp or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't know
but it tends to put you in my camp! -- Rahael, 12:56:47
02/10/04 Tue
I think I may have been unclear - I was only saying that I would
give Random the points he makes as far as they related purely
on self identity, but I wasn't going to accept them extended to
the larger points on gender (binaries etc). But this could be
because I'm being dim and not still really understanding what
the argument was.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I
don't know but it tends to put you in my camp! -- Sophist,
13:31:09 02/10/04 Tue
I'm a true camp follower. :)
I understood his point to be that preservation of gender (in the
limited sense I've made of that; he may not agree, of course)
was a good thing. I believe he's arguing that the FE's attempt
to end all distinctions included ending those which contribute
to our humanness. To the extent gender is included in that category,
and with the limits I've placed on the relation of gender to identity,
I'd agree with him too. Have I mentioned that I'm easy?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quite
agree... -- Random, 13:44:35 02/10/04 Tue
...of course, my reply to Rah here doesn't address that. Just
too many different aspects of a thesis to cover in so limited
a time. Sigh.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quick
note on gender politics -- Random, 13:41:23 02/10/04 Tue
Since I'm fairly certain that gender identity outside of physiological
issues -- and those are complex too, due to chemical and hormonal
differences -- is primarily a cultural construct, it should all
be good here as far as where people are camping out.
I rather avoided talking about enforced gender roles and their
effects simply because it wasn't in any way related to my thesis.
So I won't be making points about that right now, since I'm primarily
interested in individuation as a means of transcending of the
gender roles. If it helps you understand better, I can note that
one can diffuse the individuation of the generic gender categories
to abolish differentiation, or one can concentrate on subverting
the social constructs of gender in the name of elevating self-identity.
The gender doesn't "disappear" -- it merely becomes
a single, almost-negligible aspect of a much more complex paradigm
of the individual as human rather than male or female.
Thus if I perceive the FE as sexless, I perceive it as seeking
the destruction of all humanity. In that crucible, Buffy
and the Potentials fight to preserve their humanity and uniqueness.
It is, in a way, the culmination of the feminism of BtVS...for
now Buffy is not merely representations of the oppressed female
stereotype (thought she still is to a limited extent), but a representation
of humanity itself. And that is the saving grace -- the abolishment
of gender politics that have traditionally placed women on a lower
footing than men, and recognizing that Buffy and the Potentials
in terms of their simple humanity instead. That is how I see the
symbolic role of the FE -- as a threat to the race of humans as
a whole, and therefore allowing the resistance to expound on the
theme that all of us (male, female, tall, short, African, Asian,
European, American, Australian) share a common identity. It's
the point being made by the gathering of Potentials from all over
the world...we're all in this together. And that, for me, ultimately
leads to the idea that the individual is more important than any
dichotomy. Once we move past the conflicts in the collective,
we can concentrate on the self. In a way, the FE was the best
thing that could have happened to them. Being beyond the dichotomies
(I know you don't agree, but you do love differences of opinion
as the spice of debate, no?), it poses a singular threat to life
on earth. As such, the sexlessness is important because it is
iconic, a metaphor for the FE's essential lack of allegiance to
either. The response? Putting aside gender politics as well to
fight back. The people are still gendered. But more to the point,
they are individuals. And ultimately, that is the desired end
of all such cultural conflicts, no? For the individual to be recognized
on his/her own merits rather than have to adhere to or subvert
the culturally-imposed gender identity? Is not the Buffy who proves
she can blur the gender identity still being forced to participate
in the politics? Why should she have to blur the conventions
imposed upon her and others? Why should she have to focus on subverting
the system rather than asserting her own identity? I would argue
that it is more liberating in some ways to escape the gender politics
than to excel at them.
Only so much I can talk about in one post, though. Age concentrates
more on the gender metaphors than I do.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just
one quick thing to add -- Lunasea, 17:41:40 02/10/04 Tue
Sorry if this has already been said before. I'm still recovering
from the cathartic explosion of my stomach contents last night
and spent the last 18 hours in bed, mostly sleeping. This is just
a drive-by.
One thing that I like about vampires is how individual they are.
A key part of them is how much of their personality they do retain.
If anything, this is the focus of them as a villain. This wasn't
the case with the Uber-vamps. There has been some suggestion that
they precede vampires that are part human. I wouldn't call such
a demon a vampire. To me they are the demon merged with Neaderthal,
but that isn't important. When the last demon mixes his blood
with humans, why do we assume that this human is modern man? Again,
not important.
What is important is that there is no distinction between the
Uber-vamps. We see thousands upon thousands of practically clones
with no individuality when they travel to the Hellmouth. This
is a great departure from demons of the past. There was even induality
present in Glory's minions.
I think the idea that the FE is after the complete obliteration
of all distinctions to be an interesting one. I wrote about this
back in Season 7, when I compared the FE to avidya, which
is what brings about those distinctions in the first place. Joss'
universe is an interesting one. Free will, which is what makes
anything worth it, is what brings about suffering. Flip this over
to Buffy and these distinctions which bring us out of paradise/vidya
are also something that needs to be preserved. Buffy becomes one
of many and in that actually preserves her own unique identity.
She is no longer "Slayer." She is now "Buffy"
again. She isn't defined by the role that was imposed on her,
but has the power to define herself by what she chooses to do.
As Bit says, she is no longer the Chosen One, but is now the One
Choosing. Clones, with no individuality, don't choose.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Get well soon! -- KdS, 02:31:39 02/11/04 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Thanks for this -- lunasea, 06:41:17 02/11/04
Wed
I'm feeling much better today, but now I have to get caught up
on everything I let slide for the last few days. My response to
your thread below might take a few days. I have to figure out
something for my Brownies to make about Taiwan. I need one more
week. Anyone have one to sell?
[> [> Re: The Themes of Chosen Spoilers Buffy to Chosen
-- Age, 07:29:53 02/10/04 Tue
Thanks for your reply.
Let me illustrate more how I view the First. The lack of physicality
(women not allowed to develop physical strength); the need to
work behind the scenes, influencing indirectly (cloistered women
made to stay in the home); the use of conversation to influence
(traditionally associated with women); the First's appearance
only as those who have died, ie., the projection of death/mortality
onto women; the need to be all things to all people (symbol of
lack of identity), ie the changing visage; the servile indirect
power that Caleb feeds off of like a vampire to make himself more
manly; and, the desire to self actualize through physical violence
seemed to conjure up the image of women in a male dominated culture,
who having internalized the culture, reject as weak their feminine
nature. For the First its all about power because in the male
power culture this is all it can be: you take what you want when
you want because you are the strongest, and you act to repress
compassion and trust (traditionally feminine) in yourself as weak
because the guy next to you, equally having internalized the power
culture, is just looking for that weak moment when he can take
all the power away from you. There is no sharing, just power.
This is exactly what Buffy goes against. She shares power.
Also, given that the First usually appears out of nowhere, non-corporeal
like a ghost, and because it seems to be acting in a reactionary
way (implying change), I figured that Whedon was representing
something whose time had already past, but whose memory was still
haunting the subconscious, so to speak.
