That fan thing

[shadowkat]

To be honest, I've always been a little leery of identifying myself as a "fan" of anything. Not sure why. I think it's the fanatic aspect of the word that unnerves me. For you see - the obsessive aspect of myself is not one I like to stroke or endorse, so much as discourage. When I reacte obsessively to something, I start wondering why.

I'm thinking about this today due to three things I read. Two online - in scrollgirl and fresne's livejournals, where they kindly provided me with information on two of the huge fandom kerfuffles people on flist mentioned but provided vague info on, causing my curiousity hackles to rise. It's sort of like mentioning that there's a monster out there, but not providing any info on where, what it looks like and whether it hurt anyone. I'm find myself craning my neck going, what, where, how? Show me! If it weren't for scrollgirl and fresne, I would have remained perpetually at a loss, which might have been a good thing. Not sure. Not really sure why I'm so fascinated with weird fan behavior or social interaction - more so to be honest than the shows the behavior is associated with. The third, was an article in EW about Serenity - the up-coming Joss Whedon sci-fi. What was odd about the third, was that it was not a review or even a teaser so much as brief essay on how the film came about and how weird it was that it did. The essay did not show Whedon or the internet fans in the best light, in my opinion. But that might just be me.



Starting with third first - the writer notes in the Serenity article that the film is an oddity and a lot of heavy lifting was involved by Universal to sell it since the film is based on a "sci-fi Western in which cowboys giddyap on space frieghters, fire Winchesters, and curse so damned much. In Chinese. (In case you're wondering why Fox canceled the series after 11 low-rated epsidoes, now you know.)" [Heh. Okay that description is precisely one of the reasons I adored the series, because it was off-kilter and doing something off the beaten track. Completely non-formulae and innovative and hadn't been done before. You see shows like CSI and Law & ORder and Star-Gate bore me while shows like Firefly make me happy. I know I'm weird, but hey it does explain why I haven't seen any movies lately and am not watching TV tonight or most nights. Life would be so much easier if I liked the same things the majority did, wouldn't it?] The writer goes on to tell how Universal sold it by pre-screening it to Internet chatty fans. And since the reviews that popped up afterwards weren't bad - that helped.

Whedon meanwhile is described as being upset that he didn't get the tv show too. That he's experienced great loss in having the show cancelled early and how he can't handle loss well. "Nobody has felt more like Mal Reynolds than me" he quips in the interview. And I find myself wondering if this is how he reacted to Firefly being cancelled, how would he handle true loss? Which is silly, since he did lose his Mom. The article is written in a weird light - as if the writer is looking at Whedon and the fandom with a puzzeled snarky frown, not quite comprehending the appeal. The writer also focuses on how the fans got it made, the article in fact starts with: "There are several thousand reasons why the film Serenity is coming to a theater near you on Sept 30 and on this balmy San Diego evening in July, a couple hundred of them have just broken out in song. Some sport T-shirts that read JOSS WHEDON IS MY MASTER NOW. (Pop idolatry like this can happen when you make cult magnets like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel for a living.)" In short the writer hints if it weren't for these nutty fans there wouldn't be movie. We also get snatches of Whedon whining about how the film almost didn't get made, it got postponed, and the show was cancelled. Which is a little off-putting, considering how hard it is to get a successful tv series made or a movie, most people don't get the chance, most of Whedon's own writers have tried numerous times and haven't gotten more than a shot at being on someone else's ship. Read tightropegirl's journal for insight into this. It's sort of hard to feel much sympathy for Whedon - who is a millionaire, has a child, a wife, is writing two comic book series, and directing Wonder Woman. Plus had not one but two cult hit series. And an Oscar nomination for a script. Gee, I wish my life was that bad. But, but... as a friend told me recently the problem with worrying over what we haven't got or what we lost or envy is there will always be something.

What's most interesting about the essay though is how much the "fans" influenced the studio in getting the film made. And Whedon. Whedon mentions how he couldn't have done it without them, how they galvanized him. There's an odd symbiotic relationship being noted in the article. One that reminds me a bit of the one between some fanfic writers and readers or novelists and readers, or what that one poster who wanted her fans to pay her, may or may not have expected or been relying on. It's a quirky unnerving relationship. As my pal Wales would say people like their pacifiers, they want someone to give one to them and when it's taken away, they get upset. Life is hard (god do I know it) and things like Firefly do make it easier to bear. Please don't take that away. Helps that that is in essence Firefly's theme song. The fans rallied and Universal being a little more savvy then Fox, used it to their advantage. But symbiotic relationships can be spooky...you wonder after a bit what happens when the symbiot is removed? What then? Do people float to the next? Why won't they create their own pacifier, their own system? Why do we need to worship at someone's altar? The writer of the article seems perplexed and bemused by the relationship, hinting at these questions between the lines.

