July 2003 posts
POWER,
CORRUPTION AND LIES: Superpowers and magic as empowerment and
temptation in BtVS (Spoils S7) -- KdS, 06:28:45 07/01/03
Tue
Thanks all for tolerating the number of times I've alluded to
this forthcoming essay before while discussing S7. I hope that
it was worth the wait.
I intend to argue that throughout BtVS, but in particular in seasons
5-7, there was a thematic conflict between two underlying attitudes
to power. The first was ME's desire to produce an uplifting tale
of feminist empowerment and heroism. The second, conflicting with
this immediate intention, was an increasingly visible suspicion
of the wish-fulfilment aspect of magic in fantasy fiction, and
the temptation to use magical power as a superficial and destructive
answer to deeper personal problems. The essay will be divided
into three parts.
The first part will deal with the surface theme of mystical female
empowerment, discussing the roots of the central BtVS concept,
and the changing portrayal of Slayers, and Buffy in particular.
It will also argue that the central anti-patriarchal message of
S7 was intensified by the portrayal of Vengeance Demons as, in
a sense, anti-Slayers in Selfless.
The second part will discuss the changing portrayal of magic in
BtVS. Some critics place the blame for the inconsistent and controversial
portrayal of magic in seasons 5-7 of BtVS solely on ME's failure
to develop a coherent theoretical model of magic in the Buffyverse.
I will argue that these inconsistencies and mixed messages in
the portrayal of magic, and in the development of Willow's character,
were the result of ME's failure to resolve, or possibly to fully
recognise, the clash between the two conflicting impulses described
above.
The final part will examine the secondary, minor, theme of the
dark side of fantasy in isolation, specifically in relation to
its most explicit development, the portrayal of Andrew Wells in
Season Seven. It will seek to place this secondary theme in the
context of a number of other British and American fantasy novels
which have disturbingly questioned the impulse to fantasy itself.
[> POWER: Superpowers, Slayers
and Vengeance Demons -- KdS, 06:31:11 07/01/03 Tue
The first thing I ever thought of when I thought of Buffy:The
Movie was the little blonde girl who goes into a dark alley and
gets killed, in every horror movie. The idea of Buffy was to subvert
that idea, that image, and create someone who was a hero where
she had always been a victim.
Joss Whedon, DVD commentary to Welcome to the Hellmouth
Power. I have it. They don't. This bothers them.
Buffy Summers, in conversation.
While the concept of Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been
praised as original by many TV critics, those with even a faint
knowledge of the American superhero comic strip can see its antecedents
quite clearly. In the 1960s, the editors and authors of Marvel
Comics developed a new model for the superhero comic strip. In
the past, superheroes had been relatively cardboard fighters for
goodness and morality, rarely suffering from self-doubt or genuine
moral quandaries. Their everyday identities were merely disguises
which only became important to the story if their secrecy was
threatened. Finally, while good or evil recurring characters might
return in different stories, there would be little long-term character
development or changes in their lives, so that any set of stories
featuring the same character could be read in any order with no
great confusion. The 1960s Marvel staff overturned all of this
tradition.
In Marvel comics, characters were allowed to develop between stories,
bearing the marks of their experiences and forming and breaking
relationships in an organic manner. Their private lives were allowed
to become of greater importance, with private and public roles
frequently coming into conflict and the private life and superhero
themes of each individual story sometimes echoing one another.
Finally, Marvel superheroes were permitted to have character flaws,
sometimes glaring ones, to doubt their own morality, to face genuinely
hard moral decisions, and sometimes to make the wrong choices.
Replace a technofantasy environment with a traditional supernatural
one, and finally abandon the baggage of costumes and silly pseudonyms,
and we have the Mutant Enemy storytelling model.
The genuine innovation of Buffy the Vampire Slayer for
television was the introduction of a female hero who was equal
to men in both physical strength and mental toughness, and who
retained the surface physical and emotional identity of traditional
femininity without, at any point, being shot as a titillating
sex object in the manner of Charlie's Angels.
During Seasons One to Three, Buffy suffers a series of emotional
traumas too well-known to describe in detail, including near-death
experiences, the deaths of and betrayals by family and friends,
and a particularly disastrous and doomed love affair. All these
are the consequence of her Slayer status, and create emotional
problems which will haunt her for the whole of the series. A temptation
to seek oblivion in death, the fear that allowing herself to fully
feel emotion will lead to total breakdown, a fear of the death
of friends and lovers which leads her to avoid commitment and
closeness, awareness of the danger she brings to others simply
by her proximity, and the paradoxical combination of overweening
pride in her Slayer status and guilt for that self-aggrandisation
all interfere with her ability to lead a human life.
But these are not specifically mystic or fantastic fears, in some
form or another they apply to any individual whose vocation brings
them into situations of violence and conflict. To hammer home
the moral risks she runs, in Season Three, her rival and shadow
self Faith unambiguously turns to evil, driven by her amoral delight
in violence and power and disconnection from other humans. Yet
likewise Faith's decline is still portrayed in terms of human
emotion and disfunctionality. But at the end of Season Four, with
Buffy's life apparently at its most stable and happy moment in
the whole series, a more disquieting subtext arises.
In late S4/early S5 some interesting things start happening. Buffy
and her friends are mystically assaulted by an entity claiming
to be the First Slayer, which appears to be trying to ensure that
Buffy returns to the traditional solitary Slayer lifestyle, and
presents the Slayer as being essentially a terrifying force of
violence and death. The dream figure of Buffy's most recent arch-nemesis,
and a charismatic supervampire, both visit her to imply that her
powers are dark and demonic in origin.
DREAM ADAM: Aggression is a natural human tendency. Though
you and me come by it another way.
BUFFY: We're not demons.
DREAM ADAM: [sardonically] Is that a fact?
BUFFY: I'm the good guy, remember?
DRACULA: Perhaps, but your power is rooted in darkness. You must
feel it.
DRACULA: I have searched the world over for you. I have yearned
for you. For a creature whose darkness rivals my own.
When Buffy drinks Dracula's blood she sees a montage of battle
and the First Slayer which seems to imply that there is some genuine
connection and kinship between vampires and Slayers. We see, and
Buffy admits, that she has been finding pleasure in fighting and
killing to such an extent that she is unable to sleep without
getting a slay in first. Throughout Season Five, but especially
in the opening battles of No Place Like Home and Fool
For Love, and the pre-credit scene of The Gift, her
usual punning in moments of pause to discomfort her adversaries
has become a constant tirade of belittlement and abuse. Given
the rarity with which vampires now give her any serious trouble
this appears more like pure cruelty than tactics. We begin to
wonder whether the darkness that Buffy and Faith have struggled
with might come from some demonic portion that goes beyond normal
human aggression and neurosis. Eventually, this is staved off
by an encounter with a new, far more benevolent incarnation of
the First Slayer who speaks of love and forging strength from
pain, and a eucatastrophic recognition that the ambiguous phrase
"Death is your gift" may refer to self-sacrifice through
love.
However, the continuing influence of the hints that Slayers have
a demonic nature which may be inherently corrupting if they survive
too long plays against the message of female empowerment, deriving
instead from the secondary theme of suspicion of power. It plays
against female empowerment because it echoes traditional mythological
tropes which portray women's power as essentially amoral and uncontrollable,
needing to be guided by wise men. While the text shows the Watchers'
Council, at this point, as cruel, incompetent and all-but superfluous,
the subtext suggests that control over the Slayer may be required.
(The subtext lasted long enough for Maladanza to argue it explicitly
on this board in response to Chosen.)
The portrayal of Buffy's problems in S6 and S7 did not overtly
hint at a demonic nature to the Slayer. Her disconnection in S6,
and her rather different disconnection in S7 were portrayed as
natural human emotional reactions to, respectively, her traumatic
removal from heaven and her crushing feelings of responsibility
for others. I am unable to recall the individual in question,
but at least one person on the board attempted to rationalise
her relationship with Spike during mid-S6 on the basis that their
mutual human/demon hybrid nature made them natural mates. Otherwise,
the potential demonic nature of the Slayer was left hanging until
the second half of S7, which attempted to confirm this revelation,
but to tie it to a plot dealing with the evils of patriarchy,
and to dispel it by opening a new, anti-patriarchal future Slayer
paradigm.
In Get It Done, the long awaited Slayer origin story is
finally told and the truth behind the implications of demonity
finally revealed. We discover that the organisational ancestors
of the Watchers' Council (who in the 21st century have now paid
for their inactivity and sclerosis with their lives), a group
of powerful African magicians known as the Shadowmen, bound a
young woman with the essence of a demon, apparently in order to
make her sufficiently powerful to fight the demons and vampires
that threatened humanity. When Buffy is sent through a portal
to encounter them, possibly in the ancient era when they existed,
possibly in some other dimension which they retired to, or possibly
in some ad hoc magical construct which replicated them, they attempt
to repeat the original act to increase Buffy's power. The act
is clearly portrayed as a grotesquely sexualised violation. Buffy
is knocked unconscious, bound and exposed to a cloudy entity which
attempts to forcibly enter her body through her mouth and vulva.
SHADOW MAN #1: [subtitle; Swahili] This is how it was then.
How it must be now.
SHADOW MAN #2: [subtitle; Swahili] This is all there is.
While Buffy has no clear knowledge of what the results of this
process may be, the manner in which it is carried out and the
Shadowmens' aggressively disrespectful manner convince her that
no good will come of it. She breaks free, humiliates the Shadowmen
in an equally sexualised manner by breaking their phallic staffs,
and leaves.
BUFFY: You think I came all this way to get knocked up by some
demon dust? I can't fight this. I know that now. But you guys?
You're just men. Just the men who did this. To her. Whoever that
girl was before she was the first Slayer.
SHADOW MAN #1: [subtitle; Swahili] You don't understand.
BUFFY: No, you don't understand! You violated that girl, made
her kill for you because you're weak, you're pathetic, and you
obviously have nothing to show me.
The essential darkness of the Slayer power is apparently confirmed.
Not merely does the Slayer's power come from demon hybridisation,
but if Buffy's vision is correct it derived from the grotesque
violation of a bound woman transformed into a weapon, by the ancestors
of the patriarchal organisation who have manipulated and tormented
Slayers ever since, treating them as disposable weapons of war
rather than human beings. While Buffy, and possibly other forgotten,
rebellious Slayers, may manage to transcend this brutal heritage,
the ability of the Slayer to represent female empowerment is clearly
darkened, and it seems that ME's suspicion of the price and effects
of mystical power has reared its head again.
The final two episodes of BtVS attempt to break the association
of Slayers with patriarchal violation by a series of introductions
and revelations which together create a new paradigm. Unfortunately,
while ME have always been more interested in metaphor than coherent
world-building, the lack of background detail creates an aura
of mystery about the old and new orders which allows for some
interpretations which I find simplistically anti-male in a reverse-sexist,
essentialist manner. In a flurry of scenes, we are introduced
to the last survivor of the Guardians, a female-dominated or entirely
female counterbalance to the male-dominated Watchers' Council,
who, we are told, have been observing both Watchers and Slayers
for millennia. Their only concrete action of which we are made
aware was to create a weapon known as the Scythe, which was used
at some point in the past by either a Guardian or a Slayer to
kill the last pure demon on Earth, and was then hidden away until
a Slayer appeared to use it.
GUARDIAN: A weapon. A scythe. Forged in secrecy for one like
you who- I'm sorry. What's your name?
BUFFY: Buffy.
GUARDIAN: No, really.
GUARDIAN: We forged it in secrecy and kept it hidden from the
Shadowmen who-
BUFFY: Yeah, met those guys. Didn't really care too much for 'em.
GUARDIAN: Ah, yes. Then you know. And they became the Watchers
and the Watchers watched the Slayers but we were watching them.
BUFFY: Oh, so you're like what are you?
GUARDIAN: Guardians. Women who want to help and protect you. We
forged this centuries ago, halfway around the world.
BUFFY: Hence the Luxor Casino theme.
GUARDIAN: Forged there, it was put to use right here to kill the
last pure demon that walked upon the earth. The rest were already
driven under. And then there were men here, and then there were
monks. And then there was a town and now there is you. And the
scythe remained hidden.
BUFFY: I don't understand. How is it possible that we didn't know
any of this?
GUARDIAN: We hid, too. We had to until now. We're the last surprise.
The problem, if we are to believe the lines at face value, is
that the Guardians have apparently been completely inactive since
the burial of the Scythe, which hardly implies female empowerment.
It has been argued that the Guardians respect free will sufficiently
not to interfere unless they are asked, but to do so while remaining
so covert that nobody would ever think to seek your aid flies
in the face of reason. There is no reason why some earlier activity
by the Guardians to aid Slayers against the Watchers could not
have been alluded to, and there are obvious possibilities.
For example, the psychic dreams and intuitions which aid Buffy
and other Slayers at times could be the result of Guardian activity.
The "hokey-cokey" ritual which allowed Buffy to contact
the benevolent aspect of the First Slayer in Intervention
seems unlikely to derive from the Watchers' Council, as it so
clearly enables the Slayer to engage in personal communion with
mystical forces and seems to conflict with the Council concept
of the Slayer as an unquestioning tool who fights while the mystical
function is reserved for the men. It would have been easy to link
this and other fragments from the series past as signs of Guardian
infiltration of the Council to soften its attitude and covertly
empower the Slayers.
A further problem is that the episodes can be read to imply that
the Scythe has been waiting for a Slayer to arrive who is worthy
to wield it. The feeds into the implication of certain episodes
that Buffy is the first Slayer, or one of very few, ever to successfully
rebel against the Council's patriarchal paradigm. This possibility
would imply an over-simplistic and patronising view of women before
the late 20th century as utterly ground down and helpless victims
of patriarchy. Much ideological and historical debate continues
about the actual social status and freedom of women and the flexibility
of gender roles in various specific historical societies, but
virtually everyone would agree that such a view is a caricature
which views 21st-century Western society as a pinnacle of human
development.
Buffy and Willow's final decision, apparently as the result of
intuition or divine inspiration, is to use the Scythe to empower
all living and post-pubescent potential Slayers with the full
power of the Slayer. Personally, I found the portrayal of this
event to be morally uplifting, and convincing that this was the
right thing to do. It strengthens humanity in general in the battle
against evil, and it empowers individual Slayers by making them
a society instead of isolated, doomed heroes. BtVS has always
stressed the necessity of the integration of the superhero into
societies, communities and families, suggesting that the stereotypical
lone hero is both physically endangered and morally dangerously
detached from the world.
BUFFY: So here's the part where you make a choice. What if
you could have that power now? In every generation one Slayer
is born because a bunch of men who died thousands of years ago
made up that rule. They were powerful men. This woman is more
powerful than all of them combined. So I say we change the rule.
I say my power should be our power.
However, a number of fans and critics have been unconvinced by
this position, arguing that individual Slayers are being dangerously
empowered with no guidance until they are found, or that Buffy
injured the free will of the Slayers by empowering them without
their consent or knowledge. While the first position arguably
is based on an excessively pessimistic assumption about human
nature, and treats a metaphor too literally, the second position
is more serious. I would argue that the Potentials had already
been exposed to danger by their nature as Potentials, and hence
were enabled to receive the benefits of that position as well
as the risks. Moreover, Slayer status is no longer a route to
a life of eternal and doomed struggle, as there are now many instead
of one. The genuine problem with the empowerment of multiple Slayers
is the result of the still-unanswered questions about Slayer power.
Are these young women being bonded to a demon power that will
corrupt them?
The problem with the ending of Chosen is that the problem
of the demonic nature of Slayers, which was arguably created by
ME's suspicion of the corrupting effects of power, has not been
sufficiently solved. The mechanics of what happened in Chosen
have not been described to any great extent. As I see it, there
are three possible ways of solving this problem, all of which
create difficulties of metaphor.
The first is to believe that all Slayers are now demonised, but
that this never did carry any corrupting influence. Buffy and
Faith's difficulties under this model would be put down to perfectly
normal human darkness. Dracula would be dismissed as merely a
lying manipulator, and the destructive aspect of the First Slayer
seen in Restless as merely a manifestation of Buffy's inner
fears. The problem with this explanation is that it conflicts
with the general implication in BtVS (but not AtS) that demons
are essentially evil. It also suggests that Buffy's decision in
Get It Done was a mistake born out of false emotional distaste,
and that she rejected power which would not have caused her any
problem merely out of dislike for those offering it. Finally,
it creates problems of magical conservation of energy since all
the Slayers had the same level of power as Buffy and Faith, who
were not weakened. Were new demon essences created for all the
new Slayers, was the full power of the demon essence not being
used, or is its power simply not subject to any conservation of
energy?
The second possibility, first suggested on this board by oyceter,
is that the power in Chosen was derived directly from the
Scythe rather than the original demon essence. This is certainly
attractive, and solves the problems of Slayer darkness. It leaves
Buffy and Faith as uniquely cursed with a dark and corrupting
power, unless their source was switched as well, but even if it
wasn't they have shown the ability to control it (with some lapses).
The problem here is that it implies that the Guardians could have
done the same at any point, but didn't bother because they were
waiting for a worthy Slayer to arise or were prevented by a mystical
climate hostile to women. This again creates the problems of Guardian
ineffectuality and the 21st century as the pinnacle of human development.
The third possibility, which has definitely been suggested or
implied on this and other boards (any claim of individual priority
will be gratefully accepted), is that the full Slayer power was
inherent in all Potentials, either since the creation of the Scythe,
if that predated the Shadowmen, or since the arrival of humanity,
but that the Shadowmens' demonisation of the First Slayer was
an act of pure black magic and patriarchal evil, designed to ensure
that feminine power was forever imprisoned in one regularly replaced
young woman who could easily be browbeaten, warped and controlled.
This interpretation would tie BtVS to the most extreme anti-patriarchal
conspiracy theories associated with certain radical feminists,
who argue that at some historical past moment Europe, or humanity
in general, was controlled by an idyllic matriarchal society of
peace, nurturing and harmony with nature, which was destroyed
by either a conspiratorial male rebellion or invasion by a male-dominated
society from elsewhere (the invading-patriarchs version of the
theory is particularly associated with the anthropologist Maria
Gimbutas and her supporters).
While this idea is disturbing to male viewers, S7 has a particularly
powerful and essentialist anti-patriarchal flavour in general.
This is manifested in Caleb's exaggerated misogyny and religious
affiliations, the assassination of the Watchers' Council and the
revelation of their ties to the Shadowmen. However it is particularly
manifested in the total intellectual, spiritual and moral collapse
of Giles, the only surviving unambiguously good man on BtVS whose
power is not associated solely with female-coded nurturing, repair
and moral support.
The anti-patriarchal flavour of S7 is also manifested in some
interesting parallels, which I don't think have been brought to
the surface before, between Slayers and Vengeance Demons in Selfless.
While the episode, on the surface, is an exploration of Anya's
psyche and, to a lesser degree, an attempt to drive away the moral
ambiguity of demons in Hell's Bells, the subtextual parallels
are fairly obvious to me in retrospect. Both Slayers and Vengeance
Demons (all three people who we have seen as actual or potential
VD's were female) apparently wield a demonic power, but are actually
controlled by coldly manipulative men who see them as mere weapons.