In regards to the ubervamps, I never really considered their individual
sex. While it did cross my mind that their being prehistoric is
a play on 'neanderthal', the term used to brand macho male reactionaries
in the early seventies, I never saw these creatures in terms of
their individual sex, but in terms of the male power culture suggested
by their being soldiers; I didn't see them as individuals but
simply as devices. I then attached the uber aspect and came up
with their being a metaphor for the culture of male superiority.
In regards to the theme, the problem lies between the actual (which
Whedon symbolizes using the natural, wood, holy water, sunlight
etc) and the abstracted, the unnatural into whose mould the natural
has to be made to squeeze with resulting damage. The extreme that
the oppositional relation creates based on the masculine in men
and women is unhealthy. People and situations are too fluid for
such rigid thought. Your comments about the changing visage and
the sexlessness of the ubervamps pointing to a lack of identity
is relevant here as the imposition of a rigid culture is a way
of denying personal identity. If we look at this in terms of the
male/female binary opposition, this lack of identity becomes quite
evident as both genders define themselves by not being their opposite.
The gist of what you are saying points to the fallacy that men
and women have to lose their identity, lose their genders in order
to be equal. Men have to become more like women and women like
men. It isn't that men and women have to become equal through
loss of gender, it's just that the genders to varying degrees
are not exclusive of the traits traditionally attributed to one
or the other. Further, with the end of such an opposition comes
the opportunity for the sexes to influence one another without
the play for power, or the shame associated with emasculation
or without the cultural sanctioning of the repression of women.
I think however we differ to some degree on the focus of our interpretations
of the series; I don't see it so much as we are empowered to be
male or female, but we are simply allowed to be ourselves, and
to varying degrees that identity includes traditionally defined
male and/or female traits. Indeed this is not sexlessness nor
lack of identity as per your interpretation of the changing visage
of the First and its association with the sexless uber vamps and
castrated Caleb, but personal identity that includes gender because
that's just who we are. I do not see the series theme in terms
of retaining a status quo or conventions, but in our not having
to be attached to a status quo or conventions: isn't the spell
in 'Chosen' meant to symbolize the letting go of a status quo?
It's that men and women having to become the same to be equal
is simply another imposition of culture on the individual.
I would say that we are not empowered to be male or female, but
released from the prison of having to be only male or only female.
We are freed to be human beings; hence ,The First's attack would
be against humanity as a whole, not just women, and that humanity
is not made up of strictly males or females, but of persons with
some of the traits defined as male and female. We are saying a
similar thing- there would still be a distinction between the
sexes because that's how we are made ; and the empowerment of
that distinction wouldn't come at the expense of the other, but
rather as part of the individual distinction that separates one
person from another. But we are not saying the same thing: I think
there is an implicit assumption in the valuing of both sexes that
some movement towards a single sex would be made as the very need
to devalue the feminine assumes some feminine in men. One could
argue that the First's vilified other is represented by humanity
itself that has to be exterminated as it is already made up of
individual hybrids of maleness AND femaleness, to varying degrees.
The back to the beginning theme could be back to the singular
valuing of maleness.
I may have not been clear when I said that the Buffy women would
still shop and men would play sports. It's not that all the Buffy
women will still shop, nor all men will continue to play sports.
The status quo has been done away with and those women who don't
want to shop won't and those men who don't want to play sports
won't play sports. It all depends on their individual character
(although I'm not na·ve enough to think it really depends
solely on the individual's character as we are social creatures.)
One could also argue that the sexlessness of the uber vamps is
a symbol of the two sexes reduced to one through the valuing of
only one (thereby rendering sex itself irrelevant), with the accompanying
sterility of such sexlessness symbolized in the vampire (death)
image itself. This same sterility would be part of Caleb who in
defending his manliness would make his maleness irrelevant. However,
I'm not arguing against your interpretation because I don't think
Whedon is pointing towards a blending of the sexes into one, with
an attending loss of identity, but the question is, given the
change in culture how much will men and women become similar and
how much will they remain different?
In regards to Caleb, I'm not sure I have gotten your meaning,
but I'll go ahead with a few comments. If the male culture is
based on power, then the relationship between men and women is
a fight for that power with only men as the dominant of the opposition
supposed to have it. In this way, if the woman internalizes the
values of the male culture then she would simply attempt to gain
power for herself (actually even if she doesn't, any attempt to
gain something or assert herself would be judged as a threat.)
She is therefore placed immediately in the role of emasculator
as men would feel that their masculine identity is threatened
by the sharing of power especially with someone defined to be
their opposite. Women's sexuality is a form of power because of
the need to reproduce and because of simple male/female attraction
(the natural relationship that I have alluded to). As a man would
feel emasculated if he felt that the weak woman had gained any
power over him, this would be another reason for the vilification
of female sexuality: it's bad, it's just a grab for power from
those who should rightfully possess it.
Depending on how you want to look at it, the slayer and the vampire
could portray symbolically the emasculator dynamic of the male
culture because the phallic stake is held by a female as she assumes
power. In fact the phallic stake is used to remind us that in
order for men in this type of culture to not feel emasculated
by the sexual power of women the sexual act must be a kind of
staking of the woman, to put it very clumsily, an act of taking
the woman, having dominance over her; it has to be his act alone.
The act is done by the male and the woman is simply the vessel
of the male. This type of culture only breeds hatred between the
sexes, and not just hatred of men for women, but the other way
round as portrayed in the series by Faith who believes that men
are only out for sexual conquest. Of course, one way that a male
can retain his power, and thus his masculine identity from a woman,
is to deny the sexuality completely, essentially castrating himself.
In regards to Caleb's religious content, one has to make the cynical
statement that the purpose of some religions is to sell the belief
in immortality at the price of having to squeeze ones natural
biological self into a certain culture or deny it altogether.
It is again the discrepancy between the immediate physical and
the abstract. You mentioned that Whedon is saying that we don't
need to do away with the status quo. I would say that Whedon is
saying that we can't do away with the status quo, but that that
status quo isn't cultural, but biological. As I said in a posting
last week, when Willow in 'Chosen' says that they changed the
world this was a cultural change, not a physical one.
In regards to Faith and Wood, I had the feeling that there were
real feelings developing between the two. If we listen to what
Wood is saying to this new more receptive Faith we see yet again
deconstruction of oppositional thinking. If males have been taught
that they can only be masculine and that is defined by physical
strength and subjugation of the other then the relationship between
men and women is power based, with women being that which is taken,
used, subjugated. Faith represents the damage that is done to
trust, faith, between the sexes when men are only allowed to relate
in such a limited manner. Wood demonstrates through his saying
he's prettier than Faith that he doesn't subscribe to the cultural
opposition between the sexes, and he certainly doesn't feel this
kind of feminine statement damages him as a man. What he does
is invite Faith to reconsider her estimation of men, her stereotyping
of all men as assholes out for one thing, something Riley began
in his Christ role in season four when he told Faith in Buffy's
body that he loved her AFTER he got the sex. The invitation is
to a reconciliation with the natural relationship between a man
and a woman: he basically says, have a little Faith, you'll be
surprised. (And, I might add that his seeming death and resuscitation
is yet another metaphor, this time, for the rebirth of this more
natural relationship between men and women.)
Male dominated suburbs: nuclear family used to be headed by the
male; when Buffy and Joyce come to Sunnydale, the head of the
town is the guy who founded it a hundred years ago, Dick the dictator.
