Troubling Buffy essay...found on pop matters site

[shadowkat]

Interesting perspective on Buffy's choice or according to Pop Matters avoidance of it in the Gift. Not sure I agree with any of it, but it is an interesting perspective all the same.

The writer seems to think that Buffy should have chosen to either kill Dawn or allow Dawn to make the final sacrifice in Chosen, and by not permitting Buffy to make that choice, the writers failed the viewers. That the viewers "deserved" to see Buffy choose to kill Dawn, and the writers copped out?

But, that's assuming the following:

1) That the choice to sacrifice oneself for the greater good isn't a choice but avoiding the situation, that it was indecisive or a cop out (I don't think that's true.)
2) That the correct choice is sacrificing someone else or the person responsible (I don't think this is true.)
3.) That the audience deserves a decisive choice? That sacrificing oneself isn't a decisive choice?? Or even noble? That it would have been more noble and decisive to kill Dawn? How very Machiavellian.
4.) Our choices define who we are absolutely? I don't know about that.

I don't know.

It's a more literal view of the episode than I perceived. There are no comments. So...

But what I found troubling about the writer's essay on the episode -- was the end comment:

Insofar as a story places the hero in a predicament, we deserve to witness her, or him, not only pushed to the boundaries, but also acting on those boundaries. Should the hero refuse to act on those boundaries, frozen with indecisiveness, he, or she, must afterwards contemplate their failure to act; they must confront self-doubt in realizing that, when it counted, their principles did not render one course of action superior to another.

This perspective, regardless of the story it is about, troubles me. I'm not sure the audience deserves anything. We, the listener or viewer or audience, makes a choice when we decide to watch/read/listen to another's story. But it is their story. It's a story that came from them. We make the choice to listen. And the story is not being written or shown to reinforce or validate our worldview or perspective, it's another person's perspective and world-view in which they are sharing with us. I think that by stating that we "deserve" something specific from the story - means we have stopped listening to it. We are instead listening to our own ego, our mind, our mental noise, and projecting that onto the story?

I'm also not sure you can accuse Buffy of being indecisive or not confronting her self-doubts afterwards - what was S6 about, if not confrontation of self-doubt? Also, it's pretty decisive to choose to sacrifice oneself. Taking one's own life is a decisive action with serious consequences.

Troubling essay. But then we do live in troubling times. (shrugs)

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

That's how I saw it as well.

I don't think it would have worked for Dawn to die, that sort of went against the thematic arc of the story, not to mention the story the writer was trying to convey. All the metaphors went against that.

I mean, the whole point of being the slayer is not to just "save the world" no matter the cost (which is the Watcher's world-view and clearly Pop Matters), but to save "innocent life" from demonic hordes. They repeat this constantly. That Buffy must not take a human life, and must save innocent life. And it is made clear that of everyone gathered in the group, Dawn is the most innocent. She's the human life that Buffy has been charged to protect.

It's not the same as Angel in S2 or Faith in S3 -- and even in those instances, Buffy goes out of her way to find other options. In fact, she doesn't kill Faith in S3, she feeds her own blood to Angel. And in S2, she sends Angelus to hell after he opened the portal, but tries frantically to stop him from opening it and prevent it. Also in both instances, they are directly responsible for bringing about the chaos. Neither are innocents. Both are actually sadistic killers.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Suran's argument also misses the whole point of Triangle. The "Sophie's Choice" Olaf offers Xander -- choose between his girlfriend and his best friend -- is structurally the same choice Giles offers Buffy in The Gift. In both cases, recognizing the "insane troll logic" is the whole point. You aren't actually bound by the choices offered, you can make others of your own.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agree - that's what I was trying to get at, I think.

We are not bound by the choices some authority dictates to us. That's what I liked about the show, actually, was how Buffy continuously found a third option or an option that was not on the table. She didn't limit herself to what the authority provided or taught. She thought outside the box and often lead with her heart.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

That's what I liked about the show, actually, was how Buffy continuously found a third option or an option that was not on the table. She didn't limit herself to what the authority provided or taught. She thought outside the box and often lead with her heart.

Exactly so - one of the most interesting things about Buffy as a character, to me, was that she continually found another way - through her intelligence, intuition, mercy, strength of character, stubbornness and sometimes just plain luck.

But I don't understand the essayist's points anyway.