What hits me as odd and unnerving about all this is two things: 1) the worship of a writer. Devoted. Uncritical at times. As if one is praying. And the emotional defense of that writer. (I love Firefly, do not misunderstand me. One of my favorite shows. And I enjoy Whedon's writing, one of my favorite writers. But I do not for a moment see the guy as god's gift to the universe. He's just a poor slob making a living doing what he loves. Which I admittedly envy a bit, but also admire. That's it.)That symbiotic almost parasitic obession, as if Whedon can do no wrong, his writing is perfect, no one comes close...
2) how pop culture works...that weird mob mentality thing...how we flock to writers like Whedon, Stephen King, Ann Rice, JK Rowlings and they become royalty holding court?

As an aside, completely off topic - and a response to the essay and other comments I've seen online: The weird thing for me about Firefly is the very reasons some people had troubles with it, was why I loved it.
I adore Westerns. Love shows that deal with gritty, dark, somewhat anti-heroic grubby characters. Ensemble pieces. Serials. And tackle the day to day problems. Not into solving a murder or giving me a bunch of misinformation about some complicated criminal or medical procedure. But just plain stories about a character struggling to make shit work. Don't really care much about the science in sci-fi, never did, just care about the characters and social/psychological implications of the science. Don't tell me how the machine works - tell me how it will effect us.



Moving onwards...the next two items were the one about the fanfic writer who wanted people to donate money to her so she could take a year off to write a novel and fanfic. If you want to read more of my fanfic, pay me!

Which amused me and depressed me simulataneously. I felt for the poor dear. Who clearly knows zip about copyright law, but then copyright law is confusing. But the gist? What she aimed to do is illegal. Fox would have sued her pants off. What is depressing, is I must admit that I'd rather see some of the fanfic writers I've read online get paid than writers such as Christopher Golden(?) and Nancy Holder who I find unreadable. The few times I've thumbed through their Buffy/Angel novels in Barnes and Noble, I've wondered who at Fox is approving these guys and this person should be fired. There is by the way a job - I know I applied for one at Nickolodean three or four years ago - which involves nothing but reading book proposals and manuscripts of proposed books involving characters from TV shows owned by the network. What the person basically does is compare the network's guidelines regarding the plot, character, and usage to the manuscripts and proposals. If the manuscript/proposal shows the characters and universe that the network owns the rights to in a light that the network believes is true to it's vision and furthers that vision's financial and marketing gain, then it gets greenlighted. Please note quality isn't an issue. These people aren't English Lit Majors or Critics, they are MARKETING/ADVERTISING people - they are interested in maintaining the integrity of their brandname which when I interviewed for a job was Jimmy Neutron. For Fox? It is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They want a "wholesome" product for a family oriented audience, not controversial, but simple, and that teens can read. So it is not entirely Holders or Golden's fault that they write crappy books, as it is the marketing department at Fox. Whenever I see anything with a "marketing seal of approval" or "created by marketing people", I run for the hills - because baby, you know it's all about fluff and 0 substance. But, people buy fluff if you know how to sell it, it's all about the presentation.(This I say after taking Marketing courses, doing marketing, and interacting with more than my fair share of marketing folks.)

At any rate one of the things I liked about fanfic, when I discovered it in 2001 was how creative it was, often more creative and innovative than the original creation (story-wise guys not universe and characters - which is damn creative),since it did not have to get anyone's seal of approval. No holds barred creativity. Granted some of it tends to be pretty formulaic in places, but there's creativity there. You are watching people play. And who amongst us doesn't wish and dream we could be paid to play? It's why we envy baseball players and tv/comic book writers we think they are playing - because they do for a living what we do in our spare time. Our play is their work. Which is possibly why people got so angry at the girl for asking for money for fanfic - she was doing what everyone out there has secretly wanted to do but known they can't. She acted on that dark wish. And people tend to reacte very badly when someone does that. It's almost as if through punishing that person, you are punishing yourself for wishing it - stomping it out, just in case you give in. That and trying to give some credibility to the idea that it is okay to play without getting paid for it. That you don't need money for this.