The school principal, another authority figure, is a male who
is disposed of at graduation by a stronger male as part of this
demon phallic snake eat principal culture.
Age.
[> [> [> Re: The Themes of Chosen Spoilers Buffy to
Chosen -- Random, 12:00:54 02/10/04 Tue
Well, I have to say that you are actually making better points
than me in some ways, mainly because you're seducing me with a
much broader and more cohesive symbolic scheme with regards to
the series as a whole.
I still find certain aspects highly problematic, though. The FE's
overall ambition seemed to be total destruction. Women. Men. Children.
And I'm not sure how the fact that it can and does assume the
shapes of men as well as women fits into your thesis about the
symbolic oppression and manipulation of women.
I do indeed see your point about how the FE cannot escape gender
distinctions because, if I understand correctly, those conventions
are already in place. Hence, the FE's metamorphases are representative
of the existing social dynamic. However, I'm am arguing for the
individual. Sexlessnes is, in my thesis, not a merging or a leveling,
but, from the FE's perspective, an annihilation of both
sexes, without a subsequent replacement of any sort. Since I regard
the FE as essentially -- not incidentally -- sexless, it makes
sense to me that it's agenda would eschew all social conventions
of gender. Hence its focus on power and destruction of the very
race that created these conventions. If one believes this is one
of the threat being posed, I would interpret that the empowerment
of the female in "Chosen" as an implicit statement that
it doesn't and shouldn't matter what sex the individual is. One
of the precepts of feminism is that women are treated as a generic
stereotype, and accordingly diminished and oppressed. One means
of combatting that is blurring the distinctions, and in the real
world, it is perhaps the primary means. Though ymmv on that point.
In the symbolic scheme of BtVS, though, I would argue that Joss
doesn't eschew that tactic, merely utilizes the conventions
of the show to demonstrate another one: promoting the individual
over and above gender politics. When Buffy gives her speech about
empowering all the Potentials, it is very "girl-power,"
but more to the point, it is very "power." If -- and
I consider that ÒifÓ highly rhetorical in the symbolic
analysis -- they have potential, it will be realized. If they
can stand, they will. Textually, she's only talking about females
(just as, textually, lots of vampires are female even if you're
arguing that they represent the male dynamic) but symbolically,
I regard that as much broader.
I would say that we are not empowered to be male or female,
but released from the prison of having to be only male or only
female. We are freed to be human beings; hence ,The First's attack
would be against humanity as a whole, not just women, and that
humanity is not made up of strictly males or females, but of persons
with some of the traits defined as male and female. We are saying
a similar thing- there would still be a distinction between the
sexes because that's how we are made ; and the empowerment of
that distinction wouldn't come at the expense of the other, but
rather as part of the individual distinction that separates one
person from another. But we are not saying the same thing: I think
there is an implicit assumption in the valuing of both sexes that
some movement towards a single sex would be made as the very need
to devalue the feminine assumes some feminine in men. One could
argue that the First's vilified other is represented by humanity
itself that has to be exterminated as it is already made up of
individual hybrids of maleness AND femaleness, to varying degrees.
The back to the beginning theme could be back to the singular
valuing of maleness.
This paragraph is so fascinating that I had to reproduce it in
its entirety. The release from the prison is certainly an overarching
theme of the series, and I could hardly argue against that. What
I consider important to notice, however, is that I completely
agreed that the FE's attack would be against humanity as a whole.
However, I interpret this differently -- I don't see the "implicit
assumption" you speak of, so my thesis doesn't account for
this.
The First's vilified Other being represented by humanity is exactly
what I wanted to say. Just, you know, as well as you did. Once
again, though, we hit the wall weight given to the male/female
divide within the context of the FE's all-out war against humanity.
Since the FE itself makes no particular distinction that I can
see, I am arguing that Joss' vision is one of individuation without
being reduced to a Òbattle of the sexes.Ó I Am Woman
becomes I Am Human. Buffy can no longer be defined by her ÒSlayernessÓ
because she is but one among many. At the end, she is justÉBuffy
Summers. She is no longer the Vampire Slayer. She is no
longer an icon, but a person. An individual.
Caleb is an unusual case. He was certainly misogynistic. But,
as I noted in an above reply to Rah, Caleb was actually responsible
for toppling the Patriarchal element as well in the form of the
W.C. One thing I should have discussed before was the issue of
the Slayer/W.C. dynamic as a combination of Patriarchy and feminism.
They work in conjunction, and often effectively, until the inherent
inequity of the power balance becomes too great to be ignored.
Then Buffy takes the very feminist step of disassociating herself
from it. One of my favorite moments on the show, however, comes
in ÒCheckpointÓ when she re-creates the bond because
it's necessaryÉbut does so in a manner as to create a balance
of power. ÒSeeÉno begging,Ó she tells Travers,
and what initially appeared to be a complete inversion of the
power scheme becomes something more profound: a realization that
the two institutions can work together. She is ascendant,
but not in such a way as to repeat the mistakes of the Patriarchy.
So Caleb destroys the ÒmaleÓ (not completely comfortable
with that designation because there were clearly quite a few female
Watchers. But it seems to be dictum that the institution as a
whole was a representation of the masculine.) The Bringers destroy
the female in the form of the Potentials. Blurring aside, this
seems a reasonable interpretation of the symbolic nature of the
war. Of course, later on, Caleb turns to the Potentials and the
Bringers attack the male members of the Scooby gang as well as
the females, which adds a small but interesting twist.
So I certainly regard Caleb as male. However, the characterization
of him in priest's attire must be considered significant, symbolically.
The misogyny would have worked with anyone, so I choose to interpret
the persona of the priest a little more broadly (the anti-religious
themes are there, of course, but beyond the scope of what I'm
trying to say.) Assuming this is a Catholic priest, he would be
celibate. Not partaking of sexual relations. I'm not saying he
literally lacked sexual organs or a masculine persona, but that
the celibacy would be in some way symbolic of the sexlessness
I see in the FE. I should add in the Bringers as well, who are
apparently human, but fairly engendered in their Bringer form..
As such, I see them as appropriate instruments of the FE's war.
Having said all this, I consider your interpretation of the broader
metaphor quite compelling. Indeed, I agree with much of it, though
conditionally in many cases. I just feel that S7 signaled an apotheosis,
an extra step above the old metaphors to explore the idea that
perhaps it's not the gender that matters, but the person. The
vampires can still represent the masculine (conditional agreement),
the Slayer can still represent the feminine (complete and
conditional agreement, depending on whether we are talking Seasons
1-6 or S7)Ébut the metaphor need not remain there.
You're take on Faith/Wood is quite nice. I was being facetious,
really, in my reply, but I like your interpretation of the dynamic
and the dialogue. Not sure how that fits in my thesis, but that's
what convoluted rationalization is for.
[> [> [> [> Just wanted to add something else
-- lunasea, 19:04:37 02/10/04 Tue
Hopefully later I will manage to put together something worthy
of this thread. For now I just wanted to throw this out.
The Guardian represented the Feminist ideal. She was killed as
well. What is this saying? How does this fit into the idea that
the Guardians wanted to protect/look out for the Slayer? Why did
she have to be killed in order for the Scythe Spell to work? Had
she outlived her usefullness?
