Rambling post about many things...
Jun. 3rd, 2025 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatToday, I wandered through the Urban Farm at the foot of Manhattan, in Battery Park. I also sat in the park on a chair on the grass beneath the trees, watching children play. It was a beautiful day, with a slight haze, most likely from the Canadian Wild Fires in the North.
It was a frustrating day, so I needed a break from it. As tempting as it is to regale you all with the details? I'll refrain.
Some bad news? Dochawk, you may or may not remember him from the ATPO_BTVS and ATS Fan Discussion Board? His two female cousins were victims of the flame-thrower attack in Boulder, Colorado. One was released from the hospital with minor injuries, but the other one is still there - in intensive care. (I don't know if anyone has ever seen someone with 3rd degree burns? I did this week - a man on the subway on Monday, walked through the train begging, with pictures of how to heal burns. He was covered with severe scaring on his face, to the point in which he didn't have much of a face. I kept stealing glances and quickly looking away. It will haunt me for a while.) Somehow it makes it all worse - when you know of folks affected by it? I had the same thing happen with the kidnappings in Israel by Hammas, a friend of my brothers' (who I'd met more than once) had various family members kidnapped, several were killed and the rest were never returned. Meanwhile one of the Ministers at my church lost several family members on the Palestinian side. Six degrees of separation. They are treating what happened in Colorado - as a hate crime/act of domestic terrorism (although it appears to have been done by an Egyptian National).
I'm trying to ignore the news for the most part - but keep stumbling upon it, whether I want to or not. Thank you, information age.
Been comforting myself by watching and listening to James Marsters Q&A's on youtube. I have a serious crush on that actor. I have crushes on several actors. Cillian Murphy is another one, so too is Hugh Jackman, Robert Downy Jr, David Tennant, Claudia Black, also Juliet Landau, Helen Mirren, Emma Thompson, Viola Davis, Angela Basset, Jonathon Groff....I am notorious for actor crushes.
Marsters said something interesting in regards to a question about Whedon and separating art from the artist. He explained that his favorite sculptor was Rodin but the man, while a brilliant sculptor, was a horrible human being and not someone he'd have ever wanted to meet in person. If he were to throw out Whedon, he'd have to throw out Rodin, and he doesn't want to do that. He feels that Whedon's art was his way of being a better person - that he tried to express through his art a better way, or to comment on his own horrid behavior and that of others. It's not saying that Whedon wasn't horrible or he isn't upset by it, in anyway. Also, he said that he supports the other's truths, even if it wasn't his and he really had no direct experience of it - partly because Whedon didn't really direct him that much if at all, and he rarely saw him on set. And for the most part, Whedon had always been kind to him, but that's not to say he wasn't horrible to others.
Having had my own experience with bullies in school and the work place, I agree. People are like it or not, more than one thing, and can't be easily labeled or pigeonholed. They are frustratingly complicated. Someone could be lovely to you and horrible to your next door neighbor or co-worker. Or really nice to you one moment and really nasty the next. People are often like that. The trick is to demonize the action not the person, and this is REALLY hard to do. It's easier with some people than others. And to remember that most people are capable of doing wonderful and horrible things, often at the same time. I've seen it.
At the end of the day, as Marsters articulated, we're all human and deeply flawed at that. It doesn't excuse the actions. But he tries to keep that in mind, and tries to do better each day.
In other words, he can separate the art from the artist. For myself? It largely depends on who is making money off of the art and what they are using it for? Whedon isn't making any money off of Buffy or Angel, nor is he using the royalties that he receives (which are minor) to hurt anyone.
So, no issues there. JK Rowlings on the other hand - is making lots of money off of Harry Potter, and uses that money to fund her crusade against trans, so I don't purchase or buy or support anything of hers any longer. Same with Orson Scott Card - he uses his royalties to fund homophobic causes. Like I said? It depends. Gaiman to my knowledge isn't using his proceeds to hurt others - he has a lot of positive charities. So he may have a horrible dark side, but he's not actively using funds to hurt people on a large scale nor is Amanda Palmer. I think it's important to see that?