What was unnerving about reading it - was the reaction. The reaction to the article - I read the article on it, not the post, the post went bye-bye. As well as the reaction to the post. 425 flames? Why so many? Why did everyone feel the need to scream at her? Why in mass? Almost like a mob. Same thing on discussion boards - I've been both the recipient of flames and the reason someone got flamed - ie. they attacked me and people rushed to my defense. Both times were unnerving experiences. Both times, looking back, I'm embarrassed to think of them. Thinking, okay, crazy. Just as the people looking at the article about, including the writer of the article, thought, okay this is crazy. Cult Fans are nuts. But is it and are they? Sports fans do it. All the time. Heck there have been riots at football matches in Europe - or soccer as we call it here in the States. To the best of my knowledge Buffy fans have not tried to kill each other in person. But I've seen baseball fans throw things at people. Beware of angry baseball fans. You do not for instance mention the MEts or Red Sox in the vicinity of Yankee Stadium in a nice light and expect to get out intact. (Never understood the passion there, saw it in KC too with the Chiefs and Royals, even more so actually - since KC is more of "sports" town in some ways than NYC is. Possibly because it doesn't have enough other distractions?)Same with politics - people get so violent. Wales can't talk to her older sister and brother about Bush without getting into screaming fights, they love him, she hates him. What is that? Why?

Which brings me to the other kerfuffle the one where a poor poster wrote a long essay about Spuffy traumatizing the fandom. Which I find amusing. a) That anyone would be traumatized by a fictional relationship on a tv show no less and b) that they would take it seriously enough to think it was a judgment on their personal life.
Why do they care what a bunch of TV writers think? We are talking Television writers remember. Not psychologists, not counselors, not teachers, not political leaders, not literary writers, but a bunch of folks who write a script in under 15 hours maybe a week tops, film it in two weeks time, forget it, go to the next, and pray the advertisers stick with them and the network picks up the show for season 2. While they may be interested in getting across a message - this ain't church or school - they want to entertain. They want to keep your interest. They worship the ratings god. It's a miracle if what comes out in the short space the film is good. Plus on TV - you have to keep characters at odd a bit, especially in serials, you can't have happy romantic relationships - people get bored and drift elsewhere. This ME discovered early on in S1, S2, and S3 - when Buffy and Angel were happy and smooching, the ratings dived, when Angelus appeared and they were at odds?
The ratings took off and spiked. The other thing important to TV writers is how far they can push the envelope, how much can they get away with - we're talking creative people here under the iron hand of marketing folks and network execs - they've got to have their fun.

That said, I do find a certain human behavior trait interesting and perplexing. I don't get it. And that trait is the savoir complex. Why are people, male and female, attracted to people that they feel need saving? It's not a gender specific trait. There are men and women who are continuously attracted to people who should not be in relationships. Men who go for needy, crazy, vulnerable women. Women who go for criminals or bad boys. A friend was telling me about a nurse who had gotten involved with a serial killer that was on the news. She thought she could save him. Then there's the stories I constantly hear about the guy who falls for and marries the needy, half nutty girl - have two cousins who did this. All three relationships? Bad news. You can't save or change anyone in this world - people have to save and change themselves. You can help, support, advise, be there - but you can't do it. I thought BTVS actually did a decent job of getting that across in all its relationships. Every single one attacked that theme. Xander and Anya - Anya had to figure out Anya - she even tells Xander, you can't save me Xander, I have to do that myself. Stop trying. Willow and Tara - Tara leaves Willow because she realizes she can't change or save Willow, Willow must do it. OZ leaves Willow because he realizes Willow can't save or change him, he has to. Spike goes and gets the soul because he realizes Buffy can't make him better and his love for her can't. Spike lets Buffy go, once he gets his soul, at the end of S7 and in Angel S5, because he knows he has to find himself first. Buffy lets Spike and Angel go because she has to figure out who she is, she knows they can't save her. She saves herself. She has help, sure, but she must do the heavy lifting. The confusion I think is - the either/or. People like extremes, I think. It's sort of like what my gastrointestinologist said - it's simpler, easier if you do all or nothing - the black and white. Navigating gray is tough. It's either one thing or the other. What we can't quite wrap our heads around is the fact that it can possibly be both.
While no one can save you or change you - this does not mean you are alone or you have to do it alone. You can get help. The writers of BTVs, somewhat clunkily perhaps depends on pov, did show that in the final season of the show - that struggle for balance, that struggle to let others help, but also at the same time, not depend solely on them. Buffy shares her power - so each girl can choose to save herself, they are not victims, they do not need to be saved from their metaphorical demons - she's made it possible for them to save themselves and help others figure it out as well. She's shared knowledge and support. The difference between 7 and 6 - is in 6 you have people trying to save or change someone - inflicting control, and in 7 you have people trying to cooperate, to work together, to assist, support, not save. It's hard to wrap one's head around, but since my life metaphorically speaking follows a similar analogy right now...I identify and see it. I've had to learn how to accept help, how to save myself, but also let others help me, without expecting them to "save" me or wave the magic wand making everything honky dorey. In S2 BTVS -Buffy saved herself, no help (in her mind, she had it, but she did not see it, in her mind she was alone), in S7 - She still saves herself from the demons, but she realizes and sees the help, she accepts the support. It is the difference between the independent "I" and the interdependent "we". One is less mature than another. And the story was in a nutshell about reaching maturity, moving from dependence (Buffy in S1) to independence (s2-5) to interdependence (5-7).