The difference is that Slayers like Buffy, and maybe earlier ones
who were written out of the Council's histories, are capable of
transcending and escaping this role, whatever the sources of their
power, because their power, however dark its original source,
is their own and cannot be taken away. Vengeance demons, however,
only ever wield a borrowed power, donated by patriarchs who are
capable of taking it away on a whim.
Some people see my opinions about the simplistically anti-male
nature of S7 as over-sensitivity, but I'd be quite happy to rescind
that belief:
If the apparently tricksterish and amoral D'Hoffryn of S4-6 hadn't
been revealed as a brutal patriarch, devoted to cruelty and prone
to torturing his disposable "girls" to death.
If the Watchers' Council hadn't been massacred, revealed to descend
from metaphorical rapists, and left with no positive attributes
whatsoever.
If Wood hadn't been brutally and unnecessarily humiliated by the
one (morally ambiguous) representative of traditional masculinity
to be treated leniently by the season, possibly because that masculinity
was placed in the service of a woman, in a posture of guilt, utter
submission and final self-sacrifice.
If Giles, the last unambiguously positive male character to bear
the traditionally masculine-coded virtues, had not suffered an
utter moral and spiritual collapse into an incarnation of the
worst aspects of the old Council inactive, joyless, manipulative,
and murderous.
If the ultimate evil's favourite minion had not been a lapsed
priest of a male monotheistic religion, with no personality beyond
the uncontrollable impulse to rape and murder women.
If the Guardians had not been so unambiguously portrayed as all-female.
In the case of the Slayers, the theme of female empowerment is
unambiguously elevated over the theme of suspicion of power. My
dissatisfaction with the unsubtlety of that elevation comes from
the point of view of a male who likes to think of himself as well-intentioned
and feels slightly excluded. Recently, in the "Reality of
Spuffy" thread above, there has been a debate between Caroline
and Rahael over whether essentialist dictums about psychological
"masculinity" and "femininity" are or are
not positive for women themselves, and that is recommended as
an interesting companion piece. It is possible that the unsubtlety
of that elevation was driven by the perceived need to exorcise
the way in which the second theme had been allowed to cloud the
first in the portrayal of Willow, which I will move onto in the
next part of the essay.
[> [> CORRUPTION: Witches,
Wizards and Magic -- KdS, 06:36:21 07/01/03 Tue
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton, personal letter to Mandell Creighton.
We can't control the universe. If we were supposed to, then
the magic wouldn't change Willow the way it does.
Buffy Summers, in conversation.
At the start of this section, one must point out that Mutant Enemy
has almost certainly never formulated a coherent theory of magic
in the Buffyverse. The desirability of such formal world-building
is still a controversial subject among fantasy authors and critics.
The faction who disapprove of such activities, which would probably
include Mutant Enemy, argue that freedom with the mechanics allows
for clearer concentration on the needs of the story and characters,
avoiding an obsessive concentration on world-building that potentially
stifles the natural development of the story. Those who argue
for formalism, however, argue that a firm foundation can actually
provide storytelling ideas, and that shifting metaphors can potentially
confuse the audience. The actual results of the portrayal of magic
in BtVS are unlikely to change the mind of either side.
Suspicion of power had always manifested itself in BtVS through
the portrayal of vampires and werewolves. In reaction to the revisionist
horror and fantasy of the 1970s and 1980s, ME portrayed both vampirism
and lycanthropy as undeniable afflictions rather than superpowers,
twisting the victim to darkness. Even souled vampires are prey
to almost uncontrollable drives to predation and sadism, and werewolves
are apparently doomed to amorality, if not lack of human consciousness,
while in wolf form. However, the unambiguous and traditional evil
of vamps and werewolves, not to mention demons in BtVS itself,
mean that they will not be discussed in great detail in an essay
concerned with moral ambiguity.
In S5-7, ME's strategy switched from using demons as symbols for
individual adolescent problems to using demonity as a symbol for
adolescence itself. This is made most obvious in the portrayal
of Spike and Anya, and has been described in depth elsewhere to
an extent that it is now an uncontroversial assertion. However,
in S6 in particular, the secondary theme of BtVS finally moved
from subtext to text and magic and fantasy in general became portrayed
as a sign of dangerous immaturity in pure humans. The most detailed
demonstration of this comes in the portrayal of Jonathan, Andrew
and Warren in S6-7, and if the reader is unconvinced in this section,
I hope to explain myself in more detail in the final section.
This was a dangerous move, given the manner in which Willow's
empowerment in S1-4 was seen by many as paralleling Buffy's and
the way that magical experimentation had been used in S4 as a
metaphor for homoerotic experimentation, to evade the rigidly
censorious attitudes of the WB network. Purely from a storytelling
point of view, some weakening of Willow's power was necessary
after the spectacular exhibitions of S5. To do otherwise would
risk the common problem of escalation of power that afflicts all
open-ended superhero fantasies, which if not confronted ends with
characters ridiculously tossing celestial objects at one another.
However, the portrayal of Willow's moral decline in S6, and the
way it paralleled Buffy's, brought accusations that ME was succumbing
to a reactionary tradition that demanded that powerful women be
in some way punished for their transgression.
While the events of mid-S6 provoked accusations of gross inconsistency
from some critics, some hints of the inherently corrupting nature
of magic had been previously laid down. All the magic-users of
extreme power who have been seen in BtVS have been to some extent
evil (Catherine Madison, Ethan Rayne, Richard Wilkins), the exception
being the unseen Somerset coven with whom Giles and Willow allied
themselves in S6-7. Amy Madison was somewhat untrustworthy even
before S6, bewitching teachers to evade work. While Giles only
uses his talent in emergencies when lives are threatened, this
even keel followed a period of what we are led to believe was
distinctly dark instability, which ended only with the violent
death of a partner in demonology.
Despite the lack of clear mechanics, some tentative theories can
be drawn about ME's concept of corruption by magic. Positive magic
appears to act through individuals channelling power respectfully
requested or drawn from some external benevolent entity, whether
that is some personified being, a mystically imbued object, or
the universe itself. While entities invoked during spells appear
not to be directly worshipped, and it is unclear whether actual
belief in their existence is implied, some grounding spiritual
world-view appears to be effective in avoiding corruption. The
magical power inherent in most human beings appears to be limited
in its effect to mild telekinesis, telepathy and spiritual healing.
(This portrayal of positive magic is largely derived from the
magic of Giles and Tara, and Willow's contact lens-free moments).
By contrast, negative or demonic magic appears to be available
far more easily, and to be drawn from some dark reservoir existing
in some other place. All-black eyes appear to be an infallible
sign of contact with this source. It appears to be less demanding
in terms of focus or respect, but to have a clearly inherent corruptive
effect on the caster. A key example is the portal spell in Get
It Done, in which Willow begins in orthodox invocational style,
but then literally blackens, switches to English and speaks disrespectfully
to the world in general.
WILLOW: Screw it! Mighty forces, I suck at Latin, okay? But
that's not the issue. I'm the one in charge and I'm telling you
open that portal now!
The portrayal of magic as corrupting is frequently found in folk
tales and modern fantasy novels, and in many cases appears at
root to be the product of a distrust of power itself. The implication,
in BtVS as well as other sources, seems to be that an individual
who regularly breaches the laws of nature must be in danger of
feeling that moral rules are equally disposable. A more general
theme appears to be that magical power is somehow a unique disruption
to the world, which can only be justified by extreme circumstances
and should not be used frivolously, for example to produce paper
lanterns or dress instantaneously.
While Willow's early spells pre-S4, like Giles's, are motivated
by the need to save life, S4 sees some early frivolous or malicious
use, such as the interrupted cursing of Oz and Veruca in Wild
at Heart (which given the subsequent fates of all three characters,
may not have been entirely abortive), and the disaster in Something
Blue. The latter episode also adds the common trope that magic
performed out of overpowering emotion or malice is particularly
prone to destructive mishap. It is also easy to see Willow's questionable
use of magic as affected by a technician's attitude which assumes
that mystical forces, like technologies, are inherently morally
neutral. This denies the possibility that magical forces may have
their own orientation or motivation, and adds an additional implicit
metaphor, of the perceived evils of amoral scientism.
The specific theme of the desire and wielding of power as in itself
corrupting begins to appear in S5. While Willow's murderous assault
on Glory in Tough Love is the Scooby Gang's first effective
strike against her, it nearly leads to Willow's death when she
runs out of power, and leads directly to Glory's discovery that
Dawn is the Key. In the early part of Season Six, Willow begins
to use magic for purposes which are clearly intended to represent
the use of magic as a crutch, to produce surface solutions to
problems which require deeper solution. In particular, this would
include the resurrection of Buffy, the mind-wiping of Tara in
All the Way, and the subsequent attempt to erase Buffy's
memory in Tabula Rasa, which leads to the temporary erasure
of everybody's memory and Willow's exposure to all her friends.
The literal addiction metaphor used from Wrecked to Grave
is clumsy and hard to justify. There is nothing wrong with the
concept of individual euphoriant spells with addictive properties,
but the extension to all magic is as much of a metaphorical leap
as if alcoholism were extended to all food and drink. However,
it is in some respects foreshadowed and continued by the implication
that the corrupting effects of demonic magic are the result of
habit in its pure everyday meaning, rather than as a synonym for
physical addiction. After Willow first turns to dark magic in
Tough Love, she continues to use it purely because it is
easier, until it eventually becomes a familiar crutch. It is this
implication of dark magic as a habit rather than addiction, which
cannot be easily dropped and is especially likely to be returned
to under stress, which appears in Willow's instinctive return
to dark magic when threatened by the demon in Selfless,
and in Get it Done. The quasi-vampiric aspect of Willow's
power in S7 was criticised as inadequately established, but it
can be explained in the same way given that she drained Rack in
Two to Go. Having tried out the idea for the first time
then, inspired by Rack's own habit of voluntarily transferring
power to others, Willow has a further tempting weapon in her armoury
which she uses benignly at the end of Same Time Same Place
and then grabs under serious stress in Get it Done.
My personal difficulty is that the lack of explanation of Willow's
epiphany in Chosen leads to confusion about the precise
message intended. Are we to understand that the spell was so purely
altruistic in intention that it was not corrupting? Many occasions
earlier in the season had shown Willow in danger of breakdown
when casting spells of equal or greater altruism. The shooting
script unofficially released by ME suggests that the implication
was that some force from the Scythe acted to mystically purify
Willow of the evil with which her actions in S5-6 had tainted
her.
ANGLE: WILLOW
Is blown by a force so powerful, so loving, that she is bathed
in pure white wind, her hair is actually white, streaming out
behind her, her smile a bowl to catch her tears.
A moment of transcendence, then it ends, the wind sucking out
of her and her appearance returning to normal. She is clearly
completely spent.
My problem with this is that it smacks of deus ex machina
in a manner which conflicts with the usual message of ME that
personal growth comes from effort, and not through mystical reward
from external powers. I feel that ME were aware of the extent
to which their secondary theme had undercut their first theme
where Willow was concerned, but were not capable of repairing
the damage effectively in the time available, leaving the storyline
unduly ambiguous on both the personal and mechanistic levels.
[> [> [> AND LIES:
The Wannabes -- KdS, 06:38:15 07/01/03 Tue
We live in a culture which promises us a constant fantasy-reconstruction
of ourselves. That's what I write about, the fantasies and wish-fulfilments,
individual, social, corporate and cultural, which take place a
long way prior to written fantasy. When someone says they are
"making their dream come true", or "living their
dream" what can they possibly mean?
M John Harrison, interviewed
at SFSite.
You make everything into a story, so no one's responsible for
anything because they're just following a script.
Buffy Summers, in conversation
The characters who have been discussed so far have struggled with
the positive attributes and negative potential of powers which
are intrinsic to their nature. This ambiguity is largely lost
when it comes to the search for mystical power as an end in itself,
by those who do not have natural access to it. In the portrayal
of many single-episode characters, but most especially in the
portrayal of Jonathan Levinson, Warren Meers and Andrew Wells,
we see the unambiguous statement of ME's secondary theme, that
of mystical power as a destructive false solution to, and a distraction
from, the real business of living a human life.
Jonathan Levinson's character development is particularly painful
because he perpetually seems in the point of making some psychological
breakthrough, but is constantly laid low by his tendency to believe
that he can solve all his problems with some grand surface gesture,
whether that is suicide or magical self-empowerment, first as
a superhero, and then as a supervillain. The intentions behind
his self-augmentation in Superstar are an intriguing mixture
of self-aggrandisation and genuine good intent. While his powers
are false, he does not behave merely as a charlatan, his only
truly questionable actions being his use of his spell to extract
sexual favours from some women, who are not characterised deeply
enough for the matter to be stressed. When the fact that his spell
has created a monster comes to light, he vacillates for a while,
but finally voluntarily breaks the spell to save Buffy's life.
His subsequent emergence as a member of the supervillainous Trio
is possibly underexplained, although one can imagine potential
combinations of reverses and peer pressure which would have left
to this regression. The decisions that lead to his death are equally
and tragically conflicted. He could have remained in Mexico in
squalor but relative safety, but voluntarily chose to return to
Sunnydale in an attempt to destroy the Seal. As in Superstar,
he was partly determined to fight evil because it was the right
thing to do, but was also pathetically seeking acceptance into
Buffy's circle. As if to recognise his mixed motivation, he is
granted a final epiphany, but then dies thanks to his failure
to recognise the extent of Andrew's amorality and malleability.
Jonathan's genuine magical talent sheds an interesting light on
the implications of the differing skills of the Trio. Jonathan,
the most genuinely talented, is also the most morally advanced,
genuinely guilt-ridden and uncomfortable after Katrina's murder
(although he is not uncomfortable enough to break with the other
two or confess his crimes). Warren, whose talents are purely technical,
is the most unstable and malevolent, tying in to the Buffyverse's
suspicion of science's amoral focus on method. Andrew's ability
to control and summon demons is intriguingly unaccompanied by
any other magical ability, as if demonology in the Buffyverse
is seen only as a matter of technical ability and knowledge, which
does not demand the mental development needed for other forms
of magic. This is underscored by the fact that after his moral
awakening in S7, he does not engage in any further demon summoning,
even when a demon platoon might be useful. In the Buffyverse,
demons genuinely are inherently evil and cannot be manipulated
to serve good.
Before moving on to Warren and Andrew, it is necessary to quickly
re-explore the lure of villainy in much modern populist fantasy.
The "cool" villain is capable of enjoying power and
self-indulgence to the full, unhampered by the requirement to
conform to social morality, or any need for normal human relationships.
The average person can recognise the attractiveness of this lifestyle
while recognising the real world consequences. However, Warren
and Andrew, cut off from human society by their social ineptness,
are able only to see the positive sides, as disconnection is in
many ways their natural state. [A detailed description of Warren's
development through Season Six, and the suggestion that he may
be consciously or subconsciously imitating Spike in his unsouled
persona, can be found in my essay posted in the interim between
S6 and S7. As that essay for some reason failed to get archived,
it will be reposted as an appendix to this essay.]
While Warren is portrayed as so inherently driven by rage and
misogyny that his crimes would have been inevitable regardless
of his exact cultural background, Andrew provides a particularly
pure statement of the destructive side of fantasy because his
evil behaviour is portrayed as solely the result of an inability
to recognise the difference between fact and fiction. Jonathan
is only briefly sucked into Warren and Andrew's world, showing
discomfort with the idea of injuring human beings at various times
and being finally forced to recognise his own darkness by Katrina's
death. Andrew also expresses discomfort with killing in the early
part of S6, but this seems driven less by genuine moral feeling,
than because it conflicts with his nebulous belief in the rules
of superhero fiction, where innocent bystanders are not to be
exposed to gratuitous risk as a matter of honour. As one can see
in the soulless Spike, and certain other honourable but malevolent
demons, honour is often the code one retreats to when one has
no genuine moral sense. He is viscerally shocked by Katrina's
actual, unsanitised death, but quickly retreats back into his
fantasy world with the mantra that getting away with murder is
cool. Willow's rampage briefly shocks him into recognition of
his crimes, but this seems not mature guilt but the fear of a
schoolchild caught in mischief.
Andrew's involvement with the FE in the first half of S7 shows
the extent to which his evil is based on an immersion in populist
fantasy. The FE, posing as Warren, manipulates him by playing
on the tropes of his favourite films and TV series, in which mystical
empowerment is an inevitable reward for the good and noble, death
can be transcended by anyone with a little mystical knowledge,
and the struggle of Good and Evil is portrayed with the simplicity
of a sporting contest, where redemption is as easy as swapping
shirts. His lack of genuine commitment to the cause of evil is
visible when he would rather stride around aimlessly in the leather
costume of his longed-for position than put any plan into action.
Before his final self-realisation, there is a final perfect demonstration
of his shallow fascination with evil in Storyteller's false
flashback to his magical duel with Willow. It is blatantly obvious
that he is impersonating the Emperor in Return of the Jedi,
but with no recognition of the genuine sense of evil that the
character creates, merely an envy of his power.
The first turning point may well have come not with his capture
by the SG after Jonathan's death, but when the mind-controlled
Spike bites him. Although he had some experience of danger when
Willow came after him and Jonathan, he escaped and fell back into
his old habits to quickly for it to have any effect. In the remainder
of S7, he is not only forced to face the truth of his own evil,
and the fact that the Buffyverse does not let anyone's role protect
them from death, but he is able to finally be part of a mutually
supportive group of people with a commitment to what is right.
It is this positive demonstration, and not just his recognition
of the suffering he has caused, that leads him to an acceptance
of his responsibilities to other people.
The portrayal of the appalling results of Jonathan, Warren and
Andrew's search for magical power, and the manner in which Anya's
and Spike's search for humanity is explicitly portrayed as emotional
maturation (until both are allowed to backslide for much of the
second half of S7), links BtVS subtextually to a tradition of
English-language fantasy fiction that expresses deep suspicion
of the fantastic impulse. The backstory of the Buffyverse also
echoes this. In various episodes, but especially Welcome to
the Hellmouth and Shiny Happy People, we are told that
the Buffyverse was originally occupied entirely by demons, but
that this mystical domination had to be ended for humanity to
rise. The idea of a slow loss of magic, and a transition from
a fantastic Golden Age to grey, mundane modernity, is a common
trajectory for fantasy worlds. It echoes the Christian cosmology,
where the idyll of the Garden of Eden is destroyed by sin, and
the world becomes steadily more corrupted and exhausted until
it must be remade in the Apocalypse. A similar trajectory appears
in much present day neo-paganism, where a Golden Age of matriarchal,
intuitive and magical harmony with nature is destroyed by patriarchy,
reason and technology.