Been rewatching Buffy as a comfort show - and it still holds up, and rather well at that. I just saw I Only Have Eyes for You - it's an episode that airs late in S2. I'd forgotten most of it. And forgot how good it is. The first few times I'd seen it - I hadn't thought much of it, but now, it resonates in a different way? The writers are commenting on multiple things - and it subverts various tropes. It's actually surprising the network let them do it - back in the 90s.
The Monster of the Week - is a disgruntled ghost, or a pair of disgruntled ghosts - who are forced to repeat their trauma every year around the Sadie Hawkins Day Dance multiple times. Often killing people in the process. Their trauma is in 1955, a male student and a female teacher who was at least twenty years older, fell in love. When she tried to break things off with him - he killed her and then himself.
The B plot-line or serial arc, is Buffy who fell in love with a man a lot older than her - Angel. After sleeping with him, he lost his soul and became evil, and she blames herself for costing him his soul. Basically she broke his curse - because he had a moment of pure happiness, and wasn't suffering.
The writers comment on the taboo - of the older vs. younger, and the idea of love as an obsession, and the need to forgive oneself. Of the two characters - Buffy identifies with the male student who fell for his much older teacher and killed her - destroying her. Killing her in the same place Angel kills Buffy's favorite teacher. It has multiple layers this story and it's well written, with a ghostly song.
Even the three vampire villains are utilized to great effect. Once Angel is no longer possessed by the female teacher's ghost, he is furious - because he was forced to feel love. He washes and needs a vile kill. Both Dru and Spike ask why? And we he states - he was tainted by Love or possessed by it. They share a look, and Dru states with a knowing smile to Spike, "Poor Angel". For they see love as a strength, a reason for being, and Angelus sees it as a curse to be wiped clean.
It's a fascinating episode and everything works, the writing, the music, everything. And it subverts the whole male female older younger trope - showing that it isn't just older man/younger woman, it can be the opposite. And in the 1950s, it's the older woman, younger man, with the older woman being the innocent victim, while now it is the younger woman, older man. It forces the audience to question its own prejudices and views on the trope, and how it views love or romance.
Is love a curse? Or is obsessive love the curse? Or is it a blessing? And what about forgiveness? Do we forgive ourselves for our actions? Is forgiveness something that is only provided as a reward or deserved? Or is it what Giles says - an act of mercy that is provided to move on and to heal? Does Buffy need to forgive herself or Angel or both?
And how about Spike and Dru - do they need to forgive Angel? Or themselves for loving Angel, when he consistently betrays them? Or each other for betraying each other? Is their love real or obsession? Is it taboo?
The writers don't really provide any answers, which is what makes the episode so startlingly good.
***
I didn't sleep well last night. Ached. And I ache now. Digestive issues, I think? Although did many things in the hopes of counter-acting them. My failing was giving in and having ice cream (Malawi Coffee and Rose Almond both Indian flavors and locally made). I did everything else right - baked salmon with zuccini and summer squash, and lots of water.
Oh well, it is what it is. Hopefully I can get the restless legs to calm down enough to sleep.
Here's a nice photo to round out this long rambling post.
It was a frustrating day, so I needed a break from it. As tempting as it is to regale you all with the details? I'll refrain.
Some bad news? Dochawk, you may or may not remember him from the ATPO_BTVS and ATS Fan Discussion Board? His two female cousins were victims of the flame-thrower attack in Boulder, Colorado. One was released from the hospital with minor injuries, but the other one is still there - in intensive care. (I don't know if anyone has ever seen someone with 3rd degree burns? I did this week - a man on the subway on Monday, walked through the train begging, with pictures of how to heal burns. He was covered with severe scaring on his face, to the point in which he didn't have much of a face. I kept stealing glances and quickly looking away. It will haunt me for a while.) Somehow it makes it all worse - when you know of folks affected by it? I had the same thing happen with the kidnappings in Israel by Hammas, a friend of my brothers' (who I'd met more than once) had various family members kidnapped, several were killed and the rest were never returned. Meanwhile one of the Ministers at my church lost several family members on the Palestinian side. Six degrees of separation. They are treating what happened in Colorado - as a hate crime/act of domestic terrorism (although it appears to have been done by an Egyptian National).
