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

[cjlasky.livejournal.com]

We need to make distinctions when arguing the finale of The Gift.

First, there is the matter of simple plot mechanics: are the events of this episode logical in the context of all previous events in this particular work of fiction? IMO, the naysayers might have a point here. Despite all the hints indicating a primal, blood bond between the Slayer and the Key, there is absolutely no supporting evidence from previous episodes guaranteeing that Buffy's sacrifice will work. Does Buffy feel, with metaphysical certainty, that it will work? Yes. And that should be good enough. But for this viewer, it seemed like a bit of a stretch then... and it kind of still does now.

Which brings us to the second part of the equation--whether Joss punked out on the audience by not allowing Buffy to a) kill Dawn or b) watch Dawn make the sacrifice herself.

This one is easy: no, no, and HELL no.

As you and others stated above, the entire run of BtVS was about Buffy rejecting binary options and finding a new way. The "kill Dawn or the universe dies" argument is given straight up by Giles--which is a dead giveaway, storywise. Even though we love our man in tweed, he's a Watcher, and they're not known for their flexibility. Giles kills Ben because he knows Buffy won't. She's a hero. Heroes find a way to protect life, no matter how impossible it may seem at the time. The logistics of Buffy's sacrifice may be dubious in my eyes, but the act itself is entirely consistent with everything Joss has told us about Buffy Anne Summers as a person.

And, given that, the whole argument over Joss' "obligation" to his fandom in this case is rendered absurd, if it wasn't absurd already. If the artist makes the point he wants to make, then it's up to the reader/viewer to agree or disagree with the statement... period. If I may be blunt? He don't owe anyone shit.

I've been reading more and more incidents of angry nerds outright telling creators what they can or can't do: the outcry against the Ghostbusters reboot (which I actually enjoyed); and just recently, a group of Steven Universe fans chased one of the series writers off Twitter because their particular 'ship hadn't materialized (yet).

What the hell?

I realize that with the internet, it's possible to interact with the creators of your favorite shows in ways you never could have dreamed of before. But this kind of cyberbullying is destructive to the creativity we supposedly admire in our artists.

You can have your opinions. You can bitch about storylines. Hell, write fanfic if you can't get what you want in the actual series. (God knows, there's probably a billion Ghostbusters fanfics with the original crew and enough Peridot/Amethyst shipper fics to fill a galaxy.)

But let the storytellers work, people.

Come on.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

I realize that with the internet, it's possible to interact with the creators of your favorite shows in ways you never could have dreamed of before. But this kind of cyberbullying is destructive to the creativity we supposedly admire in our artists.

An excellent point - I've seen people attacked on the internet for the crime of having an opinion, or being the wrong skin color, or not telling the story "they" wanted, and it's frightening. Every one has a platform now, and so many people use it to be mean and destructive.

I'm taken aback by the original essayist's notion that there is a story that they "deserve" and if they don't get it they are being cheated somehow. The entitlement of people nowadays is astonishing.