By contrast, the Buffyverse is in a tradition of more anti-magical
fantasy worlds where the loss of magic is seen as a positive transformation,
and magic is seen as an essentially disruptive and destabilising
influence. An early example was Michael Moorcock's first full-length
novel Stormbringer. In this novel, a chaotic and magic-dominated
universe must be destroyed and replaced by one driven by natural
laws, which may be our own, because a magical world is too unstable,
too subject to magical cataclysm or untrustworthy divine meddling,
for humanity to develop to its full potential. In some of the
later works of Moorcock, M John Harrison, and Michael Swanwick,
the metaphor is made more obvious by a transfer from fantasy universes
to the human psyche. The fantasy of solving one's problems through
magical power is seen to be a distraction and an excuse for avoiding
the hard work needed to actually develop oneself and live in the
real world. While the final season of BtVS abandons this subtext
in favour of magical feminist empowerment, the broader story of
the Buffyverse revealed in earlier issues of Fray marries
both themes, by suggesting that this mystical power will eventually
be used to destroy the disruptive influence of magic and end the
threat that the power is needed to defend against. The final instalment
of Fray is yet to be published, but it may finally transmute
fantasised, metaphorical empowerment of women alone into real
empowerment of the whole of humanity, the power to live in the
world without magical crutches. And all of us have this power
if we can make the effort to develop it.
[> [> [> [> ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
AND BIBLIOGRAPHY -- KdS, 06:43:15 07/01/03 Tue
Posts from just about everyone on this board have inspired me
over the years, but I'd especially like to thank Rahael and yabyumpan
for beta-reading this and making sure that I didn't grossly insult
or misrepresent women or feminism. I liked your feedback on gender
essentialism, Rah, but I couldn't see any way of restating it
that would be better than what you wrote, and didn't want to quote
verbatim without your permission. Maybe you could follow up...
Unsourced quotations and factual verification come from the
main ATPO site, Psyche's
Transcripts, and The
Annotated Buffy. (While this may seem ungrateful, I wish Psyche
would create S7 transcripts as reasonably sized HTML and text
files, instead of just as huge illustrated pdfs that take half
an hour to download over a dialup connection.) Information on
superhero comics is derived from Ouzomandias's fantastic collection
of essays The Quarter Bin,
which are so well-written that you can enjoy them even if you
are totally unfamiliar with the subject matter. Those of especial
use were Spider-Man
and the 1960s and The
Marvel Silver Age Model. Oh, and I did nick the style of the
quotations at the start of each section from Neil Gaiman. If you
steal, steal from the best.
THE ANTI-FANTASY READING LIST
M John Harrison, Viriconium: A combined volume of
three short novels and some short stories written over many years,
this is the big one if you want anti-fantasy fantasy. The setting
is a dying far future world where even causality and narrative
consistency itself are rotting away, somewhere between Renaissance
Florence, late 19th-century Paris and late 20th-century Manchester.
Characters and themes are degraded, not in the moral sense, but
in the sense of a tenth-generation photocopy. Senile maguses give
advice that would have worked last time, aristocratic heroes engage
in squalid violence to avoid having to deal with the real problems,
beautiful queens are pure, sensitive, well-intentioned and no
use whatsoever, reawakened ancient saviours go off their heads
with future shock, magic swords give you radiation sickness and
Bohemian artists observe everything ironically while getting sloshed
on fruit-flavoured gin. What keeps it beautifully melancholic
rather than depressing? The beauty of the prose and the constant
feeling that everything could still work out if the characters
for once tried to deal with their problems as if they were real,
and not characters in a fantasy novel. Anyone interested in the
Geek Trio should read the final short A Young Man's Journey
to Viriconium, in which three alienated unemployables in our
world discover a portal to the fantasy world of their dreams and
wind up alienated unemployables in a fantasy world.
Michael Moorcock, The Cornelius Quartet: A collection
of four fairly experimental novels written between the late 1960s
and the late 1970s, this may be hard to get into. Those on this
board do have an advantage though. Just imagine that you're reading
a collection of very well-written AU fanfic about a series which
you've never actually seen, and you'll be halfway to experiencing
the way that, while the plot may be non-linear on the surface,
each chapter, portion and book iterates the same characters and
themes in a differing way. It doesn't fully come together for
a while, but read the whole thing continuously, read different
bits at random every so often, and eventually the picture will
come together of an amoral, adolescent pulp SF hero slowly and
painfully becoming a real, adult, human being, losing his power
but gaining genuine wisdom.
Michael Swanwick, The Iron Dragon's Daughter: In
which Swanwick takes a typical Mary Sue-like fantasy protagonist
and tosses her into a 20th century Faerie which combines the darkness
of the real medieval legends with the worst aspects of modern
industrial, consumer and celebrity culture. Bleak and at times
confusing, but the warmth of the characterisation makes you care
about most of the people even when they're doing the most dreadful
things to themselves and each other, and the social humour is
a joy. If you thought BtVS was catholic in its cultural references,
this one features jokes about Bacon's Figures at a Crucifixion,
Celtic mythology, the National Enquirer, and physical chemistry,
and works them into the narrative without excluding anyone who
doesn't get them. Remarkably strong coincidences of subject matter
and setting with BtVS as well, and the heroine could almost be
Willow and Faith superimposed on one another. After this attack
on female-coded escapist fantasy, in the interests of sexual equality
Swanwick's next novel, Jack Faust, did a similar hatchet
job on male-coded fantasies of escape into mastery through hard-science.
In accordance with the differences between the targets, it's cold,
vicious, and at times so bleak and misanthropic as to be unbearable.
And finally, if you want to know what I'm getting at, but don't
want to spend any money, or more than half an hour of time, read
Harrison's free sample short story Isobel
Avens Returns to Stepney in the Spring. No prior knowledge
of any universe necessary (except this one), and it'll break your
heart.
[> [> [> [> [>
REPOST: Mary Sue Turns Septic: Warren Meers, the audience and
Villainy -- KdS, 06:46:15 07/01/03 Tue
[Note: this essay, posted in September last year, is re-posted
as an appendix to my essay on power for which it lays some ground.
I'm quite satisfied with the way my opinions here were borne out
by Andrew's development in S7. What follows is identical to the
original post, except for the correction of a few spelling and
grammar errors, the removal of some peripheral material on attitudes
to pop culture at the beginning and end, and the correction of
one slight factual error about the events of Smashed.]
MR. E. NYGMA, THE RIDDLER: Batman and Robin were part of the fun
they were the straight men but we were the stars. No one
ever hurt anybody. Not really. Nobody died.
You look around these days it's all different. It's all
changed. The Joker's killing people, for God's sake! Did I miss
something? Was I away when they changed the rules?
Neil Gaiman, When is a Door not a Door?
In sum, they are dull, unimaginative, socially defective, vengeful,
self-absorbed and self-pitying human beings. In fact, there is
no connection whatever between what serial murderers are really
like and the way they are portrayed in books and films. [] In
the process of transforming killers into Super Heroes, the killers
are inevitably glorified as Super Males when they are nothing
of the kind. Moreover, this misrepresentation can have a troubling
impact on our most vulnerable adolescents as they struggle to
construct their own sexual identities. False messages can have
unintended consequences, and Supermen too easily become Super
Heroes, ripe for imitation.
Elliot Leyton, Hunting Humans, introduction
to second edition.
Men may keep a sort of level of good, but no man has ever been
able to keep on one level of evil. That road goes down and down.
The kind man drinks and turns cruel; the frank man kills and lies
about it. Many a man I've known started like you to be an honest
outlaw, a merry robber of the rich, and ended stamped with slime.
G K Chesterton, The Flying Stars
By this time of the year, some of the more visceral and painful
disagreements about the artistic and ideological merits of Season
6 have died down, and the tone seems to be becoming more measured,
moving on from broad assertions about the season's merits as a
whole to detailed discussion of which plot arcs worked or failed
for the individual viewer. This essay will discuss my personal
responses to the plot arc of Warren Mears, and hopefully explain
why I'm so attracted to one of the most despicable human characters
in the show's history. There seems to be one vocal faction on
the board that argues that the portrayal of Warren as a "realistic"
sociopathic sexual criminal was a symptom of a move from metaphor
to overt and self-conscious "realism", and that this
"realism" was a mis-step that was destructive to the
season as a whole. In my opinion, this dismissal of Warren as
an invader from a grimmer genre fails to recognise his overt psychological
connection to a couple of the Buffyverse's more supernatural characters.
Moreover, it fails to recognise the troubling questions that his
portrayal raises about the responses and fantasies of audiences
in relation to the action and fantasy genres.
The charismatic villain has been a feature of English-speaking
culture at least since Shakespeare created Richard Gloucester,
Iago, and Edmund. In modern American action films, the villain
of the piece often seems more charming, intriguing and intelligent
than the hero, who is often characterised by one-dimensional self-righteousness,
vengefulness, or cold determination. In ME's productions, this
overt anti-intellectualism is (fortunately) not a feature
the good characters are just as quick-witted and sardonic as the
villains. However, most of the Big and Little Bads seen in previous
series of BtVS have been charming, witty, and potentially good
company (if you could be sure they wouldn't try to kill you).
We've had the suavity of Angelus, the joie de pas vivre
of Spike and the folksy amorality of Richard Wilkins. As in the
great tradition, there are many occasions when the villains, while
not quite soliloquising, seem to speak directly to the audience,
promising the fun to come. Particularly noticeable examples include
Angelus's "Things are about to get very interesting"
in Innocence, Spike's "less ritual, more fun"
speech in School Hard and most overtly of all Wilkins's
"short intermission" speech in GD2. However,
there are dangers in all this. As the visual ability of cinema
and television to represent violence realistically has increased,
the charm of the typical villain (and the total disposability
of the typical villain's victim) risks desensitising the audience
to the nature of their acts. In many ways, the moral crusaders
who denounce explicit violence are picking the wrong targets.
The corrosive influence on non-psychopathic viewers is not the
viscerally brutal scene that leaves the audience dazed (the infamous
Seeing Red rape scene, for example) but the explosion that
vapourises several hundred nameless goons, leaving the audience
thinking "Cooooool".
It is a truism of Buffy criticism that Xander is in many
ways a representative of the audience. He's the totally human
guy with no special powers who adds the fearless heart to the
team. He's the realistically attainable fantasy self that the
audience hopes that they could measure up to, even in a world
where the confrontations with evil aren't spectacular brawls.
Joss Weedon has publically stated, on frequent occasions, that
Xander is a slightly idealised version of himself as an adolescent
and young man. When a less talented writer seeks to do this in
relation to a world they didn't create, the result is often known
unaffectionately as a "Mary Sue" the hissably
cute and overtalented figure who tries to fit in so hard that
he/she reduces the established characters to walk-ons in their
own fictional universe. The phenomenon was memorably satirised
by Jane Espenson in the stand-alone fourth-season episode Superstar.
However, I recently discovered a short essay by an author named
Alara Rogers (it's at http://www.subreality.com/marysue/msdawsmd.htm)
that discusses a phenomenon known as the "Mary Sue DeVille"
the idealised villainous version of the author. The essay
describes it as an uncommon phenomenon, but I'm surprised that
it doesn't happen more frequently. Who wouldn't be an arch-villain?
You get respect. You're rich. You have servants watching your
every move. You have a great sense of humour. You kill people
every so often, but they tend to be pretty disposable characters.
No-one important gets hurt. Oh, and chicks, chicks, chicks (or
studs, studs, studs if your desires run that way). OK, you get
killed in the end, but you're sure to be resurrected in the sequel.
Warren Mears, bullied at school, socially inept but with a formidable
intellect, and alienated from society in general, is just the
sort of person to whom such fantasies are a powerful lure. No-one
likes him. He doesn't want to care.
The most obvious influence on Warren is cultural as a fantasy
and movie fan he appears to derive his style of villainy directly
from pulp SF. His death rays and robots are typical markers of
the fantasy arch-villain. He searches for money and invulnerability,
but with little long term idea of what he's going to do with them.
However, there's a further influence which is more easily missed.
For a Sunnydale citizen, Warren is unusually aware of the supernatural
(possibly because he moved to Sunnydale as an adolescent and didn't
grow up under the Sunnydale Denial Field). In IWMTLY Warren
instantly recognises Buffy and knows her broad role in the world.
Even more interestingly, he is powerfully intimidated by Spike
at their first meeting in a manner that is disproportionate to
Spike's actions, even given Warren's physical unassertiveness.
It seems likely that Warren knew what, or even exactly who, Spike
was as soon as they met the bleached vampire who'd terrorised
the town on-and-off for the last couple of years. In the big debates
over Spike's personal activities, his effect on others has been
largely ignored, despite his potential role in Dawn's shoplifting,
for example. Warren's just lost his girlfriend, been humiliated
by the Slayer, and had his personal sexual hang-ups revealed to
anyone who Katrina might be friends with. Now he meets a real
figure of power, and he becomes overcome by a quest to gain the
same kind of power.
Spike's meetings with Warren in IMWTLY and Intervention
are the first signs of a pattern that will develop through the
first half of Season 6. Warren's encounters with real figures
of supernatural evil invariably end in humiliations that drive
him to more violent attempts to reclaim his self-image. In Flooded
he does not seem particularly worried by Buffy, but the demon
Andrew summons is obsessed with killing her. Warren reveals his
amorality by giving the M'Fashnik Buffy's contact details without
his followers' knowledge, but by the next episode he's imitating
the demons and directly challenging her. Admittedly, there's a
strong element of misogyny in Warren's attacks on the strongest
woman visible, but he's also imitating his role models. In Smashed
Spike farcically manages to intimidate all three of the trio by
mere force of personality (and the fragility of plastic). Within
days of this debacle Warren has made his first serious attempt
to kill Buffy himself, trying to reduce her to Angel Delight in
the amusement arcade. This barrier crossed, he no longer needs
demonic stimuli to provoke his violence.
The most significant portrayals of Warren as mature monster are
in Dead Things, Seeing Red and Villains.
His first approach to Katrina in the bar in Dead Things
seems almost to be a conscious last try at humanity. From the
moment that he wipes her mind, his future is fixed. After her
death, the true divide among the Troika is between Andrew, the
least mature, still incapable of recognising the seriousness of
what has happened, and Warren and Jonathan, who recognise the
act for what it is but react in very different ways. Jonathan
knows what his partner-in-crime has done, and finally wakes up
to the reality of his situation. Warren also wakes up to the reality
of his situation, but in the opposite manner. He's killed someone,
and once he got past the initial shock, it really didn't feel
that bad. But with a soul, he has no real excuse for his actions.
He's finally reached the same level as his role models, but his
true evil lies in the fact that he descended to it. The
parallels between Warren and Spike are truly overt in Seeing
Red, but in the shock of Buffy's attempted rape and Tara's
murder, the viewer forgets the intriguing first half of the episode.
Look again at Warren's super-powered rampage in the bar, beating
his old enemies and propositioning women with the crudity that
comes with the knowledge that they wouldn't be able to resist
you. Turn the clock back a century, and one can imagine William's
old acquaintances suffering the same experiences in the days after
his rise from the grave. But Warren doesn't have William's good
parts, the delight in life that allowed him to make even torture
and murder somehow larkish. Even more disturbingly for the audience,
he doesn't have Spike's charm. Do we really forgive someone who
acts like this, and laugh with them just because they have good
moves and a cool trenchcoat?
Warren's behaviour in Villains has been much criticised
by some viewers as implausibly reckless. Such critics fail to
recognise that what Warren was always after was not money or sex,
but respect from the forces of evil. He strolls into the bar with
the air of a man finally taking his place in a brotherhood, only
to find himself dismissed as an incompetent and a coward. He recognises
what being a villain truly means in psychological terms, but he's
still working from the pop culture script. Arch-criminals don't
take the money and run if they fail to kill the hero, they damn
well try again. And cute girl sidekicks hang round the bedside
praying, they don't tool up with dark magic and go out for revenge
in their own right, even if you kill their lovers. Warren follows
Willow's old technician's attitude to the black arts, buying a
few parlour tricks from the faintly patronising Rack. He fails
to realise that Willow has gone well beyond that stage, truly
internalising the nature of evil. The truly black irony is that,
although Warren fails to recognise it, he's accidentally managed
to transform Willow into the very person he was trying to be.
She truly has managed to buy a commission into the Forces of Darkness.
The fact that she's willing to end the world to end the pain of
that empowerment just proves how much Warren underestimated the
bill. By the time that becomes clear, Warren's been erased as
effectively as he tried to erase Buffy and Katrina. It's hard
to know how one should take his final pleas and warnings to Willow.
Has he genuinely achieved wisdom, or is he just a psychopath trying
to say the right things to save his skin? Given ME's established
policy on the redeemability of all humans, perhaps we should give
him the benefit of the doubt.
It's a dark irony that one of the finest, most realistically downbeat,
geeky and uncharismatic portrayals of sadistic psychopathy in
recent years came from a series often dismissed as mere fantasy
fluff. But Warren Mears's odyssey isn't just an exercise in self-conscious
realism, but a real challenge to the audience. If we're so repelled
by Warren, what does it say that we're fascinated by sexier characters
who do things that are just as bad? In seeing the dreadful failure
of Warren's fantasies of power, we're forced to question our own
chortling identification with the acceptable face of darkness,
and any power fantasies that we may have. Warren shows us the
truly terrifying face peeking through the kitsch halloween mask,
the trail of blood hidden by the tails of Spike's trenchcoat.
The demonstration may have been too disturbing for some of the
audience to take, but the way elements of the audience reinvented
Spike as an undead Simon Templar shows how necessary it was. G
K Chesterton, who provided one of the quotations at the top of
the essay, once wrote
"There are two ways of renouncing the devil [] One is
to have a horror of him because he is so far off, and the other
to have it because he is so near."
Warren's example brings us a little closer to the second of Chesterton's
positions, while reminding us not to get too close for comfort.
Acknowledgements
The final quotation from Chesterton comes from the epilogue The
Secret of Flambeau to Chesterton's collection of detective
stories The Secret of Father Brown. The prologue, which
has the same title as the book, and the epilogue can be read together
without any necessity to read the intervening stories. In them,
Chesterton, using his character Father Brown as a mouthpiece,
produced the single finest brief defence of reading or writing
stories about the darker aspects of human nature, and the spirit
in which one should do so, that I have ever read. Anybody who
can get hold of a copy of the book cheaply is very strongly recommended
to read them.
Elliott Leyton is a sociologist remarkable for his ability to
write unsensationally about violent crime in a populist manner
without either excusing perpetrators or succumbing to crudely
punitive conservatism. Both his Hunting Humans and Men
of Blood are highly recommended to anyone interested in criminal
violence in the real world, although the second book may be uncomfortable
reading for Americans.
The soundtrack for writing this essay was Pulp's song This
is Hardcore and the Bloodhound Gang's single The Ballad
of Chasey Lain, two songs of very different style and artistic
quality, either of which will take you as far into the psyche
of Warren Mears as any sensible person would want to go.
Finally, it always seems the way that when you start writing a
long essay, the topics suddenly start being discussed on the board.
All the posts in the recent S6, Angel vs. Spike, and rape threads
have made me think, but I am especially grateful to Sophie, whose
post in the S6 thread made me realise the key parallels between
Warren's self-image and Willow's reality.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Very well done -- lakrids, 08:23:26 07/01/03 Tue
felt coherent in its analyses of different
aspects of BtVS. You also voiced some thoughts I had, about the
generally negative portrait of males in the BtVS in season 7 and
in parts 6. Where I felt more and more, like I should apologise
for being a male, or join the global male conspiracy for controlling
women, and could anybody give me the number to them?.