[> [> [> [> Re: Themes Spoilers Buffy S1 thru to
Chosen. -- Age, 23:43:40 02/10/04 Tue
Thanks once again for the reply.
If we look at 'Lessons' the theme of power is presented as males
versus females. At the beginning of the episode, the agents of
the First thrust their knife into the female potential, and we
cut immediately to Buffy herself who is reiterating the very notion
that later in 'Chosen' is excised when she tells Dawn that the
male vampire is the one with all the power and that Dawn is only
a girl and therefore weak. This juxtaposition of the first two
scenes of the final season make the equation between the knifing
of the potential and the internalization of the idea that women
are weak and males are strong and have the power. This idea is
then subverted by the vampire getting stuck and then deconstructed
by Buffy's dusting the vamp, a deconstruction that foreshadows
the one she will make later in the year when in the arena she
dusts the ubervamp.(Note that the gulf in physical strength between
Dawn, the regular human being and the regular vamp in 'Lessons'is
similar to the gulf between Buffy the slayer and the uber vamp.)
Then in the basement of the high school, symbolic of going back
to the beginning, Buffy excises the manifest ghosts of those she
could not save, those who were killed by the powerful. This idea
of putting the past to rest foreshadows the final excising of
the notion of weakness of women in 'Chosen'(ie these ghosts blame
their deaths on Buffy, implying weakness.) These ghosts are what
the First wants to become, physical, and its not a coincidence
that they are guarding the door to Spike, just as the First is
attempting to keep Spike under its control. Not only this but
Buffy's descent into the basement and her fight against them,
to save the next generation from the past, foreshadows the potentials
going down into the hellmouth to physically fight; and, Xander's
breaking of the talisman foreshadows Spike's use of the amulet.
When the First makes its appearance it echoes Buffy's lesson to
Dawn about powerful males and weak females by referring to Buffy
as being useless, stupid(through her lack of understanding) and
sugar and spice. Buffy cannot hope to know how grand the First
is because she's only a girl. Quite clearly the First is being
introduced in the context of the male/female binary opposition.
It doesn't matter whether the first appears as males or females,
the point is it represents the male power culture, through those
people who have either given into the culture, or those who have
been killed off by it.
In that first sequence at the end of 'Lessons' Buffy is the last
image presented of the First. She has to be the last image because
of what she said to Dawn, because she still bears the mortal (cultural)
wound (belief) of the male dominated binary opposition(and we
are reminded of this in 'Chosen' as Buffy is one of the last to
be knifed like the Potentials). As the season progresses Buffy
tries to figure out how to fight the First, believing (because
of the wound/belief) that, due to her super strength(strongest
rules in male culture) she must be the leader, and contemplates
getting more power, but rejects this in the episode with the Shadowmen(shadows
of the past equated with male power culture.) What I'm getting
at is Buffy first attempts a strictly male way of dealing with
her situation,(as for instance making an army of slayers) a way,
like the First's, which is based on power. It is when Buffy comes
to realize that there's another way, a way of sharing power that
she defeats the First accompanied by the sacrifice of a re-feminized
male.
Literally in the story the First senses a threat to its power
in the resurrection of Buffy. This is a male power culture reaction.
And, if we examine the Big Bads of the previous seasons(as the
sequence of the First asks us to) we see for them that it isn't
about good or evil, but about power, ie who would be the strongest,
the top dog: The Master as religious cult leader; Dru as manipulator;
Angelus (though not part of the First's sequence) as male reacting
violently against the perceived attempt by the female, Buffy,
to get power over him through emotional attachment; the Mayor
as phallic dictator whose only weakness is his human (feminine)
love for Faith; Adam as general of an army under his complete
control; Glory, the hellgoddess representing Buffy's desire to
gain enough power to conquer death itself like the vampires; Warren,
the misogynist desiring power over women. The First is no different,
stating that it is grander than all.
(Note that in season four Professor Walsh starts out in charge
of the Initiative, symbol of male power culture. Her participation
in this project shows that an image does not have to be male in
order to represent the male power culture as Walsh clearly has
bought into the culture and this is symbolized by her having traded
in her own female womb for the male dominated technological womb
of room 314 within the male Initiative complex. In doing so she
gives birth, so to speak, to Adam, who promptly stakes her in
the back to symbolize how the feminine has been betrayed. The
final battle between the soldiers and the demons within the Initiative
shows us the explosion of aggression that occurs when the culture
encourages only what it perceives to be maleness and when control
is no longer maintained through repression. In this way there
is little difference between the human soldiers and the demons
(and in fact Adam has orchestrated the battle) with aggression
encouraged so that it can be used to create a super army, a puppet
army of demon/human machines. The battle is contrasted to Buffy's
more feminine defeat of Adam through power sharing.)
What the first episode of the last season underscores through
its title, 'Lessons' is a reiteration of the importance of parenting
as it is the parent that first conveys culture to the next generation.
In regards to your observation about Buffy as human being left
at the end of the series, I couldn't agree more. One interpretation
of the vampire/slayer dynamic is as you said movement towards
humanity. Whenever Buffy stakes a vampire, the act always leaves
a human being(and technically only a human being as with the vampire
dusted, the slayer is no longer necessary.) You see in the imagery
of the changing visage of the First and the sexlessness of the
ubervamps the idea that to be human we do not need to give up
either identity or gender. We don't have to give up distinctions
with blurring of the sexes. I see the First in terms of the male
power culture, with Buffy initially giving into that culture and
then realizing a different way of dealing with the First. The
use of physical power by the slayers is a blurring of the sexes,
just as the sharing of power in 'Chosen' is the adoption of a
more feminine culture, with Spike as feminized male. This doesn't
mean that maleness and femaleness are blurred in themselves. But,
I see in the neanderthal uber vamps the extreme to which a male
power culture would devolve without being mitigated by the feminine,
or, by maleness being redefined, which is just another way of
blurring the sexes. Of course, it all depends on how these terms
are defined. Does this mean that male culture is inherently bad?
No, just aggressive and hierarchical. It's not about good or bad,
but about power.
In regards to the destruction of the watchers council. One could
argue that Buffy as female in having asserted her role as slayer
changed the council from patriarchal symbol to agency of the slayer.
She feminized it through power sharing.
Age.
[> Re: Comments about Buffy; Spoilers S1-7, Chosen; Angel:
Damage. -- Ann, 15:19:47 02/09/04 Mon
Great post! I thoroughly enjoyed it. A lot to think about.
"Andrew, in fact the quintessential representative of the
male culture vilified other in his nerdness, his homosexuality
and in the allusion to Christ, a figure associated with the feminization
of a culture through the number of slayer accompanying him. The
slayers, though super strong, have ceded power in this instance
to Andrew the male, suggesting the continuation of the power sharing
that Buffy began in 'Chosen',..." I think the choice of Andrew,
extending the allusion, indicates a forgiveness, on the part of
Buffy and the new world guard for the previous wrongs of Andrew
and of the old patriarchial belief system. There is redemption
and forgiveness in this new world view.
and
"Also, The First Evil in season seven, being incorporeal,
powerless in a physical sense, and associated with death, is the
ghost of the vilification of women in a male dominated society,"
The first was incorporeal because male domination is just smoke
and mirrors. Domination, although painful, brutal and deadly,
is powerless in the face of the soul and to the essence of a person.