I'm trying to ignore the news for the most part - but keep stumbling upon it, whether I want to or not. Thank you, information age.
Been comforting myself by watching and listening to James Marsters Q&A's on youtube. I have a serious crush on that actor. I have crushes on several actors. Cillian Murphy is another one, so too is Hugh Jackman, Robert Downy Jr, David Tennant, Claudia Black, also Juliet Landau, Helen Mirren, Emma Thompson, Viola Davis, Angela Basset, Jonathon Groff....I am notorious for actor crushes.
Marsters said something interesting in regards to a question about Whedon and separating art from the artist. He explained that his favorite sculptor was Rodin but the man, while a brilliant sculptor, was a horrible human being and not someone he'd have ever wanted to meet in person. If he were to throw out Whedon, he'd have to throw out Rodin, and he doesn't want to do that. He feels that Whedon's art was his way of being a better person - that he tried to express through his art a better way, or to comment on his own horrid behavior and that of others. It's not saying that Whedon wasn't horrible or he isn't upset by it, in anyway. Also, he said that he supports the other's truths, even if it wasn't his and he really had no direct experience of it - partly because Whedon didn't really direct him that much if at all, and he rarely saw him on set. And for the most part, Whedon had always been kind to him, but that's not to say he wasn't horrible to others.
Having had my own experience with bullies in school and the work place, I agree. People are like it or not, more than one thing, and can't be easily labeled or pigeonholed. They are frustratingly complicated. Someone could be lovely to you and horrible to your next door neighbor or co-worker. Or really nice to you one moment and really nasty the next. People are often like that. The trick is to demonize the action not the person, and this is REALLY hard to do. It's easier with some people than others. And to remember that most people are capable of doing wonderful and horrible things, often at the same time. I've seen it.
At the end of the day, as Marsters articulated, we're all human and deeply flawed at that. It doesn't excuse the actions. But he tries to keep that in mind, and tries to do better each day.
In other words, he can separate the art from the artist. For myself? It largely depends on who is making money off of the art and what they are using it for? Whedon isn't making any money off of Buffy or Angel, nor is he using the royalties that he receives (which are minor) to hurt anyone.
So, no issues there. JK Rowlings on the other hand - is making lots of money off of Harry Potter, and uses that money to fund her crusade against trans, so I don't purchase or buy or support anything of hers any longer. Same with Orson Scott Card - he uses his royalties to fund homophobic causes. Like I said? It depends. Gaiman to my knowledge isn't using his proceeds to hurt others - he has a lot of positive charities. So he may have a horrible dark side, but he's not actively using funds to hurt people on a large scale nor is Amanda Palmer. I think it's important to see that?
Been rewatching Buffy as a comfort show - and it still holds up, and rather well at that. I just saw I Only Have Eyes for You - it's an episode that airs late in S2. I'd forgotten most of it. And forgot how good it is. The first few times I'd seen it - I hadn't thought much of it, but now, it resonates in a different way? The writers are commenting on multiple things - and it subverts various tropes. It's actually surprising the network let them do it - back in the 90s.
The Monster of the Week - is a disgruntled ghost, or a pair of disgruntled ghosts - who are forced to repeat their trauma every year around the Sadie Hawkins Day Dance multiple times. Often killing people in the process. Their trauma is in 1955, a male student and a female teacher who was at least twenty years older, fell in love. When she tried to break things off with him - he killed her and then himself.