Also good thoughts about the inherent danger in romancing villains
in medias.
The Iron Dragon's Daughter. I did find it a very good book, and
very bleak in its universe, or perhaps more correct, a more realistic
outlook in its worldview, than usually seen in fantasy books.
As the book progress, the similarities between the fantasy world,
and the real world, begins to stand out for me. And for me, it
ends in a social critic, of how we have built our society and
our failing to each other.
When read the story, did I not see the Mary Sue qualities, in
the main character, She always seemed,to me, at being at the mercy
of one mercy of some kind power.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: REPOST: Mary Sue Turns Septic: Warren Meers, the
audience and Villainy -- ELR, 09:48:54 07/01/03 Tue
Still the best analysis of Warren & the Nerds of Doom I've seen,
IMHO.
Thanks for re-posting it.
[> [> Wonder Woman -
the male/female dichotmy -- s'kat, 09:02:10 07/01/03 Tue
First off some interesting points, KdS.
I'd like to adress something you bring up early on in the essay
which reminded me of a documentary I recently watched on the History
Channel, "Comic Superheros Unmasked".
Warning - this post is bound to push peoples buttons b/c I'm going
to take a controversial stance on gender issues, always a button
pusher. (Feeling sort of adversarial this week...;-) )
The genuine innovation of Buffy the Vampire Slayer for television
was the introduction of a female hero who was equal to men in
both physical strength and mental toughness, and who retained
the surface physical and emotional identity of traditional femininity
without, at any point, being shot as a titillating sex object
in the manner of Charlie's Angels.
Actually she was shot as a titillating sex object in the first
few seasons - the extreemly short skirts, cleveage,
and power-bras. (Yep, the reason Gellar's bust devolved is the
exit of the power-bra). Just compare the clothing in S1-2 to S5-7.
Which actually is disturbing, when I think too long about it.
Let's put the 16 - 17 year old in short skirts and low-cleveage
and power-bras, but the 20-22 year old in jeans, longer sleeved
less revealing tops and no -power bra. Yeah, that makes sense.
Add to this - the development of a romance between a much older
man and a teen, and well one begins to wonder if Whedon identified
a bit too much with Nabokov. (Odd, this never occured to me
until after S6, I think it was the marked difference in Gellar's
appearence in S6 and S1/S2 that made me realize it.)
Anyways this is just preamble to move into -
The difficulty with gender roles in our society is well our own
psychological hang-ups regarding them. In the 1940s, a psychiatrist,
the man who created the polygraph test, was asked by DC (Action
Comics) to develop a female superhero to attract the female audience.
(What's interesting is that they didn't approach a woman to do
this.) They felt this psychiatrist would be able to come up with
a good role model - since he was an expert on female psychology,
etc. (I can't remember his name off the bat). The heroine was
named Wonder Woman. Her back story was fairly simple, World War
II major - Steve Reeves crash lands on an Amazon Island and falls
in love with Diana,the daughter of the Amazon Queen. Diana convinces
her mother that the world is in a battle and it is time for them
to end their isolationist stance. So she joins Steve in his quest
as "Wonder Woman".
She wears gold bracelets to deflect bullets, has a lasso that
makes people tell the truth, and an invisible plane.
Also superstrength.
Like Buffy - Wonder Woman is the creation of a male creator. Like
Buffy - she joins the battle because a man asked her too. Like
Buffy her source of power comes from women (Buffy's the Guardians)
and Wonder Woman (the amazons). The difference is Buffy's demonic
power - but we could say Wonder woman's handcuffs and lasso.
When the psychiatrist/creator/writer of Wonder Woman died, information
was released about his own personal life. Apparently - Wonder
Woman was a tad more risque than the 1950s readers knew. The psychiatrist
was married and had a mistress - the mistress wore golden handcuffs
like Wonder Woman's and used a golden lasso on the psychiatrist.
They were into S&M style games.
In the 1960's/70's, a new artist/creator arrived and was asked
to bring back Wonder Woman. MArvel's new brand of questioning
and darker superheros was threatening DC's enterprise. Marvel
was basically outselling DC. So the new guy -took away Wonder
Woman's bracelets and gave her karate, took away the lasso and
the invisible plane and just made her a street fighter. These
changes were greeted with shock and dismay by people such as Gloria
Steinmen, who said - how dare you strip our superhero of her power?
We loved the braceletes and the lasso and the custom. They were
offended. Why can't she have a fetching sexy costum, why can't
she have power??The one woman who had superpowers had been made
more human, less a superhero.
UGh. The new writer backed down and changed her back to what she
once was, complete with the costume.
This reminds me a bit of the fan reaction to Buffy. Her costume
became less sexy, she now got her power from shadowmen and rape,
while the scythe and the guardians attempt to balance this out
somewhat - it almost comes to late to effectively do it for many
fans.
What hits me, is what hit me while watching the documentary, is
that "men" are creating the stories or controlling them
- so it's from a "male" point of view that we are seeing
these "female" superheros develop. As much as I attempt
to convince myself that the gender doesn't matter, I get increasing
evidence that it does. MEn and women, like it or not, do tackle
things differently and do look at heros and ideas from different
angles, often so subtle you can't quite grasp the difference.
We see the differences in the writer interviews - JAne Espenson/MArti/
Rebecca Rand Kirshener vs. David Fury/Josh Whedon/Doug Petrie.
And I see it here - with the developement of Wonder Woman and
how women responded to her.
KdS sees the men in Btvs universe as weak or negative:
Some people see my opinions about the simplistically anti-male
nature of S7 as over-sensitivity, but I'd be quite happy to rescind
that belief:
If the apparently tricksterish and amoral D'Hoffryn of S4-6 hadn't
been revealed as a brutal patriarch, devoted to cruelty and prone
to torturing his disposable "girls" to death.
If the Watchers' Council hadn't been massacred, revealed to descend
from metaphorical rapists, and left with no positive attributes
whatsoever.
If Wood hadn't been brutally and unnecessarily humiliated by the
one (morally ambiguous) representative of traditional masculinity
to be treated leniently by the season, possibly because that masculinity
was placed in the service of a woman, in a posture of guilt, utter
submission and final self-sacrifice.
If Giles, the last unambiguously positive male character to bear
the traditionally masculine-coded virtues, had not suffered an
utter moral and spiritual collapse into an incarnation of the
worst aspects of the old Council inactive, joyless, manipulative,
and murderous.
While this view is clearly not limited by gender, I've seen female
posters agree with him and male posters disagree (the one's whose
gender I know about), I do wonder how much of the view may be
affected by gender. Particularly since, ironically enough, the
story is developed by mostly men.
Joss Whedon created the story arc. David Fury and Drew Goddard
with the assistance of James Marsters and DB Woodside created
the arc in LMPTM. Women were not involved to a great extent. Actually
and somewhat ironically, the most empowering and positive male
episodes this year were created by women. Potential - with Xander
- was Rebecca Rand Kirshner. Touched - with Wood, Spike, Xander
- was again RKK. First Date - with Wood being empowered was
Jane E, although Xander is put in a lower place by a women (split
the difference there), End of Days - JAne E and
Petrie.
While the negative guy episodes: Get it Done, Dirty Girls,
LMPTM, were all written by men.
Interesting.
The Wood thing is also interesting - while admittedly I hate the
patronizing bastard for my own personal reasons,
several other people (who did not have my experience) also appear
to despise him and did so wayyy before LMPTM or First Date. So
why create such a negative patriarchial image?
The spike thing - the most divisive one I've seen on the internet
- one group loves the arc and saw it empowering, the other as
emasculating and hates it.
Then there's Giles - who I think we all more or less agree on.
A former authority figure who appears to have been completely
emasculated by the writers.
Is Whedon falling into the same trap that the DC writers did when
creating Wonder Woman? To empower the female we must first emasculate
the male? I've seen this done quite a bit in pop culture. In order
for the woman to be powerful - she has to have super-powers or
the guy must be weak.
In Wonder Woman - the new 1960s/70s creator attempted to make
her powerful yet equal in strength to men, not superpowered -
yet he angered female activists.
In Btvs - we get mixed messages. Which aren't helped by the ones
being delivered on Ats. Or the fact that the relationship between
B/A seems to have Angel as the primary decisionmaker. We have
the strong, empowered woman - but the male boss - patronizing
her. And Buffy if you think about it has had patronizing men since
well S1. In a way her rejection of the three patronizing/decision-making
figures in her life in s7 is almost cheer-worthy (Giles, Wood,
and Finally Angel). Each of these people make decisions for poor
Buffy, with or without her consent. Angel has made at least one
a year - up until this one, where she doesn't let him make the
decision, she makes it, FINALLY. Giles has made several including
leaving her in TR
and taking on Willow for her in Grave, she finally closes the
door on that in LMPTM. Wood makes them from LEssons up until LMPTM
- when she finally tells him to shove it.
While from a female stand-point, these scenes make you want to
stand up and cheer - they are also oddly disturbing, why? Because
they were there. Because up until recently, Buffy often let herself
be patronized. Buffy's power is shown to come from men.
In Helpless - Buffy is shown as weak against normal guys,
without her superpowers - taken away from her by her male Watcher,
she can't fight off a normal boy. The episode somewhat redeems
itself when she outthinks the vampire and destroys him. But it
leaves us with the message - without her powers - Buffy is physically
weaker than men. And men can control those powers. A message that
is brought up again in Get it Done. Where she gets the slayer's
emergency kit from a slayer's "son" who kept it to himself
all these years and finds out that she got her power from a centuries
old demon "rape". Why did Whedon decide Wood had to
be a man? And why was the decision made that the slayer got her
power in this way?
The scythe also has odd gender connotations - the femal battle
ax comes immediately to mind and the Guardian - or lady stuck
in the ivory tower - in this case temple. Whether intended or
not, the societal reference is there.
And it appears to be added almost at the last minute - a means
of fixing something.
While I agree that the idea of imbuing all the potentials with
power is a positive message, at the same time something about
the metaphor disturbs me. Maybe it's the idea that "girls"
can't be strong without superpowers.
Anya's death. The fact that most of the civilians fighting above
are men and the only civilian who dies is a human woman. Anya
couldn't win. But Andrew, one-eyed Xander, Wood and Giles could.
Luckily, Dawn does save Xander once or twice, evening things out
sort of. If she hadn't, this might have been even more disturbing.
So does this mean that only those women who are potentials can
fight? In some ways, I found Fred's arc on Ats more empowering.
Okay need to wrap this up, since I'm meeting a friend for lunch
in 30 minutes. What I'm noticing is an odd trend...not just on
Buffy but in our own culture.
League of Extraordinary Gentleman - a comic where a band of heros
is brought together and lead by a human Mina Harker, has become
a movie where the band of heros is lead by human Alan Quartermain
and female Mina is a member and a vampire.
Charlies Angels - the women are first sex objects, then action
heros. The leader? A man.
Alias - hmmm, how many sleezy outfits can we put Jennifer Garner
in to fight crime? And she is controlled by men.
Women have come a long long way...but the gender biases remain
and the writers who make it in both comics, tv and film are still
largely men.
Take from that what you will.
sk
Again interesting KdS, will return to read the rest later.
[> [> [> Possible
explanation for male/female writer split -- Finn Mac Cool,
09:42:28 07/01/03 Tue
It's possible the male writers of BtVS suffer to a certain extent
from male guilt, an illogical but still present feeling that they
are somehow responsible for the suffering women have been put
through by patriarchal organizations. As such, when writing a
show with a feminist message, they tend to overreact in compensation
for this guilt, painting male figures as overly unsympathetic
in a way of saying, "Hey, don't look at me! I'm not one of
those oppressive men! Look here, would an oppressor do THAT?"
P.S. About "Helpless", it's interesting to note that,
while Buffy seems helpless even against normal, human guys, Cordelia
is able to beat one back.
[> [> [> [> Not
particularly surprising -- Doug, 09:53:13 07/01/03 Tue
Cordelia was used to dealing with situations using normal human
strength. Buffy had supernaturally enhanced physical abilities,
and had those ehanced abilities for well over 2 years; it's not
surprising that her human abilities weren't up to snuff after
the time she was relying on the Slayer abilities.
[> [> [> Re: Writers-
the male/female dichotmy -- MaeveRigan, 12:26:12 07/01/03
Tue
Joss Whedon created the story arc. David Fury and Drew Goddard
with the assistance of James Marsters and DB Woodside created
the arc in LMPTM. Women were not involved to a great extent. Actually
and somewhat ironically, the most empowering and positive male
episodes this year were created by women. Potential - with Xander
- was Rebecca Rand Kirshner. Touched - with Wood, Spike, Xander
- was again RKK. First Date - with Wood being empowered was Jane
E, although Xander is put in a lower place by a women (split the
difference there), End of Days - JAne E and
Petrie.
While the negative guy episodes: Get it Done, Dirty Girls, LMPTM,
were all written by men.
I'm not sure that we can make too much of which writers write
which episodes. It seems pretty clear from writer interviews and
DVD commentaries that even though certain names are on individual
scripts, episodes are usually assigned in a set order, not according
to who wants to write about what (except for Joss). Episode stories
are developed by several writers as a group before the assigned
writer or writers work on the actual script, and even when one
or two writers work on a script, another one or two, and often
Joss himself, may do extensive rewrites on it, depending on various
factors.
In a collaborative writing situation like that of ME, it seems
difficult to blame particular problems on individual writers.
The only person who's definitely in a position to take praise
or blame is Joss himself.
[> [> [> [> Whedon
and feminism -- s'kat, 15:16:13 07/01/03 Tue
While I have certainly been a proponent in the past of the concept
that the buck stops with Joss Whedon and Joss Whedon controls
everything on the show, several posters have done an excellent
job of poking holes in this theory.
How? Well, Whedon's story arcs have been proven both by interviews
and actual aired episodes to be loosely plotted. Whedon has admitted
to allowing his writers a little more control here and there -
yes he takes full responsibility, BUT the writers do collaborate.
(Ok with any luck that
above paragraph won't result in flame war - I'm not saying any
of this is necessarily true - just that it is an impression I've
picked up from people.)
For instance as RadiusR recently pointed out in David Fury's City
of Angel interview - David Fury came up with the idea of the cruciatorium
and Giles being fired, not Whedon. Espenson came up with the idea
that Prinicpal Wood was Nikki's son (Whedon came up with the idea
it had to be a son not a daughter - Espenson pitched it was Wood).
RKK came up with the speech for Spike in Touched, Whedon approved
it. Whedon did come up with how Buffy got her power in Get it
Done - Petrie came up with how it was shown.
But the fact that Whedon is the controlling writer on the enterprise
does add fuel to my argument, it being male run.
Also Whedon not MArti came up with the negative male images in
Season 6 - most notably Warren shooting Tara and the Bronze Beta
scene in Dead Things. Another interesting tid-bit, the invisible
sex with Spike was David Fury and Josh
Whedon's idea. Ironic - considering it was a female molesting
and dominating a man. (See Marti Noxon's interview in Dec issue
of SFX, or my transcript of it in the archives of ATpo around
March I believe.)
I do believe the gender of the writer does throw an interesting
perspective on things, subtle at times...but there all the same.
Whedon as he states in interviews tends to be an almost guilty
feminist, raised by a single mother, with a remarried/successful
Hollywood father who he didn't get along with until he graduated
from college. His mother is responsible for his education and
his focus on gender issues in college. In some ways Whedon's relationship
with his mother as recounted in the recent ICFM interview, salon.com
interview and others over the years - reminds me of William (Spike)'s
relationship with his and by extension Buffy's with Joyce. Whedon's
views on feminism also remind me of men I've known in college
- the desire as Finn notes to emasculate the masculain beast.
Note in Spike's redemption arc - that he is literally tortured.
We have him driven insane, made fun of, tortured and metaphorically
raped by The First, and beaten up by Wood, the First, etc.
Then we have him get his power back with a coat (which Fury states
was partly to keep the character morally ambiguous (how much Whedon
agreed with this veiw? I have no idea.) and partly as a concession
to the network and fanbase who didn't want to lose their icon
(two views that I find disturbing, for separate reasons)). James
Marsters who played Spike viewed the character is irredeemable
after Seeing Red and wanted the character to be killed. Odd.
Spike's crime in seeing red was actually no worse than Faith's
in Consequences or Xander's in The PAck, and far less horrible
than Angel's/Angelus' on both Btvs and Angel the Series, or for
that matter Willow's and Andrew's crimes or Anya's. How we react
to things is really interesting.
Also of these characters - spike is the only one, outside of possibly
Anya, who showed real remorse by going after a soul or a means
to stop the possibility again. The subleties between how men and
women view the female superhero and how they deal with that positive
role model in our culture and well as how the deal with the negative
male anti-hero is interesting.
In an essay I wrote a while back on Fatals, I explored how the
new female directors, Lizzie Borden, Kathryn Bigelow - dealt with
the male/female roles. The male was still strong in these movies,
but sleazy - the female also strong, but fantazing about the male.
MEn who saw them, could not understand women fantazing about these
men and in a way blamed them for it. Women, feminists, equally
struggled with this. While there were some critics that applauded
the directors for examining these relationships and power struggles
in Noir. The differences are so subtle that I wonder if they are
there, yet I sense them, when I read debates on Spike/Angel, or
Buffy, or even on Warren MEars.
The odd thing about Warren is women seem to take a far more negative
view towards the character than men. I have a female friend who
literally couldn't stand the character, while she has no problems
with Andrew, Spike, etc. Now KdS states it's because the other
two are cooler or more attractive. NOPE. She hates Angel for the
same reason she despises Warren - guess why? Patronizing. I'm
more powerful the girl. She needs to be told what to do. To be
protected. Spike oddly enough always seemed to treat women as
equals - warriors, and respects them as fighters. (With possible
exception of the sick Dru in School HArd to What's my Line - but
even there - he seemed to treat her with an odd respect and worship,
even though she was nuts, while Angelus seems to see her as less
an equal and more a minion) Warren equally treates them as beneath
him, lesser beings, unworthy of his respect. As does Angelus.
Guys don't appear to see this. Yet women on boards have often
written long rants on it.Just one of many controversial differences
I've picked up on. Slightly off the writer topic..but oh well.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Whedon and feminism -- Yellow Bear, 16:50:20 07/01/03
Tue
s'kat - Where is Fury's quote about the networks & fan base wanting
the iconic Spike back? I could not find this in the CofA interview
and thought it may be from the Succubus Club interview, but I
could not find your transcript in the archives (However, I gave
my self a heck of headache scrolling through). Curious about the
nature of this quote?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Oops I was a bit unclear there, sorry. -- s'kat,
17:41:43 07/01/03 Tue
Where is Fury's quote about the networks & fan base wanting
the iconic Spike back?
Sorry put that wrong in my post above. Fury wanted to keep Spike
morally ambiguous. But the rumor on the spoiler boards including
fanforum, buffy cross and stake, angel's soul board and Baps is
that the fanbase and network pressured ME to bring iconic Spike
back. The writers have never directly admitted to this that I
know of. So - it's more a rumor as opposed to a substantiated
rumor. Although there is evidence that the networks and ME have
marketing people watching the spoiler-boards, especially B C&S,
ASSB, Fanforum and Bronze Beta. In fact Tim Minear has been known
to post on ASSB, David Fury on BB and Fanforum. So the rumor does
have some basis...I suppose. It's hard to determine how much influence
the fanbase has on ME.