I like your term re-feminization because it brings all of the
power of the male and the female together. It doesn't deny the
strengths of either gender as you point out describing the humourous
banter about shopping in the last scene of Chosen. Much like the
scoobies use of their unique powers in the previous fights and
battles, acceptance and power sharing is the new key. Buffy learned
that earlier on, she just had to bring it to practice.
[> [> Fascinating posts. Thanks for this. -- Jane,
16:01:56 02/09/04 Mon
[> Re: Comments about Buffy; Spoilers S1-7, Chosen; Angel:
Damage. -- Rufus, 16:30:52 02/09/04 Mon
One last thing. Even the humorous banter about shopping in
'Chosen' isn't gratuitous, but is meant to convey the idea that
the women of 'Buffy' will still shop, an activity that has been
associated with females. Men will still play sports; women will
still shop; but the reverse will also happen now. It's up to each
individual.
I can see Joss now....."Did I say that?....oh yeah I did
I did that and whatever else too......;)
[> I hope you don't mind if I expand a bit -- lunasea,
05:54:36 02/11/04 Wed
That was an interesting essay that presented what I like to call
the Angry Feminist perspective of the show very well. This is
not mean to demean either the perspective or your essay. The Angry
Feminist perspective can be presented very intelligently and logically.
There are a great many Angry Feminists that are well-spoken. That
anger is a natural reaction of women to the oppression we (I say
we because for the record, I am a woman. My gender is important
to note for this essay) have faced under the Patriarchy. The problem
with it is the anger that has motivated us to work for change
also has the effect of blinding us, specifically to the plight
of men under this system. I hope if you don't mind if I, as a
woman, expand what you have said to include the male perspective.
I have made two references that I am a woman so far and I have
said this is important. It is important because the Patriarchy
uses gender differences to justify its treatment of women. All
men who are feminists have to have the Angry Feminist perspective
because of this. Joss illustrated this best in ÒOnce More
with FeelingÓ in the song ÒI've Got a Theory.Ó
I wrote about this last July in a post entitled I've
Got a Theory In this essay, I show how the male feminist dilemma
is illustrated with Xander.
It could be witches!
Some evil witches! [sees Willow's and Tara's expressions]
Which is ridiculous, 'cause witches they were persecuted,
Wicca good and love the earth and woman power
and I'll be over here. [sits]
As a male feminist, a very angry one at that, Joss is allowed
to talk about empowering women overtly. His show is about empowering
the little blond girl in the alley. His show is about the little
blond girl in the alley and mainly her best friend. Seasons 6
and 7, the male characters are barely even there any more. Giles
has gone back to England and poor Xander is basically dropped
after ÒThe Replacement.Ó He has been replaced, by
Dawn, Tara and homosexual Andrew.
Let's not stray too far from the ÒmeÓ subject,
okay? It's getting weird. This is from the liner notes to
ÒOnce More with Feeling.Ó Joss believes himself
to be rather self-centered. As Wesley tells Angel in ÒLineage,Ó
things have to be personal or we lose the motivation to do them.
Joss' story about a female hero has to have personal meaning for
him or he wouldn't have been able to sustain it for 7 seasons
(though some can argue that he should have stopped with 5 or 6).
This meaning is illustrated mainly through the character of Xander,
the Everyman, and Giles, not just head/logic, but in many ways
the positive aspects of the masculine principle.
(just a quick note. I realize Spike also possesses a penis and
can be considered male. I am using my female power and choosing
not to talk about him for this essay, since he was used Season
6 to show the negative aspects of the masculine principle and
Season 7 illustrated how the soul has a humanizing effect on this.)
The limited use of both Xander and Giles combined with the confusing
portrayal of Giles upset many fans season 7. Both of these illustrate
Joss underlying, not-so-overt message, namely the Patriarchy hurts
us all. A society which allows us only two perspectives, the Angry
Feminist one and the Patriarchal one, has little room for Xander
and Giles. They are completely minimized by both perspectives.
They don't fit into a world where Girl Power Rules. This is illustrated
by how they are squeezed out of the Summer House by the Potentials.
Xander, the Everyman, is the only one without any supernatural
powers. He gives one of the most stirring speeches in ÒPotentialÓ
about how hard this is.
Xander: They'll never know how tough it is, Dawnie, to be the
one who isn't chosen. To live so near to the spotlight and never
step in it. But I know. I see more than anybody realizes because
nobody's watching me. I saw you last night. I see you working
here today. You're not special. You're extraordinary. (stands,
kisses her forehead, stands to walk out of the room)
Dawn: (tears welling in her eyes, calls after him) Maybe that's
your
power.
Xander: (pauses at the door) What?
Dawn: Seeing. Knowing.
Xander: Maybe it is. Maybe I should get a cape.
There is to be no cape in Xander's future, because his ability
to see is damaged, leaving him with only one eye. Caleb, the avilly
symbol of misogyny, puts out his eye. Caleb is the FE's head minion,
in charge of the other minions, the Bringers. The Bringers also
have their eyes put out.
It is Caleb and the Bringers that destroy the Watcher's Council.
In the past, this institution has symbolized the Patriarchy and
its interaction with Buffy has shown how harmful this is. It isn't
evil though. It is just tradition. It doesn't know any better.
It is misogyny that has caused women to become Angry Feminists
and rise up to overthrow the status quo.
When this happens, we are left with Pod Giles, a man that is left
adrift not knowing what to do. That is what the Patriarchy has
turned him into. He is either reliant on the tradition of the
Watcher's Council, which he has been able to stand up against
in the past, or on Buffy, the feminist ideal. He tries very hard
to be who he is and do what he thinks is right, but the world
where Girl Power Rules has no place for him or his methods and
even shuts the door on him.
Both the male characters and the female characters this season
are imprisoned by how they think things should be done. It isn't
until Buffy realizes that they don't have to follow either the
Patriarchy or the Feminist Ideal that the final solution is discovered.
The Feminist Ideal represented by the Guardian is easily killed
by Caleb. It isn't strong enough to stand up to the misogyny that
is present in the world. Such a bold statement for an Angry Feminist
to make.
With season 7, Joss' Angry Feminism makes the transition to genderless
Humanism. Manwitch might say this is the formless, for that is
the seventh Chakra for a show about gender. It has been underlying
the show since the beginning and gives it personal meaning to
the males that watch and write it. There is still a fine line
for Joss to walk. He is still in the male feminist dilemma. He
has said that he will not make a male slayer. The Scythe Spell
only empowered females.
But that wasn't the final message. In ÒChosenÓ women
empowered women, women empowered men, men empowered men, and men
empowered women. In the final message, gender wasn't important.
Empowering others was. The ultimate message is that the way to
free/empower ourselves is to empower others. This echoes The Prayer
of St. Francis that closes Season 6.
The heavy reliance on gender this season was to set this up. The
Uber-vamps were clones that the Angry Feminists push for with
their blurring/removal of the lines of gender. The Harbingers
are the blind that follow misogyny. Caleb was the obvious symbol
of that misogyny. Thing is both the Watcher's Council and The
Guardian were victims of this. Both ways had to go away before
Buffy and Willow could change the world. The Guardian was just
concerned with protecting the Slayer. The Watcher's Council was
just concerned with protecting the world. Neither changed anything.