Hmmm...well that was a ramble and not sure where I ended had much to do with where I started and now my arm is numb. So will stop. Make of it what you will. Also unedited and unproofed - hard to do that on this machine and plus, hands numb. Must get off. Feeling very weird physically...sort of tired and like I need to drink lots of water.



PS: Thank you to the anynomous friend who gave me two months paid lj. Don't know what to do with the two months paid lj, but appreciate the thought!

Comments

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

That said, I do find a certain human behavior trait interesting and perplexing. I don't get it. And that trait is the savoir complex. Why are people, male and female, attracted to people that they feel need saving? It's not a gender specific trait. There are men and women who are continuously attracted to people who should not be in relationships. Men who go for needy, crazy, vulnerable women. Women who go for criminals or bad boys.

I don't really get it either - on the one hand, it makes sense to want to help someone you care about. It does seem a bit different to deliberately seek out people who are already severely "messed up" to save them through romance.

What was a bit different in the Kerfluffle-Spawning "Trauma made people slashers" post was that this wasn't really so much in play... In asmuch as it seemed the poster didn't see anything about Spike that needed saving. Or to the extent that Spike was identified as "bad boy" by the poster, it seemed through affectation (he's abrasive and wears a leather jacket) and not through any actual badness inherent there.

Is that a subset/similarity with the Savior thing or something else? I know people, male and female, who have been in a frame where they like something so everything about it is great... I'm really critical by nature, so I pick hard even at things I really do like, so it's a pretty alien mindset to me.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

What was a bit different in the Kerfluffle-Spawning "Trauma made people slashers" post was that this wasn't really so much in play... In asmuch as it seemed the poster didn't see anything about Spike that needed saving...

You know, I never understood that point of view - any more than I understood the people who wanted Spike to remain evil, opportunistic and soulless. Both views are stagnant. You can't go anywhere story-wise. The character is stuck running in place. I like to see a character evolve, grow, struggle, find his way out and the more flawed the character is to start with - the more interesting it is to watch that evolution. Like you commented, I believe in scrollgirl's journal - doesn't it take something away from the character if you make him unambiguous, or not dark and depraved? Isn't the story richer because he is?

Is that a subset/similarity with the Savior thing or something else? I know people, male and female, who have been in a frame where they like something so everything about it is great... I'm really critical by nature, so I pick hard even at things I really do like, so it's a pretty alien mindset to me.

Heh, me too. I'm really analytical and critical - and adore picking at the things I love. IF I don't love it, I won't bother to watch or pick at it. But if I do, oh I love to pick it apart.

So you may be right. It may be that some people like stagnic characters or characters that are clear-cut and uncomplicated. It certainly would explain why certain tv shows do as well as they do. It's an alien mindset to me. I can't understand why you would want to read about, watch, follow or write a character that did not change, evolve, become something else.
Change. Because that to me is part of being human, no one stays the same, we all change. Our bodies certainly do. In fact in a way I thought that was part of Whedon's vampire metaphor or the metaphor of soullessness - the idea that you did not change were stagnant. And how horrible that was.
(Granted it wasn't a consistent metaphor, but it was one they played with - one of the flaws of the show was the inconsistency of the metaphors...LOL!)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Both views are stagnant. You can't go anywhere story-wise.

Very true. Now, in my case, I wasn't really interested in seeing Evil Spike grow, so I was plenty happy with him staying "Evil". In my case, I was in grad school when S4 aired and studying IR/National Security Policy - so my pet hope was a scenario where Spike stayed evil but worked with the scoobies out of self-interest/Realpolitik. And I was disappointed, but I don't fault the writers for being more interested in Romance than Machiavelli. Until S7 rolled around, when Sun Tzu/Machiavelli/Kissenger actually became relevant to the story they'd chosen to tell. Then I did.