Sorry for being unclear on that.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Oops I was a bit unclear there, sorry.
-- Yellow Bear, 21:29:57 07/01/03 Tue
That's Ok. I thought it would be quite an admission on Fury's
part so I had to ask.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> s'kat, just read your post at -- morgain, 13:57:36
07/02/03 Wed
BC&S in the archives.
I would be honoured if you wanted to repost it here.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Posted it above, figured it should have it's
own thread -- s'kat, 18:52:04 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Whedon and feminism -- RJA, 16:24:09 07/02/03 Wed
Sorry, but I dont think that is quite correct. I am a man, and
I know a few other men who watch the show and feel the same way,
and all of us were disgusted by Warren as a character.
Certainly he's the only character I've seen on either show that
I have hated with a passion, and I've hated him precisely because
of the reasons you outline above. He's weak, condescending, and
views himself as superior to all women (yet at the same time this
is borne of an insecurity about not being as worthy or as powerful
as women). Which is why I hate him, he embodies all that is bad
about the worst excesses of masculinity. I think you underestimate
exactly how many men really dont like to see this (or at least
Buffy watching men).
As for Angel, I see him a little differently. Certainly I agree
that he has this thing where he decides that he always knows better,
but I would argue that it has nothing to do with women, it involves
everyone. Deciding what is best for Buffy is pretty much like
taking the executive decision for A.I in Home. Not rooted in a
fear/hatred/mistrust of women, but of humanity. Like Warren he
is insecure of his status in the world, but I dont think with
Angel it comes out in the same way as Warren, and I dont think
its confined to women.
The same with Angelus, certainly his treatment of Dru is not comparable
to Spike, yet he treats Darla as an equal. Which isnt something
he extends to Spike, for example...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Excellent point on Angel! -- Rahael, 17:15:18
07/02/03 Wed
I hadn't thought of it quite like that before, his executive decision,
and his distrust of humanity. Maybe Angel better decide - is his
exile from humanity, self chosen? Is that the metaphor for Angelus?
Maybe that's why Angelus' reappearance last season was thematically
important. It tells us why Angel's attempts to build a family
crumbles all the time.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Whedon and feminism -- s'kat, 19:06:28 07/02/03
Wed
Sorry, but I dont think that is quite correct. I am a man,
and I know a few other men who watch the show and feel the same
way, and all of us were disgusted by Warren as a character.
Certainly he's the only character I've seen on either show that
I have hated with a passion, and I've hated him precisely because
of the reasons you outline above. He's weak, condescending, and
views himself as superior to all women (yet at the same time this
is borne of an insecurity about not being as worthy or as powerful
as women). Which is why I hate him, he embodies all that is bad
about the worst excesses of masculinity. I think you underestimate
exactly how many men really dont like to see this (or at least
Buffy watching men).
Thank you for coming forward and stating this. Seems I made the
mistake of generalizing again - heh, I say not to, yet always
do, ugh. Nice thing about posting online is eventually someone
will whap you up side the head for doing it. (And I mean that
sincerely - no sarcasm). It's also more than possible I've misunderstood
KdS and others posts as being more pro-Warren than they were meant
to come across. It just seems almost as if they are stating that
Spike was worse than Warren and I see it the opposite for the
reasons I discussed above.
As for Angel, I see him a little differently. Certainly I agree
that he has this thing where he decides that he always knows better,
but I would argue that it has nothing to do with women, it involves
everyone. Deciding what is best for Buffy is pretty much like
taking the executive decision for A.I in Home. Not rooted in a
fear/hatred/mistrust of women, but of humanity. Like Warren he
is insecure of his status in the world, but I dont think with
Angel it comes out in the same way as Warren, and I dont think
its confined to women.
Regarding Angel - I actually didn't put that well -
I agree, he is patronizing to everyone or people he considers
beneath him - very few that he doesn't. It's a trait of his that
has always urked me and is by no means limited to women. HE didn't
patronize Darla, possibly b/c she was his sire and she patronized
others as well - it is a trait they had in common.
Interesting the traits the vampires share with their sires'
isn't it?
PS: are you the same RJA on B C & S and ASSB??
(If so, welcome to Atpo.)
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Whedon and feminism -- Yellow Bear, 22:44:30
07/02/03 Wed
Like to add another to the list of choices Angel makes that could
be considered patronizing which is deciding to confront Holtz
in 'Benediction'and not telling Connor about it. The argument
could be made that this choice leads to his burial at sea, and
the destruction of his relationship with Connor so this is equal
to the decesions made in 'Home' & IWRY but is very rarely mentioned.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Certainly don't think Spike's "worse than
Warren" -- KdS, 01:55:41 07/03/03 Thu
Although once you get past the basic good/bad divide it's very
difficult to talk about one character being better/worse than
another, even if you can compare specific acts. As far as the
Warren/Spike (Oh God, doesn't that punctuation conjure up disgusting
images) thing goes, I'll just repost a quote from above:
with a soul, he has no real excuse for his actions. He's finally
reached the same level as his role models, but his true evil lies
in the fact that he descended to it.
And regarding general attitudes, I only "like" Warren
in the sense of finding him an interesting character - he doesn't
repel me in the can't-watch sense, but I certainly don't see him
as a friend or role model.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Certainly don't think Spike's "worse
than Warren" -- ponygirl, 12:33:58 07/03/03 Thu
Nice points! I agree that Warren is an interesting character,
mainly because unlike the other villians on BtVS we watched his
descent. Others arrived on the scene with their evilness pre-formed,
with Warren we got to watch each step on the downward spiral.
In some ways the better comparison is between Warren and Faith.
I wonder if Warren had been presented as a likable character,
as Faith was, before he started on the path to being an evil character
would he have had a chance at redemption?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Whedon and feminism -- RJA, 07:31:17
07/03/03 Thu
Interesting the traits the vampires share with their sires'
isn't it?
It certainly is. One thing I'm looking forward to about Spike
appearing on AtS is the possibility that the Fanged Four, and
how they relate to each other, and have influenced each other,
will be explored in further detail. One of the most interesting
parts of either show for me.
are you the same RJA on B C & S and ASSB??(If so, welcome to
Atpo.)
I am, and thanks. Long time lurker who mainly just reads and admires
the thoughts that go on here :-)
[> [> [> Re: Wonder
Woman - the male/female dichotmy-You hit a chord -- sdev,
23:29:57 07/01/03 Tue
I have often thought this as well--
"What hits me, is what hit me while watching the documentary,
is that "men" are creating the stories or controlling
them - so it's from a "male" point of view that we are
seeing these "female" superheros develop. As much as
I attempt to convince myself that the gender doesn't matter, I
get increasing evidence that it does."
You recently posted a JW interview in which he discussed his deep-rooted
feminism that he got from his mother. My visceral reaction- uh
oh here comes trouble! Rebellion comes in many forms sometimes
overt and sometimes subversive.
He also said:
WHEDON: Any agenda. Any agenda beyond what the film itself is
trying to say. My biggest concentration was gender studies and
feminism. That was sort of my unofficial minor. That was what
all my film work was about, but at the same time, somebody bringing
the knee-jerk feminist agenda to a text can be the most aggravating
thing in the world. Especially if you're a feminist, because you're
like, "You're the person that everybody makes fun of. You're
the reason why we've got no cred."
I found that description very irritating and alarming although
I believe it conforms with what many people believe about feminism
today-- "You're the reason why we've got no cred."
Given JW's stated ideas on projecting feminism through the text
speaking, rather than hitting you over the head with an "agenda",
I have to wonder about his storytelling choices such as the oft
mentioned smiting of Caleb the misogynist from the genitals on
up. That is not a feminist agenda; it is a caricature of feminism
and does in fact create the lack of credibility he deplores.
IMO that was JW's excuse, albeit probably not on a conscious level,
for imbuing the text with a traditional, not so feminist message.
I see a lot of sabotage of the feminist message particularly with
Buffy's possession and use of power. Why is Buffy always looking,
thinking and longing to relinquish her power? Even a recent discussion
on this Board found ample justification for Angel, a demon, to
refuse becoming human in order to retain superpowers. And yet
we are set up to accept as normal a girl/woman's longing to get
rid of power. At best Buffy is shown in a love/hate relationship
with her power. Why is Faith, shown as a counterpoint to Buffy,
who relishes her power and sexual skills, turned evil and punished?
What is wrong with Buffy getting a bit in touch with her inner
id instead of repressing all her desires? Why does she so rarely
take joy in her physical ability the way an athlete would?
Also the final denouement of the series is Buffy sharing her power
after having rejected an earlier offer of additional power. This
reminds me of the difference between the way women and men are
taught sports. Women are constantly taught to share the ball.
On girl's teams everyone gets to play not just the good players.
In boy's sports the ethos of competition is the only one that
matters. Yet BtVS ends with a traditionally female message of
sharing and communal spirit. It is not even clear whether the
Slayer power has been diluted. It is enough that Buffy has shared.
And why, oh why can't she enjoy sex without being made to suffer
ignominious results?
1) Angel- She was a virgin and this was her first encounter. It
was a one-night stand that resulted in him going psycho, turning
evil and demeaning her about her very first experience. This was
a stunning and crushing ending to a night the viewer and Buffy
had been led to believe was rich with the fulfillment of loving,
passionate sex. All future sexual contact with Angel, as far as
Buffy knew, was of the frustrating cannot be consummated variety.
2) What's his name Parker- This was another humiliating one-night
stand that severely undermined her ego about her attractiveness
and desirability.
3) Riley-Their sex eventually released evil ghosts, trapped them
and served as a metaphor for the addictive, all-encompassing,
destructive force of sex. Overshadows what is to come in Season
6. Riley's buddy also repeatedly takes swipes at her for sleeping
with Riley and thus undermining his health and focus on the mission.
This is a classic sex as a draining force viewpoint where the
woman is a dangerous force that must be held in check. Within
a short time, Riley also cheated on her with vampire blood prostitutes
and then walked out.
4) Spike- Their sex is so shameful to her she must conceal it
from everyone even at the cost of abandoning her responsibilities
to take care of her sister. Sex with Spike makes her hate herself
for wanting it; hate herself for wanting to have sex with a soulless
vampire. She would rather believe that she is fundamentally wrong
in her return from the dead than acknowledge that she enjoys using
him. The problem- it is also the best sex she's ever had. But
for the other reasons she feels compelled to give it up. This
sex makes her a victimizer as well as the victim of an attempted
rape at the end. This is the ultimate fear that is being played
upon- women must be chaste, avoid risky behavior, avoid the wrong
men, don't flaunt it, don't give into indulging your desires,
or you may be sexually molested and raped.
Again Faith serves as the contrast, the alternate slayer model,
she of the unbridled sexuality who uses men along the male model.
She rejoices in her sexual prowess and her ability to remain detached
from relationships. But she becomes consummately evil. So she
becomes a negative role model, a lesson in thou shalt not. She
is also made to play another anti-feminist classic-Hell has no
fury like a woman scorned. When Angel rejects her advances she
goes off the deep end and fully embraces the Mayor's scheme. She
also takes her revenge on Angel by shooting him with a poison
arrow which causes a slow and painful death. The end of Chosen
sees her put in her place by Wood who questions her sexual skills
thus undermining a prime source of her confidence.
At this point it will probably be viewed as picking, but why does
my final image of Buffy's personal growth have to be as a cookie?
And why a baking metaphor? Is her place now back in the kitchen?
I found this statement, as well as her whole final scene with
Angel demeaning of who she was and had become. I wanted her talking
and acting like an adult not reverting to her childish past.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Wonder Woman - the male/female dichotmy-You hit a chord --
MaeveRigan, 06:11:02 07/02/03 Wed
I keep seeing this type of analysis of the role of sex in BtVS,
and every time the examples given seem to work only because they
are vastly oversimplified.
This is a very complex show. Reducing it to lowest-common-denominators
seems cheap, IMNSHO.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: MaeveRigan-No censorship here -- sdev, 07:46:19
07/02/03 Wed
"vastly oversimplified"
"lowest-common-denominators"
"seems cheap"
I guess you liked it huh.
Try critique, not name calling. That's a complex move.
[> [> [> [> [>
Sex in the Buffyverse -- s'kat, 09:42:13 07/02/03 Wed
Well, yes, I think sdeve does know the show is complex. If you've
read h/ir other posts - that comes across.
While the post above may seem simple in concept - it isn't really
- sdeve is pointing out something many posters have pointed out
in the past - something that I'm not sure you can so easily dismiss
as being a simplestic (sp?) view of the text.
(Of course lately I've begun to take the opposite view of this
statement:
This is a very complex show. Reducing it to lowest-common-denominators
seems cheap, IMNSHO
Perhaps it really is a much simplier show than we would like to
admit and this idea makes us incredibly defensive? The "In
my not so humble opinion statement" - practically screams
defensiveness to me - not that I don't completely understand,
I do. Because I am in some ways in a similar situation or at least
have been. What does it say about me, that I can get so emotionally
defensive about a tv show? (shaking my own head in costernation)
Maybe we want or desperately need it to mean and be more than
it is, which is an entertaining, at times risky and ingenious
cult horror tv show. Emphasis on entertaining. We, may be reading
far more into this show than was either intended or actually there
and the idea that this might be the case
pushes our buttons. I know it used to push mine. Heaven forbid
that I've written over 40 character essays and analysis on a show
that really isn't all I believed it was cracked up to be. What
if what I've written is what I read into or projected on to the
text?? Don't even want to contemplate that. But hey, it's possible.
Not saying that it is less than you think it is, just raising
the possibility - so don't flame me? okay? ;-) )
Now to the sex issue, which is an interesting one, which sdeve
brings up:
Sdeve: And why, oh why can't she enjoy sex without being made
to suffer ignominious results?
1) Angel- She was a virgin and this was her first encounter. It
was a one-night stand that resulted in him going psycho, turning
evil and demeaning her about her very first experience. This was
a stunning and crushing ending to a night the viewer and Buffy
had been led to believe was rich with the fulfillment of loving,
passionate sex. All future sexual contact with Angel, as far as
Buffy knew, was of the frustrating cannot be consummated variety.
2) What's his name Parker- This was another humiliating one-night
stand that severely undermined her ego about her attractiveness
and desirability.
3) Riley-Their sex eventually released evil ghosts, trapped them
and served as a metaphor for the addictive, all-encompassing,
destructive force of sex. Overshadows what is to come in Season
6. Riley's buddy also repeatedly takes swipes at her for sleeping
with Riley and thus undermining his health and focus on the mission.
This is a classic sex as a draining force viewpoint where the
woman is a dangerous force that must be held in check. Within
a short time, Riley also cheated on her with vampire blood prostitutes
and then walked out.
4) Spike- Their sex is so shameful to her she must conceal it
from everyone even at the cost of abandoning her responsibilities
to take care of her sister. Sex with Spike makes her hate herself
for wanting it; hate herself for wanting to have sex with a soulless
vampire. She would rather believe that she is fundamentally wrong
in her return from the dead than acknowledge that she enjoys using
him. The problem- it is also the best sex she's ever had. But
for the other reasons she feels compelled to give it up. This
sex makes her a victimizer as well as the victim of an attempted
rape at the end. This is the ultimate fear that is being played
upon- women must be chaste, avoid risky behavior, avoid the wrong
men, don't flaunt it, don't give into indulging your desires,
or you may be sexually molested and raped.
Again Faith serves as the contrast, the alternate slayer model,
she of the unbridled sexuality who uses men along the male model.
She rejoices in her sexual prowess and her ability to remain detached
from relationships. But she becomes consummately evil. So she
becomes a negative role model, a lesson in thou shalt not. She
is also made to play another anti-feminist classic-Hell has no
fury like a woman scorned. When Angel rejects her advances she
goes off the deep end and fully embraces the Mayor's scheme. She
also takes her revenge on Angel by shooting him with a poison
arrow which causes a slow and painful death. The end of Chosen
sees her put in her place by Wood who questions her sexual skills
thus undermining a prime source of her confidence.
Good points. But when we look at the series as a whole, actually
both series, let's include Angel in here too:
what is ME saying about sex? Do any of these characters have long-lived
or happy sexual relationships? And is it possible that Whedon
is merely using the old horror standby of characters have sex
- they die? A standby that goes as far back as the first Dracula
movie with Bela Lugosi. It's far from new and Whedon may - in
playing with it in his universe - be commenting on that technique.
Xander appears to be the only character who has a long-lived sexual
relationship without consequences.
He has Anya. The only thing that breaks them up is well Xander's
refusal to commit to her. He leaves her at the alter, but this
in no way stands in the way of his sexual relations with Anya
in S7. Not sure why ME went in that direction. Also Anya is the
villain in S6-part of 7, for going all vengency when Xander dumped
her and sleeping with Spike (again after he dumped her.) Xander
doesn't really appear to pay for this (unless you count an eye
getting torn out as payment and sorry doesn't work for me.)
Does Willow pay? Well depends on your pov. She doesn't with OZ,
although OZ does by having an affair with Veruca - furthering
the whole men are beasts theme. She does appear to pay however
with Tara - hence all the controversary over the lesbian cliche.
Very odd - Seeing Red was nominated and won a Gay Chapter Award
for the lesbian sex scenes this year according to one of the fan
boards. Blew me away.
At any rate, the writers chose for dramatic reasons (NOT metaphorical
ones) to show Tara and Willow having lots of sex in Seeing Red
prior to Tara being shot. IT was meant for dramatic impact. Unfortunately
in a show where fans over-analyze every scene for metaphorical
impact and the writers tell them demons stand for metaphors -
the fans believed the mix-match of metaphor and literal dramatism
that was SR was all metaphor. Confuse your audience at your own
risk and ME did a stupendous job of confusing the audience in
SR. A brillaintly written/acted/directed mess.
ME attempts to redeem themselves by allowing Willow to be the
one person with a happy ending in S7, the one SG member with the
relationship that survives - too bad over 50% of the audience
could either care less or hated the relationship, so it left little
to no emotional impact.
BUT - you can't accuse ME of punishing characters for sex any
more. The only characters who died after the touched sex-a-thon,
were Anya and Spike - one had sex, one most decidely did not.
The ones who really got hot and heavy were spared.
Anya - well, you could make a good argument about the evils of
sex and Anya being killed. Although I think it's pretty clear
from interviews and what is on the screen that wasn't the intent.
If we jump over to Angel - we'll notice Angel has the same problems
Buffy does with a sexual relationship. He has sex
and one of two horrible things happen:
1. Loses soul and becomes evil or
2. Creates a child with serious issues that almost brings about
the end of the world (indirectly)
I wouldn't say Angel was lucky in the sex department either and
he's a guy.
But his comrades? Well Fred and Gunn did okay for a while.
Actually Gunn appears to be Xander's counterpart on Angel, relatively
fine with sex. Fred? Less so. But still none of her problems result
from sex.
Wes? Welll, he had the nice relationship with mob gal, Virginia.