It takes Buffy combining the female model of the importance of
union with the male model of the importance of power to realize
what needed to be done.
The Angry Feminist perspective has been driving the show for 7
seasons, but when it comes down to it, even it isn't changing
the world. It takes a New Feminism, a true Humanism to do this.
A formless/genderless world where we are free to have whatever
form and express our gender how ever we want. A world where Xander
doesn't have to sit in the corner and Giles isn't shut out. A
world where Dawn isn't paralyzed and Willow isn't scared of herself.
A world where Buffy doesn't have to be the only one.
As a woman, I can say that. Did Joss really change the world?
If he did then I would hope that men can, too.
[> [> Re: I hope you don't mind if I expand a bit spoilers
Buffy:Chosen -- Age, 09:19:35 02/11/04 Wed
Thanks for the reply.
By excising the patriarchal belief from their subconscious these
young women are free to be themselves. They are no longer attached
to the male/female relationship as a fight or power play. This
gives Wood the opportunity to invite Faith to consider a different
type of relationship. My focus on the removal of an idea, a culture,
highlights the back to the beginning theme where men and women
get back to a more natural relationship with one another.
Your reading of season seven can be found in the symbolism of
Spike's use of the amulet. As ensouled vampire, he represents
the deconstruction of the feminist myth that all men are neanderthals
and need to be fought against. The very fact of Spike's ensouled
existence is the destruction of that myth, the destruction of
the endless fight between men and women. The slayers going down
to fight the army could interpreted to represent the futility
of the endless fight between the feminists and the patriarchs,
and that Buffy already knew that this fight was futile, but that
wasn't why she went; her goal was to bide time before the cleansing
action of the amulet took place. The slayers did not eschew power
as a masculine bad, but their sharing of it and Spike's ensouled
participation meant an end to the fight between the sexes. I do
not however think this interpretation contradicts my symbolic
reading of 'Chosen.'
The male power culture isn't about empowerment, but about victimization.
It's about making a victim of the next guy before he can make
a victim of you by taking away your power. Isn't this what the
First represents? It is, through the binary opposition, maleness
devoid of any traits that would be judged as feminine, ie weakness.
The denouement of 'Buffy' isn't the supplanting of one more valued
culture over another, but the removal of a limiting belief system.
Doesn't the Guardian represent the prior dominant female culture,
the goddess culture which patriarchy did away with? The feminization
of our society that I see represented at the end of 'Chosen' isn't
a re-establishment of a prior culture, but a back to the real
beginning before cultural definitions, allowing the individual
to be who he or she is. The feminization occurs not because it
is better or right, but because it's there. Without the male dominated
repression of the feminine, the feminine is allowed to influence.
But then equally so is the masculine.
Age.
[> [> [> Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough
-- lunasea, 11:15:13 02/11/04 Wed
Which I will blame on a still somewhat fuzzy head. Perhaps our
disagreement comes from how we are using terms. I still see what
I would call the Angry Feminist perspective in your post. For
example, you say that the "male power culture" is about
victimization. I see it being also about protection.
The Shadowmen didn't rape/infuse the Primative with demon essence
for shits and giggles. They did it to protect the world. Their
method was questionable at best, but victimization wasn't their
goal. The last Watcher's Council, the descendent of those Shadowmen,
were ruthless, but they did what they thought best to protect
the world. They tried to wield the power that the Slayer represents
the best that they could. The male sees the Slayer as Power.
The Guardians were there to protect the Slayer. Buffy is referred
to as the Last Guardian of the Hellmouth. The Guardians guard
the Guardian of the Hellmouth. They created the Scythe for this
purpose. Just as the Shadowmen didn't infuse themselves with the
demon essence, the Guardians do not weild the Scythe. They do
not have that power. Instead they put their power into the Scythe
and it protects the Slayer. The Guardians see the Slayer as something
to protect.
The Scythe Spell doesn't eliminate either of these perspectives.
What symbolizes them must go away so that they can merge into
something greater. The Spell takes the Slayer essence given by
the Shadowmen and merges it with the Guardian created Scythe.
Male and Female merge, not to elimate each other, but to free
others, including Buffy. Not only is she freed from being the
only one, but she gains confidence.
What is the FE? I have to disagree strongly that it is the pure
masculine principle, maleness devoid of any female traits. The
First is the source of all evil. What would turn the desire
to protect others into the willingness to victimize others? What
does the First use to get Angel to try to kill Buffy and when
this fails, himself? What does the First use to manipulate everyone,
from Spike to Andrew to Dawn to Willow to Robin to Faith to Buffy?
Ignorance, doubt and fear. Doesn't matter what gender you are,
ignorance, doubt and fear are a dangerous combination.
Just a few other things: First, your reading of Spike differs
a bit from mine. I see the amulet as a way to connect the empowerment
that Buffy did for Angel seasons 1-3 back to her and then move
onto someone else, much in the same way that Faith came back.
Spike is a very interesting character, but in the interest of
board harmony, I will not go into him.
"The prior dominant female culture, the goddess culture which
patriarchy did away with" is the Angry Feminist's favorite
myth. Such a culture cannot and did not exist because of pragmatic
reasons. We saw how easily Caleb did away with her. A culture
that isn't willing to fight isn't going to survive as long as
there are those that are willing to fight them.
My response wasn't about the effect of the Patriarchy on the feminine,
but on the masculine, Joss' final message being that the Patriarchy
hurts us all. His merging of male and female to free everyone
was a very powerful statement of true Humanism.
[> [> [> [> Re: Perhaps I didn't explain Spoilers
Buffy Chosen -- Age, 01:02:33 02/12/04 Thu
Thanks for the clarification.
Firstly, I do see what you mean about males being caught between
the patriarchal and girls rule. Whether patriarchal or feminist
both men and women would have to fit into a certain culture. My
original posting was about the uprooting of male dominated beliefs
in women in order for them to be who they are, with the First
being the lingering ghost of male dominance past. The implication
here is that the feminist movement has made changes, and that
its time once and for all to let go of the beliefs and move on.
This moving on is symbolized in the Sunnydale sign falling out
of view, hence my description of it as the end of labeling. I
described the crater of 'Chosen' as representing openness, as
opposed to the closedness of repression, which can be a product
of having to force ones natural self into culturally defined roles.
This openness of the crater could also be representative of the
formlessness of which you write.
Fundamentally male power culture is based on a hierarchy of physical
strength. Even if there is protection, the fundamental dynamic
of jockeying for power still holds. I might even suggest that
protection in a male dominated society is a function of the hierarchy
as it is a show of strength between males and over females who
can only play the role of victim to be protected. A man's strength
and his position within the hierarchy is defined in part by how
he can protect his assets, including women, or take the assets
from others. The Shadowmen's protection might be seen in this
light(protecting their assets from those who would take them),
reinforced by the rape and subjugation of a girl(the symbol of
the very person that the Shadowmen should be protecting.) If however
there is on the part of the Shadowmen a genuine desire to protect
human beings from vampires, then this would be problematic and
I couldn't include these guys within the confines of what I deem
to be an oppositionally based male power culture.