The B plot-line or serial arc, is Buffy who fell in love with a man a lot older than her - Angel. After sleeping with him, he lost his soul and became evil, and she blames herself for costing him his soul. Basically she broke his curse - because he had a moment of pure happiness, and wasn't suffering.
The writers comment on the taboo - of the older vs. younger, and the idea of love as an obsession, and the need to forgive oneself. Of the two characters - Buffy identifies with the male student who fell for his much older teacher and killed her - destroying her. Killing her in the same place Angel kills Buffy's favorite teacher. It has multiple layers this story and it's well written, with a ghostly song.
Even the three vampire villains are utilized to great effect. Once Angel is no longer possessed by the female teacher's ghost, he is furious - because he was forced to feel love. He washes and needs a vile kill. Both Dru and Spike ask why? And we he states - he was tainted by Love or possessed by it. They share a look, and Dru states with a knowing smile to Spike, "Poor Angel". For they see love as a strength, a reason for being, and Angelus sees it as a curse to be wiped clean.
It's a fascinating episode and everything works, the writing, the music, everything. And it subverts the whole male female older younger trope - showing that it isn't just older man/younger woman, it can be the opposite. And in the 1950s, it's the older woman, younger man, with the older woman being the innocent victim, while now it is the younger woman, older man. It forces the audience to question its own prejudices and views on the trope, and how it views love or romance.
Is love a curse? Or is obsessive love the curse? Or is it a blessing? And what about forgiveness? Do we forgive ourselves for our actions? Is forgiveness something that is only provided as a reward or deserved? Or is it what Giles says - an act of mercy that is provided to move on and to heal? Does Buffy need to forgive herself or Angel or both?
And how about Spike and Dru - do they need to forgive Angel? Or themselves for loving Angel, when he consistently betrays them? Or each other for betraying each other? Is their love real or obsession? Is it taboo?
The writers don't really provide any answers, which is what makes the episode so startlingly good.
***
I didn't sleep well last night. Ached. And I ache now. Digestive issues, I think? Although did many things in the hopes of counter-acting them. My failing was giving in and having ice cream (Malawi Coffee and Rose Almond both Indian flavors and locally made). I did everything else right - baked salmon with zuccini and summer squash, and lots of water.
Oh well, it is what it is. Hopefully I can get the restless legs to calm down enough to sleep.
Here's a nice photo to round out this long rambling post.
no subject
Date: 2025-06-04 01:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-06-04 07:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-06-04 09:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-06-04 01:26 pm (UTC)Except, there's plenty of others who echo Marsters on this. I don't know if you've ever worked for an abusive boss or in a toxic environment? But often the boss is different to different people. They may be abusive to one person but nice to another? It's never a black and white or clear cut situation.
Landau, Espenson, Day, Head, Denisof, Acker, Young, Dusku, Fillion, Torres, etc have nothing but kind things to say about Whedon. They didn't see the nasty behavior but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Marsters states he was rarely around Whedon. And Day says that Whedon was kind to her. Claudia Black who was in the Nevers - didn't see anything either.
He has previously spoken in detail of how much it traumatised him to have to act out the attempted rape on Buffy in "Seeing Red" - which was something for which Whedon was ultimately responsible.
That's the fandom interpretation and Whedon stated it - but, everyone else involved said otherwise. And the proof as it were is in the pudding? Marsters states that not everything in the scripts made it to the screen - due to the process. Whedon didn't write or direct the episode, he may have punched it up and agreed to the ideas, but he didn't write all of it. It was written by DeKnight and Espenson for the most part. Whedon wrote the Tara getting shot scene or worked on that. DeKnight did the bathroom scene and Spike, and Espenson did the Buffy/Warren scenes.
I think Whedon is given a bit too much credit for a lot of things? But at the end of the day - it was a collaborative television series with over 400 people involved working long hours.