And he hasn't really had too many negative repercussions from
Lilah - although Lilah may have...not sure about that one.
Cordelia? Well - she does run into problems. The show doesn't
appear to want Cordy to have a good relationship either. Either
gets pregnant with a demon spawn or
just has a brief fling with the guy leaving her due to being ignored.
(Cordy/Groo reminded me of Buffy/Riley and Spike/Harmony.)
So yep, Buffy, Angel, and Cordelia really are in the unlucky in
sex/love category - but this appears to be more for story reasons
than metaphorical ones. So I'm going to take the opposite position
from MaveRigan and state: that I think you may be reading far
too much into Buffy's sexual situations, sdeve - probably more
than was ever intended.
I think the B/A relationship - Surprise/Innocence was just a metaphor
on how guys turn evil once you sleep with them - a nightmare high
school tale. Whedon loved it. He is after all writing a horror
series dealing with high school horror tales.
The B/R relationship again was dealing with horror stories.
Buffy and Riley did have good sex, from time to time - it was
dull as dishwater - hence the reason you either don't remember
it or didn't see it very often. Just as dull as Fred/Gunn. (Although
some people seemed to like it
so maybe it's pov again??) If the only time we ever saw them have
sex was in Where the Wild Things Are - I'd agree with you. But
it wasn't, nor was it by any measure the first.
Buffy/Spike - this admittedly was S&M and dominant power games
and not supposed to be seen in a good light. But I don't think
it was intended to be seen as buffy shouldn't have sex. I think
the writers did something very risky here and it sort of went
in the direction they hadn't intended.
From interviews I get the impression they had NO idea where they
were going with it in S6. Unfortunately the AR sequence and the
fans reactions to it, caused the writers to back off from re-addressing
a healthy sexual relationship for Buffy. I think if they had it
to do over again, we probably would have gotten a less intense
and more metaphorical scene.
I think when you do horror - particularly certain genres of horror
- you run into the danger of hitting the "sex is bad"
horror cliche. ME has hit upon it once too often.
It doesn't help that the show has a soap opera component - and
in serials or soap operas where stories arise from character relationships
and emotional arcs - you can't let the characters be in happy/stable
relationships - it get's boring. Whedon has stated on numerous
occassions: Buffy happy? Bored now. Buffy miserable? Fascinated
now. Higher ratings. Of course we do need a balance. Buffy miserable
all the time - then we get bored. Need both. But to do that with
a relationship, you have to build and keep a reasonable amount
of conflict in the relationship - ME for better or worse seems
to want to rely on sex being the source of that conflict (partly
for the whole teen sex fear metaphor) - they aren't that great
at it. IT got old with Angel and it got old with Spike. But hey,
I can't fault them for trying it.
Anyways..sort of burned out now. Hope that rambling made some
sense. To wrap up? I don't think ME is intentionally stating sex
is bad or Buffy shouldn't have sex - I think they are just using
it for dramatic tension.
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thanks, S'kat, and apologies, sdev -- MaeveRigan,
10:11:53 07/02/03 Wed
Thanks, S'kat--you've said more or less what I meant, if I'd had
time to spell it all out (I was late for class).
Apologies for my tone and phrasing, sdev. I really wasn't specifically
aiming at you, but at the argument. I was in a rush and should
have put my thoughts more temperately.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Thanks, S'kat, and apologies, sdev-accepted
-- sdev, 11:14:26 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Sex in the Buffyverse-Thanks for the assist --
sdev, 17:22:09 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Buffy cannot be all things to all people -- Charles Phipps, 14:54:04
07/05/03 Sat
Its a same old standby...
Wonderwoman is in revealing outfits with a bondage theme.
Remove them and she's not sexy anymore and people think its disempowering
Ditto if Buffy was a overweight nerd rather than "sexy"
You can't tell any stories without breaking some eggs
In this case the idea that a 17 year old having sex with a boy
might have metaphorically a bad end and sometimes women get used
in sexual relationships with morons.
In this case she got up and went on, it might be fun to have her
have a bunch of mindless sex without consequences and use a male...
oh WAIT!
SPIKE!
But that's not exactly a positive message either, so eh
[> [> [> [> Interesting...points:
Feminist credo & Whedon -- s'kat, 08:49:53 07/02/03 Wed
And somewhat controversial as you can tell from the below emotional
response ;-) I want to deal with them separately.
I'll deal with Feminist credo here.
Feminist cred
Feminism is a tough subject to deal with. I remember in the late
80's (which may have been close to the same time Whedon dealt
with it in College, since Whedon is only three years older than
me), that Feminism split three ways, possibly four. You had the
hardcore radicals, the middle of the ground - activists, the aware
but not actively vocal,
and the anti-feminists who saw it as a "four-letter word".
The radicals were partly at fault for making it such a four-letter
word. Phil Donahue kept ranting in his talk shows about how a
"stay-at-home" Mom was a bad thing. huh?
And you had to be career minded. huh? Or we had the other side,
with people stating that you should stay at home and raise the
kiddies. Then of course the reaction to "sexual liberation"
and "sex and the single girl".
Whedon's comments remind me a great deal of some of the guys I
dated and knew in college - they defined themselves as feminists
were women studies scholars, yet, somehow, they just didn't quite
get it. At the time I scoffed at critics, thinking the guys did
get it, but now...looking back on it all as an adult, I'm reminded
of what a male date-rape counselor told me in seminar I attended
once, (I was writing an article on the subject for the college
newspaper), he said - all men no matter how well meaning are chauvinists,
just as all people are racist, it's in us.
It may not be overt. It may not be something we think about or
do consciously, but it's there. I disagreed vigorously with him
at the time, now I think he had a point. It's there, but it's
repressed in some cases or buried - but it's there partly because
of the subliminal messages we receive on a daily/hourly basis
from our media/culture.
(Just watch a few commercials or look at a couple of bulletin
boards or a magazine rack and tell me you don't see it?) And partly
due to how we are raised, our peers, our family, our teachers,
our pastors. I remember being in a college Christian youth group
-- where one woman mentioned how (she was raised Catholic) women
in the bible were beneath men, how she'd been raised to wear a
hat in church and kow-tow to men. I was horrified - b/c I too
had been raised Catholic - but do NOT remember ever being taught
that. But people are.
In interviews - SMG during the early years of Btvs - often stated
that she did not want to be called a "feminist", she
was one but not in that way - she saw it as a four-letter word.
In the avoidance of the label - people can go to extreems.
On the Buffy Cross and Stake board where I recently reposted by
Critique of Seven 7, one poster, 3Strikes, came back with an intriquing
comment that had not occurred to me.
He said that he didn't have problems with the nature of the theme
in S7, but the execution. He said that in S7, the writers somehow
twisted it in their execution so that they ended up with something
that was, in his view at least, the opposite of the intent. (ie.
The enslavement of the Potentials by power as opposed to the release
- freedom of power.) I think this may be the same problem you
and I and possibly KdS and others are struggling with.
The cliche use of Caleb, bugs me. But what fascinates me is that
in interviews - the writers admit how Caleb was in many ways a
last minute addition, they'd intended to make FE corporeal as
Buffy, but backed off from it, b/c they were afraid it would send
the wrong message. So they hastily came up with a viable or what
they believed to be viable alternative. And it may have worked
- if they hadn't gone for so many obvious metaphors. The splitting
of Caleb was actually fairly interesting and cool - since it was
a metaphor for the splitting of the male psyche - symbolized by
Xander's loss of an eye, Spike's trigger/soul, Giles'
split personality (let the kids take care of themselves - I need
to lead them)- one way in Lessons - NLM, another in BoTN - EoD.
But to do it from the gonads on up...with a battle ax (sorry looks
like a battle ax to me) might have been a bit much.
Also - the Guardian - I think might have been a bit obvious a
touch, particularly as KdS states - her being so female.
I do however agree with CW that the Watchers weren't all male.
OTOH they symbolized a patriarchial order and no women ruled it.
Also very few women were in the council. It was a little like
looking at some military organizations - mostly men, but hey,
look there are women - yeah only one or two, but they are there!!
It was a bit too over the top or heavy-handed in places. To the
extent that I wondered if Whedon had decided to hit us over the
head with a feminist agenda - one that did not feel as apparent
in other seasons. Almost as if the agenda took over and became
more important than the characters, yet ironically - wasn't quite
pulled off in the way the writer intended. (In which case, can't
say I blame him for wanting to move as far away as possible from
the "self-involved cheerleader says the world" theme.)
I think Whedon bit off more than he could chew last year with
Firefly (which he became obsessed with), Angel (that turned him
on)
and Buffy (which he struggled with), not to mention the new baby.
The reason I think Whedon got so heavy handed with the weird feminism
imagery - the scythe, the amulet, Caleb,
the Shadowmen, Willow, the Guardians, the Sit's, Andrew's lines...is
that he paniced over the reviews and reactions to S6, which took
him by surprise. The reaction to evilWillow, the AR, the whole
S&M storyline, and the nerds, threw them a bit. But the biggest
criticism that bugged Whedon, again according to past interviews,
was the one from the lesbian community regarding the LEsbian Cliche.
His decision to kill Tara and flip Willow to the dark side - had
been intended (according to interviews) to explore power addiction
problems, desires for vengeance, and co-dependency. He was attempting
(somewhat clumsily) to deal with the whole addiction concept.
It didn't work. Also, as a comic book fan - he enjoyed the idea
of turning a powerful character evil - ie like Dark Phoenix, just
as it never occurred to Claremont and Byrne that turning the beloved
Jean Grey evil would have serious reprecussions and possibly destroy
her, it never really occurred to Whedon until it was almost too
late. I think, we the viewers probably read and see more in these
stories than the writers ever intended. I think from the writers'
perspective the story is merely a simple tale of a girl growing
up with the typical issues: bad boyfriends, addictions, fear of
failure, bratty kid sisters, crushes, etc. We, the viewers, tend
to see more. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't
more there - I'm just saying the creators (writers, actors, producers
etc) probably don't see it and didn't intend it - b/c when you
create something - especially in a collaborative environment,
you aren't always aware of the things you've put in it - so much
of creativity is a subconscious process.
I'm honestly not aware of half the stuff I put into my writing
that people pick up on. So if you take all of this in consideration
and realize that the master of the creation is a "man"
with very strong "mother issues" and
a strong desire to live up to the values his "mother"
(an affirmed feminist) impressed upon him - you may see what happened.
I'm not unconvinced that William the Bloody Awful Poet isn't in
some ways a stand in for Joss Whedon - looking at the audience
and saying: I know I'm not a great writer, but
if you could just see me...I'm a good man. That insecure little
boy, the loner, comic book/film geek, aching for
connection. Just as Willam dealt with women both with great respect
and an odd misunderstanding that some have seen (I still don't
understand or see this) as misogyny, Whedon also comes across
both positive and negative to the outsiders eye. I think we all
do. The split negative so to speak.
Hope those musings made some lick of sense. SK
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Interesting...points: Feminist credo & Whedon -- Yellow
Bear, 23:04:34 07/02/03 Wed
S'Kat -I am going to continue the rather odd habit I've picked
up since I started posting on this board of asking you where you
got specific information that you site, namely that Whedon & Co.
had intended to make the First Evil corporal but later backed
out of the idea. My understanding from Whedon's interviews is
that the late addition of Caleb came because the writers realised
that the First Evil needed a sidekick for the SG to 'push aganist'
(I believe that is Whedon's exact words). I would be very interested
to know why Whedon would abandon a plan to make FE corporal.
Oh, I would also state that S6 works beautifully but a lot of
fans just didn't want it.
As for reading & seeing more than is there, I would look no further
than your own take on Caleb's demise. However, that concept of
seeing more than is there is one of the reason I typically avoid
the boards. There is such a desperate to desire to deconstruct
& reconstruct that it seems to suck the very joy out of the show
and, as an old critical studies major, I am a little to familar
with that.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Interesting...points: Feminist credo & Whedon
-- s'kat, 10:16:19 07/03/03 Thu
S'Kat -I am going to continue the rather odd habit I've picked
up since I started posting on this board of asking you where you
got specific information that you site, namely that Whedon & Co.
had intended to make the First Evil corporal but later backed
out of the idea.
Three sources: 1) The Succubus Club interview with Drew Greenberg,
Rebecca Rand Kirshner, and Jane Espenson.
(Where they state how it would have been great to have Buffy fight
Buffy, but backed away from this) 2.) The Succubus Club interview
with David Fury and Tim Minear in which they allude to it, but
don't directly state it.
3) Numerous fan boards that have posted on Whedon's last three
interviews (salon, ICNFM,) - these are B C & S
and ASSB mostly. And yes of the three sources this is the least
reliable (Whedon is notoriously vague in interviews)- *except*
they have to back them up the two radio interviews which are still
accessible and fairly clear.
My impression, after having read every article I can find on and
offline, is that they considered it but realized it wouldn't work
- ie they could not find a logical means of making the First corporeal
and stay within their general theme. Valid reason which furthers
my initial impression of the FE as big bad way back in Lessons,
where I prayed it was something else: "that was lame in Amends,
hope it's not that". From what I've read of the interviews
and between the lines of the interviews - the writers/producers
pretty much came to the same conclusion by Showtime.
As for reading & seeing more than is there, I would look no
further than your own take on Caleb's demise.
True. But it's hard to ignore when it is a weapon that looks like
an ax and is used to cut off the man's gonads.
Sort of obvious.
I tend to overlook most stuff - as old teachers could tell you
when I was analyzing MASH and ignoring all the anti-female messages,
etc. I think focusing too much on it to further an agenda is a
bit silly - on that me and Joss Whedon whole-heartedly agree.
But when the writer comes out and hits me over the head with it?
(shrug) What can I do?
The other time they hit me over the head was the monster in Doublemeat
Palace. (And just in case I didn't get it - they referred to it
again in Entropy.) You don't have to work too hard to see what
ME was saying about Caleb or Buffy's dispatch of him.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> How I Long For Succubus Club Transcripts --
Yellow Bear, 10:41:06 07/03/03 Thu
I don't recall that at all from the RRK, JE & DG interview. I
will have to listen to it again one day(hence why I long for transcripts)
, perhaps I was re-filling my coffee mug.
Yes, I recall thinking (at the time of FE reveal) that Buffy had
so effectively dispelled the FE in 'Amends' ("I get already,
you're evilll") that it does not carry much weight as a villian.
One of the major problems of S7, with the other being the lack
of time given to the Potentials but that is something for another
day.
Certainly there is a feminist subtext to cutting of the misogynist's..
well, you know. It was the phrase 'splitting of the male pysche'
and the illustrative examples of other characters that I thought
was reaching a bit (much like the recent eye gouching thing around
here). Caleb's death is a good joke with a tangy subtext but sometimes
a cigar is just a cigar.
Interestingly, I beleive it was Jane Expenson who confirmed last
year that the staff was rather shocked how much like.. well, you
know.. the demon looked like in DMP which is why the brought it
up again in Entropy, to indicate to the audience that 'yeah,we
know what it looked like.'
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Corporeal First (Sy Finale Spoiler) -- Yellow
Bear, 12:14:34 07/03/03 Thu
The idea of a corporeal First makes so much sense. It would have
allowed a measure of threat from him that was simply impossible
in the form presented on the show.
I must say that I don't see Whedon implying this in the Salon
interview which I just re-read.
As for the Succubus Club, I really do need transcrpts or to re-listen
(arggh) to the whole thing. People have posted things they 'heard'
on the Succubus Club that simply aren't there. Recently, someone
posted that Minear & Fury( during the SC interview) said Spike
was going to be a ghost on the Faith spin-off which not only did
they not say but wouldn't have said because it would have revealed
Spike's death a week before the finale aired. As such, I really
need to read it or verify it with my own ears before I can believe
it (this is the main reason I never believe anything someone said
they heard at a con)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Corporeal First (Sy Finale Spoiler)
-- s'kat, 14:23:07 07/03/03 Thu
As for the Succubus Club, I really do need transcrpts or to
re-listen (arggh) to the whole thing. People have posted things
they 'heard' on the Succubus Club that simply aren't there. Recently,
someone posted that Minear & Fury( during the SC interview) said
Spike was going to be a ghost on the Faith spin-off which not
only did they not say but wouldn't have said because it would
have revealed Spike's death a week before the finale aired. As
such, I really need to read it or verify it with my own ears before
I can believe it (this is the main reason I never believe anything
someone said they heard at a con)
Ah, but they did say that regarding Spike being a ghost. Just
not during THAT interview.
Fury said it in his City of Angel's interviews. At least I think
it was City of Angels, it could have been Dreamwatch or TV Zone,
I've read one too many Fury interviews this year and they all
began to sound a bit a like after awhile. Getting hard to keep
them straight. The difficulty isn't that it wasn't said but remembering
which interview it was said in. You see I've read over a hundred
interviews from mags, online forums, radio shows, convention Q&A's
so that after a while I can't tell you which one was the one I
heard it from and sorry I don't care enough to keep an index of
all the sources. I just remember reading it. (Some sources I have
- since I bought the mags or transcribed it myself from the radio
or downloaded from a site, most I don't.)I'm sure if it's that
important to you to read the original sources on all this stuff
- you can find all the stuff I read on the internet or in your
magazine store.
Goggle it. Go to bigbad.net (who posts just about any Whedon/Spike
specific article they can find), Atpo archives, whedonesque.com,
slayage.com, spoilerslayer.com,
the succubus club, spoiler trollops board, the list is endless.
The RRK, DGreenberg, Espenson discussion can be found reported
on in our archives. Search the archives, it may or may not still
be around - voy has been gobbling up stuff lately. I literally
typed it up and posted it after I heard it. I don't remember the
exact quote.
To be honest? I don't really care any more what the silly writers
said about their plans for FE. FE would have been better corporeal.
Shame they didn't do it. If they thought of it and didn't do it
due to financial and other considerations?
Than I respect them for it. IF they never even thought of it?
sigh. Either..way in my humble opinion, they screwed up big time,
the FE was the worste BB ever next to Caleb, make of it what you
will.
But do keep in mind the misquotes aren't really misquotes as just
the fact that people can't remember which interview they read...
We read it. We just can't bloody place it.
More Frustrating Than You Can Imagine (obviously or you wouldn't
pester us about it). ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Fair Enough -- Yellow Bear, 14:27:03
07/03/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Corporeal First (S7 Finale Spoiler)
-- Now, that's interesting, 14:32:53 07/03/03 Thu
I do try to keep up with the writer's interviews as I am very
intrigued by the the process that goes into creating the shows
(also find the majority of BTVS writers to be very entertaining
interviewees) but I am clearly not dedicating the time to it that
others are.
How interesting that Spike was to function as a ghost (this is
probably the source of the rumors that this is how he will appear
on Angel). The poster I was quoting also mentioned that Wood was
to continue on the Faith spin-off which may finally explain why
they spent so much time on that character.
To be honest. I will have to take this with a grain of salt until
I can verify it myself but that is simply my nature when it comes
to these things.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Try City of Angels Fury Interview
on slayage.com (S7 Finale Spoiler) -- just trying to be helpful,
14:50:00 07/03/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Try City of Angels
Fury Interview on slayage.com (S7 Finale Spoiler) -- Yellow
Bear, 21:08:40 07/03/03 Thu
I re-read the whole interview and there is no mention of what
Spike's role would have been on the Faith series (plus since this
interview was given before the Buffy finale aired, I kinda doubt
he would say anything). The only real Faith mention is his disappointment
over the lack of a spin-off because he knows the character's voice
so well.