The First could represent this male power culture based on binary
opposition because the male instinct to protect would be perceived
as feminine and therefore repressed. Fundamentally maleness is
about physical power within a hierarchy and the First estimates
itself to be the grandest of them all. The First does not have
that physical power, but wants it. The First's desire is to become
powerful in a male way. It's plan is to get an army to do physical
violence to human beings; this is male in character, as opposed
to developing its own non-corporeal power to do away with humans
in a different way; even the power that it feeds to Caleb is meant
to enhance physical strength. (The First foments fear, doubt because
that's all it can do directly.)
Anyway, I understand your concerns about my portrayal of maleness,
but in my mind I keep coming back to the idea that in a male dominant
binary opposition anything that has even the whiff of femaleness
would be done away with. Your objection is that male culture includes
protection, and all I can say is that the carrying out of that
instinct to protect would occur in a male culture that does not
conform strictly to a binary opposition.
My idea is that the First is a reactionary metaphor attempting
to reinstate once and for all the oppositional based male dominated
culture that has lost its purchase on human beings as symbolized
by Spike's ensoulment. It wants to get back to its beginning of
purity when maleness, as defined by other than femaleness, ruled.
Buffy's defeat of the First is the final uprooting of the influence
of that culture, allowing both men and women to start fresh as
human beings.
It may be that the First has a wider role or one less tied to
gender. But it's that absolute cutting of male from anything that
is deemed female that gives me the impression that this is the
stripping down of what is male to its essential which is hierarchy
of physical power. It is not that males in themselves are the
problem, but rather the stripping away of anything in maleness
that could be construed as female.
Thanks for your posting. I hope the above helps to show my position,
even if it doesn't address your concerns satisfactorily.
Age.
[> A note about fascism -- lunasea, 06:37:48 02/11/04
Wed
I have seen several discussions on the board about the term "Femi-nazi"
or using the term fascist to describe various aspects of the show.
I separated this from my response to your essay because it has
little to do with what I said there, but I decided to exercise
my power and speak up.
I am tired of seeing this term used against anything people don't
like. It has come to be synonymous with oppression or totalitarianism.
If someone wants to say oppressive or totalitarian, we have two
words for that already. They are oppressive and totalitarian.
Fascism is a very specific type of oppression and totalitarian
form of government.
There are 14 characteristics that define fascism. These 14 characteristics
are common to all regimes that are considered fascist (Hitler,
Mussolin, Franco, Suharto among others):
1. A strong Nationalism. Without an appeal to patriotism, I do
not see something as fascist. A fascist state tendsÊto make
constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols,Êsongs,
and other paraphernalia, especially flags. I wasn't aware that
the feminist movement had a flag or symbol that could be associated
with it. What are our mottos, slogans, songs, etc...? I really
need to learn these. Do we have a handbook? I need to get that.
2. A disdain for the recognition of human rights. I do not see
how a movement that is about the recognition of human rights
can be compared to the movements that fear such things.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. There
are women that do blame everything on men (but that's only cause
you cause all the problems of the world ;-) ), but the women who
get labeled Feminazi tend to just be concerned with their own
rights, not taking down men. We don't have time to be worried
about revenge. We have children to feed and a world to save.
4. Supremacy of the military. When we did we get a military? Are
we the ones in the pink tanks with those awesome Manolo Blahnik
combat boots? Without a military to enforce/impose anything, any
comparison to fascism rings rather hollow.
5. Rampant sexism. Interesting how the movement that is about
the equality of the sexes gets lumped with the movement that really
doesn't like this. It is basically trying to insult the feminism
by comparing it to its greatest enemy. Under fascist regimes,
divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state
is represented as the guardian of family values.
6. Controlled mass media. If the feminist movement is in control
of the mass media, we aren't doing a very good job. We really
need to get "Charmed" off the air and I won't even get
into Spike TV or Howard Stern.
7. Obsession with national security. Most feminists I know are
more interested in domestic policy, like children, education,
welfare and gun control. Action on such issues are what motivated
women to work for recognition of our rights in the first place.
8. Religion and government are intertwined. Religion isn't even
a component to the feminist movement, let alone its relationship
to government. The closest thing is rights of women in the Christian/Catholic
Churches.
9. Corporate power is protected. There are capitalist feminists
and socialist ones. If anything the feminist movement is against
the corporate power represented by the glass ceiling.
10. Labor power is suppressed. See #9. We are working for
labor power.
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts. The term tends to
be used against those that would be considered intellectuals,
so again the comparision falls short.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. I don't see anyone calling
for men to be punished because of the Patriarchy that hurts us
all. Instead it is about elevating women, not pushing down men.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Please show me examples where
this applies to anyone that this term has been used against.
14. Fraudulent elections. We have elections? I believe the League
of Women Voters is a guardian of informed and free elections.
I am willing to offer a compromise. If you can show me how at
least half of these apply to an individual, I will tolerate your
use of the word against someone. If you can show me how 2/3rd
apply, I will defend your right to do so. If you can show me how
all apply, I will attack them with you.
[> [> Re: A note about fascism -- Finn Mac Cool,
09:09:09 02/12/04 Thu
There is a certain level of female control of the media. I'm mainly
thinking of sitcoms where the husbands are almost always portrayed
as self-centered idiots while, 9 times out of 10, the wives are
portrayed as being right. To quote the show Yes, Dear: "We're
men; we always lose."
[> [> [> Maybe, but think of the contempt for women
revealed . . . -- d'Herblay, 09:37:03 02/12/04 Thu
. . . by imagining that the smart, beautiful Leah Rimini/Courtney
Thorne-Smith/Constance Marie/etc. would possibly think that her
best match is the self-centered, idiotic, boorish, fat Kevin James/Jim
Belushi/George Lopez/etc. If you ask me, it's a male fantasy:
I can have no redeeming values whatsoever and still have a doting,
understanding, gorgeous wife.
Well, my fantasy, anyway.
[> [> [> [> And you have a real opportunity to
live that fantasy. Ain't life grand? -- Sophist, 09:50:31
02/12/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Hey! d'H isn't fat! -- Rahael,
10:09:07 02/12/04 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe not yet, but you
know what happens to guys once they get married.... -- Sophist,
10:24:28 02/12/04 Thu
Has he mentioned cigars, beer, or NASCAR yet?
At least the other half of this fantasy has some compensating
features.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have ways and means
-- Rahael, 13:17:53 02/12/04 Thu
I don't know whether that would be considered a compensating feature
or not!
I already have a narrowed gaze focussed on the smoking...
[> [> [> [> Absolutely. -- Arethusa, 09:55:21
02/12/04 Thu
Plus, it's the networks attempting to gain female viewers by pandering
to them. The men are dolts and the women hold the family together,
pitting one against the other and reinforcing (or creating) sexist
stereotypes.
[> [> [> [> [> Charmed -- Claudia, 11:16:02
02/12/04 Thu
"Plus, it's the networks attempting to gain female viewers
by pandering to them. The men are dolts and the women hold the
family together, pitting one against the other and reinforcing
(or creating) sexist stereotypes."