In fact in a way I thought that was part of Whedon's vampire metaphor or the metaphor of soullessness - the idea that you did not change were stagnant. And how horrible that was.

One of my favorite scenes the show ever did was in S2, where Buffy and Angel are talking in her room about random daily things. And the camera cuts to the mirror where she's talking and he isn't there. And they don't linger on it or say anything explicit, and it just nutshells the problem of his status.

Or the way on AtS we see VampHarmony, and she's just trapped/frozen into the person she was from the time she died. Everybody else in her HS class who survived was growing up, and she never will. And she knows it...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Very true. Now, in my case, I wasn't really interested in seeing Evil Spike grow, so I was plenty happy with him staying "Evil". In my case, I was in grad school when S4 aired and studying IR/National Security Policy - so my pet hope was a scenario where Spike stayed evil but worked with the scoobies out of self-interest/Realpolitik. And I was disappointed, but I don't fault the writers for being more interested in Romance than Machiavelli. Until S7 rolled around, when Sun Tzu/Machiavelli/Kissenger actually became relevant to the story they'd chosen to tell. Then I did.

I think some of negative reactions we saw to the series, specifically in the later seasons, although when I do remember seeing some negative reactions on assorted websites in S2 and S3 as well, was due to akin disappointment. People made the show out to be "more" than what it was in their heads - they raised their expectations and anticipated something that the writer couldn't or wouldn't deliver.

Doesn't surprise me that you thought the writers were taking the Machiavelli route with Spike - because to be honest that's what I thought they were doing up until Fool for Love. Then I was perplexed. I thought, okay, here's a tv show I can't predict, I have no clue where they are headed here. Course, I reacted positively to the switch, but that's only because I wasn't at that point in time emotionally committed to a storyline. When I did become emotionally committed - then I got disappointed. In S7 - like you, I thought we'd have the MAchiavellian storyline - in fact, I was convinced that they were going to have Giles play the first evil or maybe Xander, something I looked forward to, because it would have been risky as hell to pull off and fascinating. It doesn't surprise me in retrospect that they chose not to go that route, any more than it surprises me that they never let Angelus get that nasty in Angel or kept Spike opportunistic and nasty (once they figured out how much on-screen chemistry the actor had with Gellar and how the fans reacted, that's not something a tv writer ignores when he/she is writing a show marketed at teen girls.) But the show often transcended the limits and boundaries of it's market, took so many weird risks, that my expectations rose to the point in which I started to assume they'd continue to do so and was somewhat disappointed when they didn't. It would have been tv suicide of course to kill off any of the main Scooby characters - look what happened when they killed off supporting players such as Tara - who wasn't even in the credits up until her final episode?
So, okay, you can't do it with Giles or Xander, why couldn't they have used Buffy or Spike more as the First Evil - had two Spike's, one the opportunistic machiavellian one appearing to different people, besides just Spike and the other triggered Spike? Why go with Caleb? I think the reason is that the writer didn't know that much about Machivelli/RealPoltik to really do the story right. In some ways, I feel the writers of Farscape did far better job with it in their final two seasons with the Machivellian character of Scorpie. Just as I think Farscape's romance worked better than the ones on Whedon's shows.

What I liked most about the Whedon shows in a way was the flaws - they were hybrids, combining so many genres and so many ideas that you often felt as if the writers were experimenting with the form, seeing which way they could bend it - often hurting the plot-structure in the process.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

People made the show out to be "more" than what it was in their heads - they raised their expectations and anticipated something that the writer couldn't or wouldn't deliver.

It comes down to a certain feeling of disappointment because the author made different choices. I think most viewers go along and develop their own concepts - which is generally a good thing. Every so often, there's an entitlement thing one can fall prey to. The arrogance that our ideas are better, not necessarily because they actually are objectively better, but because it is ours. There's a certain class of objection that, at heart, boils down to it being Joss Whedon's show and not My Show.

In the case of my pet Machiavelli thing... Whedon's choice was suboptimal for me personally, but again it's his show, not mine. Instead of judging his show against "mine" I just try react to it within it's own context. And the limitations Whedon had. (Contracts, networks, fanbase, etc...)

I think the reason is that the writer didn't know that much about Machivelli/RealPoltik to really do the story right.