I am really curious to find this interview as it would have to
be published since the BTVS finale because the Spike-as-Ghost
angle would be an enormous spoiler otherwise.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Try Dreamwatch with
JM on cover or TVZone with Buffy (S7 Finale Spoiler) -- still
helping, god knows why, 13:49:28 07/04/03 Fri
Read the bit in a David Fury article in either the
Dreamwatch issue with James Marsters on the cover OR
in the TVZone that had Buffy on the cover. OR it was
Dreamwatch with Buffy and TvZone with Marsters. I read
them at a Barnes and Nobles...don't own them. One was posted briefly
on the net somewhere but taken down apparently.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Try Dreamwatch
with JM on cover or TVZone with Buffy (S7 Finale Spoiler)
-- Yellow bear, 15:35:54 07/04/03 Fri
I thought you were helping because you're a really nice person
:).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Try
Dreamwatch with JM on cover or TVZone with Buffy (S7 Finale Spoiler)
-- god knows why, 20:46:43 07/04/03 Fri
Whatever gave you that idea? ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Found
It -- Yellow Bear, 21:22:22 07/04/03 Fri
The interview is in Dreamwatch #106. Man, I have not been in a
Barnes & Noble in a long time (I'm one of those annoying people
who shops at independent bookstores).
In my defense, the post that got me started down this path mentioned
the Wood character appearing the Faith spin-off (which Fury does
not mention) so I was not quite as irratating, or wrongheaded,
as I might seem :).
I have to say that the concepts behind the spin-off such as Spike-as-Ghost
& Faith-on-a-bike leave me cold. ME might have been able to develop
them (we will never know) but these concepts don't really thrill
me.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh good...was beginning to wonder if I'd lost my mind ;-)
-- s'kat, 23:33:27 07/04/03 Fri
Did I read it an alternate universe? where there are Barnes and
Nobles? (B&N is great for the mag rack, which you can peruse and
read for free - sort of like a library...I rationalize this by
buying books (when I have the money)
at independents.)
In my defense, the post that got me started down this path
mentioned the Wood character appearing the Faith spin-off (which
Fury does not mention) so I was not quite as irratating, or wrongheaded,
as I might seem :).
Where'd you read that? (ASSB? BAPS?) Silly people. They've all
rationalized the Wood scenes with Faith after DG as being about
a spin-off (which uhm no, ED nixed the spin-off before those scenes
were written or filmed, the silly nits, pretty sure slayage.com
reported her nixing it in March or early Feb, they filmed them
in Feb/April and wrapped mid April, although these rationalizations
lead me to believe that I'm not the only one who didn't like Wood...)
No, from what I've read, Wood was never going to be part of the
spin-off. According to the DB Woodside interview in (I think)
the same issue - he says he didn't know anything about spin-offs
and was only committed to Btvs S7. He didn't pay any attention
and was never approached. Nice interview with DB by the way -
I actually liked the actor.
Can understand your skepticism - there's tons of misinformation
and rumors going around on the web. Most of it is just like that
old chain camp-fire game - you know, the one where you whisper
something in someone's ear to pass it to the next person and by
the time it reachs the end? It's completely garbled? Same with
urban legends.
They are based on a kernel of truth - something that is real,
but get garbled along the way. We read all this info,
but can't remember more than bits and pieces and so much of it
contradicts each other. What I normally do is check a source in
three places (when I care and my Btvs/ATs obsession is waning
at the moment, so don't care that much now - also lots of work!)
- the best sources: spoilerslayer.com (for spoilers, he does check
more than one source), slayage.com for articles, slayage.tv for
academic stuff and resources- they are nit-picky when it comes
to sources and very careful, city of angels for angel articles
and interviews, and masq's site for Angel/Btvs metaphysical reviews.
I have to say that the concepts behind the spin-off such as
Spike-as-Ghost & Faith-on-a-bike leave me cold. ME might have
been able to develop them (we will never know) but these concepts
don't really thrill me.
Agreed. I happen to love both characters. But I wouldn't have
made it past the first two episodes on this baby.
Sounds dull and cliche. Basically Highway to Heaven meets Kung
Fu meets the Fugitive. Scarey. Why oh why do they keep doing this
genre??? Enough to make me want to shoot the person who came up
with it to begin with. Oh well, it's more palatable than reality
tv, (but then anything in my humble opinion is more palatable
than reality tv) so why am I complaining. Here's hoping Minear's
Wonderfalls is more interesting. (Minear according to Espenson
on AICN was the one who pitched this baby. Noxon pitched the Slayer
School which would have also featured Spike as the male lead,
hopefully not as a ghost - another concept that leaves me cold.)
Also, really really hope the rumor about Spike as Ghost on Ats5
is wrong, I honestly hate this idea, it's so lame. (I'm pretty
sure it is - since I can't imagine Whedon doing something that
has already been leaked by Fury as the spin-off idea all over
the place. Minear sort of leaks it in a blurb in one of the mags
as well - it's a tiny blurb, so good luck hunting it down, may
have been TvZone or sci-fi mag. This idea according to Fury/Minear
was limited to the spin-off, which I presume they were both slated
to write for...hence their knowledge of it. Can't imagine Whedon
doing something already been spoiled. But one never knows...)Note
to ME - do NOT do incorporeal characters - you aren't good at
it. (Unless of course they plan to do something like what is in
MAtrix Reloaded - which knowing ME and Whedon's obsession with
all things Matrix, I wouldn't put past them. See Primeval commentary
on S4 DVD - also I think Whedon said something in one of his dozens
of interviews about MAtrix being the movie he was most looking
forward to this summer.)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh good...was beginning to wonder if I'd lost my
mind ;-) -- Yellow Bear, 08:29:17 07/05/03 Sat
I actaully read the Wood info. from a poster on this board.
As for 'Slayer School'. I am of the opinion that the main weakness
of S7 was the lack of attention given to the Potentials. These
young woman are at the heart of Buffy's arc this season yet we
never get know them on any meaningful level(Kennedy excluded but
she is more Willow's girlfriend than a Potential). After 'Potential',
the Potentials (that makes for the awkward phrase) basically become
background figures. ME seems interested in the Potentials more
as symbols of female empowerment that actual characters which
leads me to believe that the ME team has just exhausted themselves
dealing with adolescent emotions or maybe twenty-something actors
(at least form Whedon's most recent interviews). With all these
girls around, these girls who could legitmately take us back to
the beginning (they are all Buffy in PG, sixteen years old and
not wanting to die), we end us spending weeks on Wood's vendeta
which has very little to do with the main arc of the season. Whedon's
own comments about the "god damn potentials" (as he
once called them) lead me down this path as well. I don't think
the ME team was ready to go back to what in essence would be high
school stories all over again. I think they want to move forward
as evidenced by the more adult-themed Firefly.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Messed Up Author Line --
Yellow Bear, 21:11:38 07/03/03 Thu
The post above was from me. My insomnia is really beginning to
take hold of me.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Wonder Woman - the male/female dichotmy-You hit a chord --
Yellow Bear, 08:55:32 07/02/03 Wed
Whedon's quote that you use above is in response to people bringing
an agenda to their reading of the text, not the author's agenda
with the text. The autor should have an agenda for his text or
why did he make it. This becomes pretty clear if you re-read this
section of the interview.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Yellow Bear- you are correct -- sdev, 18:29:11 07/02/03
Wed
Yes I read too hastily. I had my own "Seeing Red" moment.
He was referring to the interpreter not the creator. Nevertheless
my point still stands about his ambivalence about a feminist agenda
and I still see this ambivalence in his work. I do personally
dislike the "cred" statement and feel it is just an
excuse for bashing. Where is his defensiveness coming from? I
don't believe I superimposed my "knee-jerk agenda" but
that of course is open to interpretation. I feel I did a close
reading of the text and came up with problems.
Maybe I see the role of women and what makes women powerful and
independent differently than JW and some others. Let me preface
this with a disclaimer- my use of the terms male and female when
attached to certain traits in no way reflects my belief that men
or women are intrinsically this way or should be. Au contraire.
One of the big dichotomies that I perceive in feminist thinking
is whether women should adopt or aspire to male values such as
competition and aggressiveness and whether women who are aggressive
and competitive are accepted in a still male-dominated society.
The other side of feminist thought believes that women's emphasis
on collaboration, sharing and nurturing should just be valued
more highly and accepted as equally worthwhile contributions to
society. I believe there was a recent discussion in the Spuffy
thread about this with some people talking at cross-purposes on
this topic. (Caroline using gender based labels for Jungian myths
and Rahael challenged the source of that labeling. I think I have
the right posters).
I hypothesize that the split of people who find something lacking
versus those who feel JW has done a good job on the feminist agenda
fall along this dichotomy. JW's feminism falls into the latter
branch. This creates a feeling of betrayal for those that identify
feminism with the former definition. This is a question of where
and how you see women fitting into society and what their contributions
are. Obviously if your world view is the same as JW's you will
not see fault with his feminist agenda.
[> [> Re: POWER: Superpowers,
Slayers and Vengeance Demons -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:26:18
07/01/03 Tue
"The first is to believe that all Slayers are now demonised,
but that this never did carry any corrupting influence. Buffy
and Faith's difficulties under this model would be put down to
perfectly normal human darkness. Dracula would be dismissed as
merely a lying manipulator, and the destructive aspect of the
First Slayer seen in Restless as merely a manifestation of Buffy's
inner fears. The problem with this explanation is that it conflicts
with the general implication in BtVS (but not AtS) that demons
are essentially evil. It also suggests that Buffy's decision in
Get It Done was a mistake born out of false emotional distaste,
and that she rejected power which would not have caused her any
problem merely out of dislike for those offering it."
I do not think these problems you propose are true.
First, it doesn't have to counteract the "demons are evil"
message because we don't know the degree of impact the demon essence
has on Slayers. It could have entered into their soul and provide
a dark part of it, like you seem to assume (we do know it didn't
alter them biologically, since Spike's chip fired when he hit
Buffy). However, it could also simply be something that's inside
them, a demonic essence that they can draw on for power, but without
it having any real link to their minds.
Second, to me the problem with the Shadowmen's actions wasn't
in their end result (giving power to the Slayer) but in their
methods (putting her through the violating process that entailed).
Buffy refused the power because the whole thing was barely even
metaphorical for rape, and she didn't want to go through that,
nor did she want to continue to let the Shadowmen have their way
over the Slayer line. Plus, it is also key to remember that, at
the end of the episode, Buffy is uncertain whether or not she
should have accepted the power. We are clearly meant to sympathise
with her decision, but there is still a little ambiguity, at least
in her mind, whether she should have tried to bear it to gain
the power.
Personally, I've never understood the whole "inner darkness
of the Slayer" thing. Every evil or moral ambiguity done
by either Buffy or Faith seems, to me, to be a fully human reaction
to the situation. Being the Slayer can give power and responsibilities
that can corrupt people to evil, but I've never seen any reason
to read a mystical cause into it.
[> [> Kudos to you and
to shadowkat. -- CW, 10:20:05 07/01/03 Tue
I think that perhaps the female-male dichotomy of power on the
show is if anything overtly overstated by ME, compared what actually
occurs in the show. Remember that not all watchers are male. It's
more about passiveness and agressiveness. Actually, the Guardians
don't so much represent a different mentality from the watchers
as they represent a different approach. The Guardains just bided
their time and watched. The Watchers were aggressive in their
approach to the slayer, trying to dominate her life and give her
orders as to where she should go and fight, but they did attempt
to train the slayer to help her survive longer, and at least they
made some sort of personal connection with the slayer. Despite
Travers' wishes, it's clear from what Giles' says in Fool for
Love about the past Watchers' diaries that the Watchers' cannot
help, but have a genuine affection for their slayers. The Guardians
on the other hand claim moral superiority for not pushing the
slayers around, but they are so passive that they might as well
not have existed for the last few thousand years. In fact, what
difference would it make if Buffy had not found the Guardian alive?
The Guardians made the Scythe then essentially faded from usefulness.
I think it's important that Buffy takes a middle ground in her
final decision. There are simply going to be too many new slayers
for anyone to order them all around. Yet Buffy wants to make contact
with them, not leave them totally to their own devices as the
Guardians did. The Shadowmen-Watchers believed that making decisions
for the slayer was the best way to proceed. The Guardians effectively
practiced a policy which left each slayer to her own fate. Buffy
makes the ultimate decision to make all potentials slayers whether
they wanted it or not just as the Shadowmen did with the first
slayer. But, in doing so, Buffy has made it so that most slayers
now will have to develop without the constant support of a Watcher.
[> [> [> Re: Kudos
to you and to shadowkat. -- Rob, 11:19:24 07/01/03 Tue
Buffy makes the ultimate decision to make all potentials slayers
whether they wanted it or not just as the Shadowmen did with the
first slayer. But, in doing so, Buffy has made it so that most
slayers now will have to develop without the constant support
of a Watcher.
I think you're missing one point here: the idea of choice. They
never said that every girl who was now activated would have to
do her Slayerly duties. In fact, the fact that there are so many
of them now takes the burden off of just one girl and creates
the possibility of choice. Any one of them now could take time
off if they wanted to, take shifts, or not fight evil at all.
I don't think it's fair to say that Buffy did what the Shadowmen
did. They held a girl down and inserted a demonic spirit into
her. Buffy merely activated the latent power that all of them
already had; power that was already inside themselves, but they
could not access without her special brand of empowerment. Buffy
made it so that one of these girls wouldn't be fated the bear
the whole weight of the world on her shoulders. Instead, now it's
shared by multitudes of people. Which makes the burden of being
a Slayer...less of a burden.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Re:
Kudos to you and to shadowkat. -- CW, 12:05:46 07/01/03
Tue
I think it's still important that, even with the lessened burden
of slayage there still is the aspect of not having a choice of
whether you're a slayer or not. I think that Buffy's statement
to the potentials in the house, that they were faced with a choice,
rings fairly hollow. The choice for those girls was be a slayer
or they'd all die, which was pretty much always the 'choice' the
lone slayer had. We know from Get it Done, as KdS points out,
being made a slayer isn't necessarily a nice thing. Just because
only the First Slayer was tied down, doesn't mean that the mass
of new slayers aren't going to have problems they never asked
for. You're right, the burden of being a slayer, has been eased,
but I don't think all it's burdens, it's side-effects on those
girls who would have lived normal lives as unknown potentials
should be ignored.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Kudos to you and to shadowkat. -- Rob, 12:54:35
07/01/03 Tue
We know from Get it Done, as KdS points out, being made a slayer
isn't necessarily a nice thing. Just because only the First Slayer
was tied down, doesn't mean that the mass of new slayers aren't
going to have problems they never asked for. You're right, the
burden of being a slayer, has been eased, but I don't think all
it's burdens, it's side-effects on those girls who would have
lived normal lives as unknown potentials should be ignored.
I don't think "Get It Done" ranks in the same category,
since in that case, an extra external demonic force was going
to be added to Buffy, making her probably completely inhuman.
See, I saw this from the opposite direction. Not that it isn't
fair that these girls are being given new powers that might change
their lives, but that it wasn't fair before that all of these
girls had the potential for this great power but were never able
to access it before. In the end, the biggest indication that the
Slayer power is no longer coming from darkness is the fact that
Willow's hair turned white, and she was filled with ecstacy as
the spell was cast. By spreading the power, IMO, Buffy took what
could be a dark thing and made it something bright and beautiful.
The darkness of the Slayer was that she always had to be alone,
on the outskirts of society, never fully participating...Now the
Slayers have plenty of company, are not by themselves, and further
permeate all walks of society and life. I think if anything Buffy
at the end learned the lesson that being the Slayer can be an
inspiring thing and does have to alienate her from others. She
practically brings the whole world together by spreading her power
and knowledge to them. Also, with one of the Hellmouth closed,
and hundreds if not thousands of Slayers in the world now, the
scales are tipped in the Forces of Good's favor. Not likely that,
for a while at least, there will be much demon activity for these
girls to worry about. If Buffy could create a whole army of Slayers,
most demons would probably be more intimidated than ever to cause
trouble.
Before, these girls all had this power, but it was being kept
from them. Now that, at birth, the power is just given to them,
they can really decide for themselves how to use it, if they even
want to use it at all.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Slayerdom and Feminist Power -- Plin, 13:00:43 07/01/03
Tue
You're right, the burden of being a slayer, has been eased,
but I don't think all it's burdens, it's side-effects on those
girls who would have lived normal lives as unknown potentials
should be ignored.
But isn't this a lot like arguing that women are better off if
they are kept in ignorance, unaware that they themselves hold
the power to overcome their societally imposed limitations? Sure,
it may be a burden to choose to fight, choose to "stand up".
Having that choice, though, is key, as is the hope that many will
choose to access that power and use it to fight evil and oppression.
That way, even those who decide not to engage personally in the
battle still benefit from the work of those who do.
I think we are repeatedly shown in the Jossverse that "there
is no rest", that personal choice and free will are crucial
and that they never, ever end. Good is a constant battle. Jasmine
allows everyone to remain in a blissful state of submissiveness,
because she takes away their power of choice. Angel says, "Isn't
it a relief? The constant questioning it's finally over."
In real life, the constant questioning is never over, unless
we just give up. Buffy is the anti-Jasmine, she puts the choice
back where before it had been taken away.
Being made a Slayer may not be a "nice" thing, but any
activist role in society is going to be a struggle. There can
be joy in fighting the good fight, too, especially when the burden
is shared by many. Look at the difference in Vi, when she becomes
empowered and announces, "These guys are dust." This
is the same girl who was cowering in Spike's grasp just a few
weeks earlier.
These girls are never going to have the problem Buffy did, that
no one else could understand what it meant to be the Slayer. I
don't see how that can possibly be a bad thing. Not an easy thing,
no, but things worth achieving are never easy.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Well said. -- Arethusa, 13:29:48 07/01/03 Tue
The key is that the decision is now where it belongs-the potential
gets to make up her own mind, instead of a Watcher deciding for
her. And many, many girls would not see more power as a source
of strife-it could be the power they need to survive a harsh life.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Slayerdom and Feminist Power -- CW, 16:54:25
07/01/03 Tue
Using the phrase 'Feminist Power' in your title and terms like
'activist role' in the body of your post show you have a investment
in viewing BtVS in a particular light. There is nothing wrong
with that, and forgive me if it sounded like I was saying it was
impossible to make perfectly good sense out of Chosen given that
slant.
But, being a good skeptic means not being content with whatever
is handed to you. You have to look into the whys and wherefores.