Marsters says Whedon wasn't on set much at all in S6, and he didn't see him for the most part. He was rarely directed by Whedon. The scene was written by DeKnight, was Marti's idea, and it was directed by someone else. Whedon just signed off on Marti's idea - but he didn't direct, he didn't write it, and I think he just was involved in the editing, if that. Keep in mind he was busy with Firefly in S6. He would edit or punch up Buffy scripts on the set of Firefly.
No one person is ultimately responsible for a show like Buffy? It has over 400 people involved. It's not a book, and not a television show like True Detective or Fargo - where writers direct and write and have a lot more autonomy. This had 400 people involved.
no subject
Date: 2025-06-04 01:08 pm (UTC)I've told the story before of the guy I met who won a Nobel Prize for Literature. As a human being he was certainly no prize. I teased my professor-former girlfriend for doing a formal study of the guy's work, after he'd personally treated her very badly back when we were both in grad school. But I added to her that I knew full well you have to separate artists as people from their art. You can't always trust what people say about each other, and even if you know personally that the person was a jerk, their art can last longer than their crappy behavior. I don't care anymore what Whedon was like in the Buffy days. JKR is pushing sixty, and sixty years from now, no one but specialists will know that she isn't a role model now. Artists aren't the only of kind people who can get fat heads as they get adulation or get rich. It's just that people, especially younger people, don't understand that being an exceptional artist (musician, author, actor, director, painter etc.) is not the same thing as being a wonderful person.
no subject
Date: 2025-06-04 02:03 pm (UTC)I honestly think it depends on the situation? JKR wasn't an abusive boss, she's using the proceeds from her art and work to fund TERF or anti-Trans legislation. So, boycotting her - is really about boycotting her funding of TERF. Once she's dead, it may not matter unless her estate continues to fund it, which is possible. It's kind of similar to Orson Scott Card who was using proceeds from his work to fund homophobic legislation.
Whedon? He's fairly liberal and progressive in his views. Also he's been cancelled for the most part, so no longer working in Hollywood. His work unlike JKR is collaborative and requires other parties. Buffy and Angel were collaborative works with over 400 people involved. Also, he wasn't abusive to everyone - some people had no issues with him at all. And a lot of his behavior was in some respects the result of the industry and what it allowed and encouraged during a specific time period. Not to mention the insane long hours, low-budget, etc. He was a bully and unfortunately our society rewards bullies. (See Federal Government for an example).
Watching and enjoying Buffy or Angel or even Firefly, Dollhouse, the Avengers, Roseanne, and Agents of Shield - doesn't really benefit Whedon in any way. Nor can we really state that any of this works of art are clear examples of his behavior behind the scenes - since they were collaborative works with over 400 people involved. And, not all the actors/writers/directors experienced bullying behavior from Whedon. Espenson, Day, Acker, Marsters, Young, Head, Denisof, Hannigan, Torres, Fillion, Straight, and others were fine and had nothing but lovely things to say. This happens in work places. I had bosses who were nasty to me, but lovely to others. (shrugs)
Also like you stated above, someone can be an ass, but still create beautiful and engaging art. I knew a psychopath in prison who drew beautifully and wrote beautiful poetry. And I've known horrible artists that were lovely people?
no subject
Date: 2025-06-12 06:00 pm (UTC)"that he tried to express through his art a better way"
I know of at least one author (accused of abuse) of whom this might be true; one of their major characters is a reformed abuser. I think it's likely that a lot of authors - even those live run-of-the-mill lives - create characters/plots/themes as role models for themselves to live up to. I know that it's true for me.
I also agree with the distinction you make between wrong-doers who profit from their books and those who don't. But I also think there's a lot of ways to positively interact with books that don't require one to shell out additional money, beyond what one already paid pre-scandal. I think in particular of all those Harry Potter fix-it fanfics that removed the icky bits in the canon (such as the happy ending in a world where slavery continued). Or the adaptations of H. P. Lovecraft that attack racism. Those are powerful ways of saying, "See? You can have enjoyable literature without including bigotry."