Sounds like the "feminism" projected on CHARMED.
a few more questions (spoilers
for Buffy Season 7 and ATS Season 4) -- buffyguy, 12:46:08
02/09/04 Mon
im very inquisitive as u can see, so dont hate me...just think
of it as a chance to get the creative juices flowing. So i was
wondering, do you think that evil-at-large or the general demon
public know of the events of chosen and that there are thousands
of demons around the world? second is about connor. He is like
a male slayer basically. Human infused with demon powers, no??
so can we classify him as a slayer or no? also if he procreates
will his offspring be as powerful or will it be like the offspring
of a slayer, ie. no powers necessarily. i had a third question
but i forgot it...lolol...so i might post it later one. damn,
and i thought a brain tickler too...oh well, next time.
Replies:
[> Re: a few more questions (spoilers for Buffy Season 7
and ATS Season 4) -- Ames, 13:15:45 02/09/04 Mon
There's no evidence that the world at large knows anything about
the events of Chosen, other than the obvious fact that the town
of Sunnydale collapsed into a big sinkhole. Ordinary people in
BtVS have alway shown a remarkable capacity to rationalize supernatural
events - in this case they will probably pass off the general
craziness which caused Sunnydale to empty out as pre-earthquake
jitters.
I don't recall anything specific ever being mentioned on AtS about
what Connor actually is. He's obviously not a vampire, since he
can go out in daylight and has never shown a vampire face. On
the other hand he does have some sort of demon element, because
he was affected by the spell against demon violence cast on the
hotel.
[> [> Re: a few more questions (spoilers for Buffy Season
7 and ATS Season 4) -- buffyguy, 19:29:13 02/09/04 Mon
i remember the last question...if lindsey staked angel in the
heart why isnt he dust? why wood wood make more of a difference
then an iron sword? I mean can u, like, take his heart out of
his body and squish it and he still wont die unless u pierce it
with wood? i just dont get that part of the vampire mythos in
BTVS and AtS
[> [> [> mysticality is always a good answer --
Seven, 20:12:16 02/09/04 Mon
As far as the wood goes, a vampire's body has a demon/mystical
physiology. Wounds heal quickly, not because of a rapid "healing
factor" a la Wolverine (e.g., vamps don't have very powerful
white blood cells) their bodies can simply magically heal the
wounds. think of Wood as a special ingredient to a spell that
will kill a vampire.
However, in "Hearthrob," Angel's former associate has
his heart removed, so that for a while, he is invincible, but
it is said that the process will kill a vampire and as the case
stands, the vamp in this episode is now dust.
So apperantly, taking a vampire's heart out of his or her body
will kill it, but it may take a while. I didn't like this aspect
of vampire mythology though, becaus if that is true, an enemy
could simply whip up a simple teleportation spell and mystically
hold a vamps heart, making sure he would die. Though this wouldn't
be as useful in a fight, it would be for someone who hates Angel
and just wants him dead.
Oh, well, the metaphor for that episode was worth the problem
I now have with the mythology.
[> [> [> [> wasn't there a spell involved with
that? -- DorianQ, 23:28:19 02/09/04 Mon
[> [> [> Re: Why stakes have to be wood -- TexasGirl,
12:23:42 02/10/04 Tue
There's a theory in the Fred Saberhagen Dracula books that stakes
are made out of wood because wood is also "undead" like
vampires. So it's a like-kills-like thing. It makes sense to me.
Something carved out of wood can last almost forever if it is
taken care of properly, yet it is no longer part of a living thing.
Just like vampires!
[> [> [> Wood was once living but is now dead
-- Pip, 12:24:43 02/10/04 Tue
So it has a kind of mystical similarity with vampires, unlike
metal, stone etc. which have never been alive.
Quite why plastic stakes don't kill vampires, I don't know, because
they're often made of once-living petroleum products. [grin]
[> [> [> [> Re: Wood was once living but is now
dead -- skeeve, 13:35:23 02/10/04 Tue
How do we know plastic doesn't work?
So far as I can tell, it's never been tried.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Wood was once living but
is now dead -- LittleBit, 13:43:19 02/10/04 Tue
Riley put a plastic woodgrain stake directly into Spike's heart,
and it was clear Spike expected to become a "big pile of
dust."
[> [> [> [> Just curious... -- LittleBit, 18:49:35
02/10/04 Tue
Am I the only one who wanted to ask if this was a spoiler in the
subject line? ;-)
[Oh no!! Wood is dead?!?! When?!?! Darn that Faith for changing
her name and running back and forth in time!]
[> [> [> [> [> LOL! good one,LittleBit. :D
-- Jane, 18:57:53 02/10/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> interesting idea (biological nerd alert)
-- matching mole, 11:51:05 02/11/04 Wed
Wood is in some sense an example of 'the living dead'. Most of
the trunk or branch of a tree is composed of the walls of now-deceased
cells. The main body of a tree is largely 'dead' with a thin layer
of living tissue around the outside. So wood is sort of like the
anti-vampire - becoming dead without actually dying (whereas vampires
die but remain living).
OT - Chance DVD -- Brian,
12:49:19 02/09/04 Mon
I was thinking of ordering Amber Benson's DVD Chance. Has anyone
ordered this DVD? And if so, how long did it take to receive it?
Thanks for the info.
Replies:
[> I did... -- Rob, 12:51:44 02/09/04 Mon
...but I ordered it about two months before it was available,
and there were some initial delays due to not enough DVDs having
been produced, so I don't know how long it would take now that
it is already out. It is worth getting, though.
Rob
[> [> Re: Thanks -- Brian, 21:10:36 02/09/04 Mon
I'm gonna give it a try.
Spoilery end of "You're
Welcome" -- weebster, 06:23:58 02/10/04 Tue
Date Posted: 19:58:53 02/09/04 Mon
Subject: Cordelia's death (spoilers for this week's Angel!)
Wow, never saw that coming, huh? Do you think she doesn't want
to be on the show anymore or what? Does she have a better gig
somewhere? Someone let me know.
Replies:
[> Re: Spoilery end of "You're Welcome" --
Invisible Green, 06:25:51 02/10/04 Tue
Date Posted: 20:15:34 02/09/04 Mon
Author: Invisible Green
Subject: Re: Cordelia's death (spoilers for this week's Angel!)
In reply to: weebster 's message, "Cordelia's death (spoilers
for this week's Angel!)" on 19:58:53 02/09/04 Mon
Charisma Carpenter is currently looking for a sitcom or action-movie
role. It was Joss's decision to end Cordelia's storyline on "Angel,"
although since Charisma now has little Donovan to take care of,
she is not currently looking to do another hour-long show.
If you missed her in "See Jane Date" on ABC Family,
it is being rerun on Feb. 14. Charisma also has a recurring role
on "Miss Match." I believe she has filmed a total of
four episodes; I think two have aired.
Charisma has also stated that ahe would "kill" to play
WonderWoman, so maybe someone could write a script for her.
[> [> Re: Spoilery end of "You're Welcome"
-- weebster, 06:27:34 02/10/04 Tue
Date Posted: 21:01:05 02/09/04 Mon
Subject: Re: Cordelia's death (spoilers for this week's Angel!)
In reply to: Invisible Green 's message, "Re: Cordelia's
death (spoilers for this week's Angel!)" on 20:15:34 02/09/04
Mon
man, I hope that works out for her. if she's unlucky she could
end up starring on the next celebrity mole...
Current board
| More February 2004