I think a number of us were uncomfortable with the idea of so
much power being unleashed at once; certainly not because the
power was being wielded by women. we wouldn't be watching Buffy
at all if we were so petty to care about that. But, as even Willow
was explaining when she did the spell to light the barbecue in
Buffy vs Dracula, there has to be a balance somewhere. The same
thing happened in Superstar. Jonathan only becomes Mr. Perfect
by bringing something evil into the world. At the beginning of
season six an evil being is brought into the world a result of
Buffy's ressurection. Beljoxa's eye tells us that there was an
instability that the First Evil could exploit because of Buffy's
continued existence as a second slayer. But, then suddenly, it's
okay for there to be hundreds of slayers at once, and that there
will be no repercussions? It flies in the face of everything we've
been told. There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeing Chosen
as a happy ending for Buffy, and even a victory for feminism if
that's what you are looking for. But if you wanted a good place
to continue the story, I guarantee, the unseen repercussions of
this mass creation of slayers would be a productive place to start.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Maybe they wanted a good story arc for books and
movies -- Doug, 20:40:02 07/01/03 Tue
Willow's spell may very well have majorly frelled over the world.
With the demon essence stuff now co-existing in so many different
bodies this could have had serious consequences that go far beyond
the dager a few rogue new slayers on the block could cause.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Slayerdom and Feminist Power -- Yellow
Bear, 22:00:39 07/01/03 Tue
Call me silly but the instability in the slayer line is what the
whole thing turns on. The First wants to use it to wipe out the
Slayers once & for all but Buffy uses that instability to create
a legion of Slayers. This does disrupt the balance but it allows
the balance to fall on the side of the right. Perhaps this would
be a good place to continue the story but ultimately, BTVS is
a metaphor & theme driven show not a show driven by plot dynamics
(see X-Files) and as a metaphor, there is no better way to end
the series.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Slayerdom and Feminist Power -- I
agree, and it doesn't even have to be the end., 23:12:57 07/01/03
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Slayerdom and Feminist Power -- Plin, 23:02:42
07/01/03 Tue
Using the phrase 'Feminist Power' in your title and terms like
'activist role' in the body of your post show you have a investment
in viewing BtVS in a particular light.
Not really, but I think it's part of the message Joss is going
for. I think he has consistently advocated what we might call
"personal activism": not for any higher agenda (can't
trust the PTB), but because of the existentialist notion that
each individual has a personal responsibility to live and make
choices in such a way as to make the world a better place. What
is it Angel tells Connor in Home? "We live as though
the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be."
On Buffy, there's a feminist twist to it, on AtS there's
not, but the essential message is the same.
You have to look into the whys and wherefores. I think a number
of us were uncomfortable with the idea of so much power being
unleashed at once; certainly not because the power was being wielded
by women. we wouldn't be watching Buffy at all if we were so petty
to care about that.
I'm not accusing anyone of anti-feminism. "So much power
being released at once" is, I think, supposed to represent
awareness. Buffy was the "Chosen One", the one who knew
what went bump in the night, the one empowered to fight it, live
an alienating existence and, ultimately, die for it. The only
way she can really hope to make the floods roll back is to stop
being the only aware one, the only empowered one. It's only a
scary thing for the evil, and for those who would rather be gatekeepers
of knowledge and awareness, like the defunct Watchers' Council.
Beljoxa's eye tells us that there was an instability that the
First Evil could exploit because of Buffy's continued existence
as a second slayer. But, then suddenly, it's okay for there to
be hundreds of slayers at once, and that there will be no repercussions?
Of course they will be repercussions, but isn't the point of the
scythe and White Willow (and even the Softball Girl montage) to
show that the repercussions don't have to be negative? Originally
the Shadow Men decided there was to be one girl in all the world.
Buffy subverted that, by having enough ties to the world to bring
her back, and then there were two. That does create an instability,
because it spreads awareness and power and is suddenly a threat
to the power structures that have grown up around the Slayer and
whose existence depends on maintaining the same. When things change
significantly there is fear, and the First Evil's main gig is
to exploit fear, so it moves right in.
Buffy finds a way to take this instability and turn it into a
good thing, so that what is really threatened is Evil: they don't
have to let their fear keep them down.
But if you wanted a good place to continue the story, I guarantee,
the unseen repercussions of this mass creation of slayers would
be a productive place to start.
I agree, but I think we have very different ideas of the form
that story would take.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Slayerdom and Feminist Power -- MaeveRigan,
06:25:17 07/02/03 Wed
I agree with Plin, and also point out that most people seem to
have forgotten the statement by Dawn ("Watcher, Jr."),
with which Willow agrees, that "We'll have to find"
the new Slayers.
So we know the girls won't be just wandering randomly chaotically
destroying things--a new "order" is being created, one
that we can hope will integrate the best of the female Guardians
and the male-centered Watchers' Council.
Here's another concept: many want to analyze the "share the
power" spell from a strict "scientific" magic approach.
Anyone consider the possibility that it might not be "normal"
magic? Look how differently it worked from Willow's other spells--no
incantation, no drawing power from another person (as in the GiD
portal spell), the power in the scythe itself was not diminished,
no darkness. It's like love--the more you give, the more you have,
or at least you don't lose any. (Apologies if that sounds sappy.)
I have no problem with that.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Beautiful! -- Rob, 06:54:36
07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Slayerdom and Feminist Power
-- Plin, 07:10:54 07/02/03 Wed
It doesn't sound sappy to me, but if you prefer you can switch
to knowledge instead: another thing that multiplies the more it's
shared, and can be freely given away without diminishing the original
stores.
I like to think of the final "sharing the power" scene
as a bit of both, knowledge and love. Buffy went to the Shadow
Men seeking knowledge, and they refused to give it to her (in
any useful form, anyway). They were still trying to exercise control,
and she had to go in search of it elsewhere. Love was what Buffy
had closed herself off from, at the very least since her return
from he-eaven, and she had to find it again before she could truly
be empowered: first the ability to love herself, then reconnecting
with her friends and family.
Love and knowledge were the source of her real power, in the end,
and giving them away through the scythe just made them all stronger.
See, now that's sappy! ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Should have read this before
posting -- KdS, 07:37:18 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> It's my fault: I have yet
to master the Art of the Meaningful Subject Line -- Plin,
07:49:02 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> And also knowledge -- KdS, 07:36:11
07/02/03 Wed
Which can be transferred to others without draining the original
owner.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> That was great, Plin! -- ponygirl, 07:07:45 07/02/03
Wed
Ducking in quickly to throw in some praise and also...
In the midst of all the ideas of free will and choice in the Buffyverse
it's easy to forget another message that keeps coming up - that
we cannot choose the hand we're dealt. No one chooses to be born
a Slayer, or an ordinary person, or with blue eyes or brown, but
what we do with all of these uncontrollable factors is how we
define ourselves. There is a reason that the girls were called
Potentials - a word which speaks to me of bringing out what is
already inside rather than being given something as a gift.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Thanks (blushing), and I absolutely agree about
the meaning of Potential. -- Plin, 07:14:25 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> A whole series of excellent posts, Plin -- Sophist,
08:10:37 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Thanks! I'm normally more of a lurker--not sure
what got into me today. -- Plin,
09:04:08 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Some really good stuff, that's what.
-- fresne, 09:47:57 07/02/03 Wed
You hit on a number of things that I really like.
"Buffy was the "Chosen One", the one who knew what
went bump in the night, the one empowered to fight it, live an
alienating existence and, ultimately, die for it. The only way
she can really hope to make the floods roll back is to stop being
the only aware one, the only empowered one. It's only a scary
thing for the evil, and for those who would rather be gatekeepers
of knowledge and awareness, like the defunct Watchers' Council."
Yes, exactly. Knowledge is power and all that.
and,
"Of course they will be repercussions, but isn't the point
of the scythe and White Willow (and even the Softball Girl montage)
to show that the repercussions don't have to be negative?"
I can't help but think of the repercussions of the sun shining
in the sky. Life. Death. A little sunburn.
I really like the parallel that you're drawing between power and
love. Power being not finite, but infinite and infinitely sharable.
The idea that there can be a multiplicity of winners.
Sappy, yes. no. Interesting word to consider in this discussion
of the feminine, the masculine, the other. That desire to say,
"All we need is love." and then backtrack with a brief
quip of, "Oh, the humanity of it." Sappy. Sap. Blood.
What makes us alive. Other than dead. If you prick me, do I not
leak.
Although, I would argue that Buffy has been gradually closing
herself off to love since the series beginning. A necessary protection.
A wall. And now at this end, time to stop playing wall.
And once Buffy could allow herself to love herself, to forgive
herself, that allows for love and forgiveness to the world that
choose her. Kept choosing to bring her back. To burden her with
power. Knowledge. All that love. To admit to being the moon. Reflect
back the light of the sun.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Buffy's emotional closure -- Plin, 10:03:12 07/02/03
Wed
Although, I would argue that Buffy has been gradually closing
herself off to love since the series beginning. A necessary protection.
A wall. And now at this end, time to stop playing wall.
Funny, isn't it? There's that scene in What's My Line, Part
2 with Kendra:
Kendra: Emotions are weakness, Buffy. You shouldn't entertain
dem.
Buffy: Kendra, my emotions give me power. They're total
assets!
She knew it even then, but knowing it and living it are two different
things. Being the Slayer was wearing, and her form of self-defense
was to gradually take the hedgehog approach: curl up tight and
keep a prickly exterior. She had to find her way back to a place
where she could see her emotions as assets, not a vulnerability.
That's the only way to be in charge of the Paradiso, of
course... oh, wait. Wrong epic work. I'm still getting her mixed
up with Beatrice; damn that moldy European bread! ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's emotional closure
-- MaeveRigan, 10:23:25 07/02/03 Wed
Paradiso! Cool! Because, of course, "it's all connected"
to "the love that moves the sun and the other stars."
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Buffy the hedgehog - Does she
have to die her hair blue and other questions? -- fresne,
11:05:13 07/02/03 Wed
Well, you know how it is, you're halfway through the journey of
your life, doing your own thing, when you realize that the true
way has been lost and you are alone in a dark and scary wood.
What fear! What terror! What is this forest muck doing to my stylish,
yet affordable boots? Eww. Did I just step on a Banana slug? Ick!
The beauty is that Buffy is both Beatrice & Dante. Simultaneously,
lost and guiding. Or is it the confusion of it? Blind groping
towards new ways of seeing. Imagining. Third Eye Seeing.
Cause, yeah, the sun and the moon, Paradisio was totally where
I was going with that. Although, less ruling, more sitting on
the petals of God. Or was it swimming in the river of God. Or
was it shimmering on the three giant rainbows of God. It's all
connected somehow.
Dante, dude was trippin on love. Damn cool mass hallucinogenic
psychic vibe inducing bread. Just as long as I don't wander across
off board posts where you parallel Spike with Elizabeth Bennett
and mumble, mumble Shakespeare, I'm not going worry too much.
Eyes new plin posting lurker speculatively.
And randomly, going in another direction. All of a sudden, I think
of the George MacDonald (?) book, that was a sequel to the Princess
and the Goblin. The Princess and Curdie (?). Where Curdie, the
miner lad, goes to the city where the Princess is. But first,
since he has grown hard and calloused, he must stick his hand
in a magic fire. Burn away the protective bits, so that his hand
is soft and vulnerable. And now when he touches people, he can
feel their true selves. Is open to possibilities. Blah, blah,
upbeat post conclusion.
Go, ye and lurk no more. And that goes for all you other actually
quite brilliant, but hiding your freaking lights under bushels
lurkers.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy the hedgehog
- Does she have to dye her hair blue and other questions?
-- Plin, 11:39:25 07/02/03 Wed
Well, you know how it is, you're halfway through the journey
of your life, doing your own thing, when you realize that the
true way has been lost and you are alone in a dark and scary wood.
What fear! What terror! What is this forest muck doing to my stylish,
yet affordable boots? Eww. Did I just step on a Banana slug? Ick!
Abandon all hope, ye who live not in the vicinity of a really
good mall. And are condemned to do your own laundry, which is
the circle Dante forgot the first time 'round. Huge oversight.
Eyes new plin posting lurker speculatively.
(Bats eyelashes and adopts most ingenuous expression.)
You see, the joy of lurking is that one can be a person of mystery
and intrigue. Familiarity breeds contempt etc. etc.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> G. Macdonald -- MaeveRigan,
11:47:00 07/02/03 Wed
The Princess and Curdie is brilliant; much better than
the P & the Goblin. Fabulous imagery of the weird beasts,
people who are monsters at heart, monsters who are kindhearted
children, the princess's grandmother who is not your average fairy,
but something like the moon/Mary/Artemis/Aphrodite all rolled
up in one. It's one of his best, along with The Light Princess
(which is funnier).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Take notes, plin...THAT'S
a good post title! ;o) -- Rob, 11:47:32 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Scribbling furiously,
here. I cannot yet aspire to such greatness. -- Plin, 12:04:39
07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, loved Sonic.
Definite parallels with Gibon's Rise and Fall, Sorrows Werther,
Paradise Lost -- fresneWhat Voynak de-aah! Indescribable
horror, yada yada, 12:08:53 07/02/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Some really great stuff in this thread
-- Rahael, 17:35:43 07/02/03 Wed
That's been percolating in my mind all day. Just adding some thoughts
here because I was so taken with Fresne turning sappy into the
sap of life. Damn, that's good!
Some of the percolating thoughts ended up in my reply to Arethusa
in the Book Melee thread (Are you ready to be Strong?). I guess
in one way, there are things in S7 I can salvage for my inspiration.
Chosen is right up there. What I was thinking also was that in
a meta way, Sunnydale exists because Buffy is there. Kept all
to herself, her power simply kept her in Sunnydale, imprisoned.
Sunnydale (and indeed, the show, BtVS) exists because she is the
one girl in all the world. But when the power is shared, all through
the world, Sunnydale collapses, and the world lies open for the
Scoobies. Just as Sunnydale High had to be destroyed before they
could leave and move on.
The horizons open, not just for all the Potentials, but for the
Scooby gang too. The more power Buffy gives away, the more she
gets back.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Some really great stuff in
this thread -- Rob, 22:41:20 07/02/03 Wed
hat I was thinking also was that in a meta way, Sunnydale exists
because Buffy is there. Kept all to herself, her power simply
kept her in Sunnydale, imprisoned. Sunnydale (and indeed, the
show, BtVS) exists because she is the one girl in all the world.
But when the power is shared, all through the world, Sunnydale
collapses, and the world lies open for the Scoobies.
Brilliant! So when the question has been asked whether Buffy causes
the vamps to appear (in WSWB, we hear that there were no vamps
all summer, until the very night Buffy arrives and one attacks
Xander and Willow), perhaps, in a metaphorical way, the answer
is yes. Sunnydale represents all the childhood monsters, fears,
insecurities in her and the Scoobies' lives, percolating beneath
the surface. On a metaphorical level then, the monsters do indeed
exist because Buffy is there. The destruction of the town that
she basically grew up in shatters all of those monsters for once
and for good. They are no longer tied down to these old fears
and insecurities. The world is now their oyster.
Oh, btw, I'm glad that with all your problems with S7, you actually
did end up watching and enjoying Chosen. At least the last ep
was able to salvage, or at least do a little bit to make up for
some of the negative feelings you had about a lot of the other
eps this year.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks...I must confess
-- Rahael, 03:29:40 07/03/03 Thu
however, that I actually haven't seen Chosen yet, just
approve of it in a benign, ignorant, haven't-seen-the-ep kind
of way.
I dunno. Maybe for all my objections to some of the themes of
S7, I'd have watched enthralled if I actually felt I wanted to
see what happened next. It's not like I have to 'approve' of art
in order to find it entertaining or inspirational.
Or maybe watching Lies was such a shock that it really did throw
me out so much that I didn't want to enter the Buffyverse again.
I don't think I've ever had such a visceral reaction to any episode
before.
I think I can only explain it by saying that it made me feel lessened
as a person somehow. Weird. Can't really articulate it more than
that. Actually JM said something in the Nikki's coat thread. That
what was really interesting was that Wood took it, by the end
of the ep, and the rest of the season. For me that silence is
profoundly disruptive. Or maybe I'm just trying to intellectualise
a reaction I can't adequately explain to myself.
Mostly, the ep made me feel really really sad. I guess I never
found the Buffyverse bleak or depressing before (not even in the
Body, or Dead Things). I've always found it cathartic and inspirational.
But that ep twisted my perspective until it became claustrophobic.
Maybe seeing Chosen is the way to get rid of that.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It might be.
-- Rob, 08:00:28 07/03/03 Thu
Since you already know what is happening in the eps leading to
"Chosen," it might be a good idea just to see "Chosen,"
just so the Buffyverse leaves the airwaves with a better taste
in your mouth than Lies gave you. If it is any consolation, also,
the events of Lies are pretty much not mentioned again on the
show. The lack of follow-up is of course one of the major flaws
of the season, but it may work here in your case, because unfortunately
for the writing but perhaps fortunately for you, you don't have
to be reminded of it after that episode.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, actually...
-- Rob, 08:02:36 07/03/03 Thu
...to be fair, it is mentioned in the very next episode, but more
in a Buffy/Wood reconciliationy way. Not anything else.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's
mentioned in Dirty Girls and Empty Places. (spoilers for those
two) -- s'kat, 23:44:41 07/04/03 Fri
I think they figured it was resolved in Empty Places
and Dirty Girls with the following events:
Dirty Girls:
1. Spike tells Faith why Giles and Buffy aren't getting along
- "on account of giles and wood conspiring to kill me"
2. Buffy sees Wood - and he fires her, saying she has the mission.
(Suggest fast-forwarding over all Wood scenes
and you'll be fine ;-) That's what I did.).
Empty Places:
1. Spike asks Giles if he is sending him to his death.
Giles says no, this is an actual mission (of course it's one in
the garlic capital of the world but since Giles knows Spike has
a yen for pizza and flowering onions and buffalo wings - we can
safely assume that Giles didn't see this as much of a problem.
)
2. Buffy accuses Giles of trying to remove Spike again.
(Which leads to Giles supporting her being kicked out...I presume.)
That's it. ME probably decided that Buffy getting kicked out of
the house was the resolution of LMPTM and Buffy coming back into
the housed in EoD was the resolution of that. So we really don't
get any more mention of it.
And 0 of Nikki or any other past slayer.
I suggest you watch End of Days - Chosen. The previously seen
will give you the rest.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll let you
know what I think Rob! -- Rahael, 09:17:42 07/03/03 Thu
Don't know exactly when I'll get another chance to see it, unless
Yab and KdS want to do a repeat evening of the two finales.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That
can happen :-) -- yabyumpan, 07:11:54 07/04/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow,
you're like the Buffy Godmother! -- Rob, 09:27:05 07/04/03
Fri
[> Sort of burnt out at
the moment -- KdS, 01:48:33 07/02/03 Wed
I'm pretty much in "Fire bad." mode at the moment, but
I'd just like to say that everyone's responses so far have been
great, especially some of the stuff about the mixed messages in
Buffy's more "personal" life.
[> [> I'd like to echo
the thanks to everyone on this thread -- Caroline, 08:20:51
07/03/03 Thu
I've been unable to make it to the board lately and hate to miss
all the chocolately goodness, particularly in this fabulous thread!
Thanks to everyone for their terrific contributions and I hope
to have some thoughts to contribute when I return to the on-line
world next week. Happy July 4th all!
More July 2003 | Current
board