I think that's a chunk of it. I think Whedon probably also really, really dislikes RealPolitik and doesn't want to touch it. There's more even-handed touching on RealPolitik in some of the AtS seasons, but not so evenly in S5.

But there, it's a clash of my politics/sensibilities with the writers. My own sensibilities run grittier than what Whedon prefers to go with so it's not a shock when I want more Vampires Not Showing Up In Mirror and Less Unironic Cuddling.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think most viewers go along and develop their own concepts - which is generally a good thing. Every so often, there's an entitlement thing one can fall prey to. The arrogance that our ideas are better, not necessarily because they actually are objectively better, but because it is ours. There's a certain class of objection that, at heart, boils down to it being Joss Whedon's show and not My Show.

Very true and an excellent point. I remember getting a little annoyed with the Firefly detractors who said - "it's a Western, it shouldn't be a Western and sci-fi." When that was precisely what Whedon wanted to do.
He wanted a gritty frontier drama in space - possibly because Westerns are hard to sell at the moment, not sure. Or just likes to blend genres.

Same thing with Buffy and Angel.

I know I've made that mistake. I know my disappointment and main criticisms of the shows, of all tv shows, have a lot to do with the fact that they aren't delivering what I want them to. This doesn't make them bad or good, if they are popular - obviously they are delivering a story someone likes. My reaction though has less I think to do with arrogance, than sheer frustration and disappointment. Damn, why couldn't they have done this instead? I don't think my story is necessarily better per se, I just wish they'd done it. Knowing full well that the odds they would are highly unlikely - since, hello, it's in my head not theirs.

The shows I get the most obsessed with are often, not always, the ones that magically fit some story craving or desire deep down inside which I've given up hope of seeing and have been unable to create myself. My biggest disappointments are when I think that story will come about and it doesn't work out the way I thought or rather desperately wanted it too.

What I find fascinating is when a group of people feels exactly the same way - when they wanted the same thing and got obsessed for the same reason and disappointed for the same reasons. That seems rather remarkable also something that most marketing people would probably want to bottle and analyze.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

The shows I get the most obsessed with are often, not always, the ones that magically fit some story craving or desire deep down inside which I've given up hope of seeing and have been unable to create myself. My biggest disappointments are when I think that story will come about and it doesn't work out the way I thought or rather desperately wanted it too.

That may be the case with me too, but I'm not really sure. With BtVS, I was hoping they wouldn't just turn Buffy's story into a love story, since I see those all the time. I was really annoyed in late S5 because I thought they were going to tell an obvious story with Buffy/Spike - and I wound up being pleased that they didn't just write a "pretty" story. I was still displeased, more for what I consider "Quality Control" reasons than anything else. But I do get very annoyed at the fans that do try to wrench discussions of that time frame back to more Romance tropes.

Whether or not it was ever what I actually heard or encountered, it certainly felt like writers were always resorting to that. But that's probably because I was growing up exposed to my sisters' and mother's soap operas... So I was more interested in the more "professionalized" or friendship aspects of Buffy's life than I was the romantic aspects. Clearly, lots of viewers and some of the writers had different experiences and approaches coming into it. So it's a challenge to me to find what I could take from those other viewpoints to find new validities for me, even if it wasn't what I'd have preferred.

If Whedon or another author does me the favor of supplying a 'verse, I feel I ought to do the work of at least trying to see it as he inteneded such as can be determined.

What I find fascinating is when a group of people feels exactly the same way - when they wanted the same thing and got obsessed for the same reason and disappointed for the same reasons. That seems rather remarkable also something that most marketing people would probably want to bottle and analyze.

No kidding.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

With BtVS, I was hoping they wouldn't just turn Buffy's story into a love story, since I see those all the time. I was really annoyed in late S5 because I thought they were going to tell an obvious story with Buffy/Spike

When I read this, my first response, was wait, but you don't seem to have any problems with B/A (or maybe you do and you aren't stating them?) which, if you've watched soap operas, was much more like those romances than B/S ever was.

But then I thought about and it occurred to me that the main difference between Angel and Spike - was Angel was introduced as Buffy's love interest. You never expected anything else from the character. That was his role in BTVS, he didn't have any other real role on that show. What's interesting about Angel is when the character grew past being "just" the love interest or the guy you want/love but can't have which is the same thing for most of these shows - the writers let him have his own spin-off and really built the character. They surprised us. So you could forgive it.
Spike on the other hand was introduced as everything but a love interest, no one could possibly imagine when he first showed up or in Season 4 that they'd ever really put B/S together - that was the joke in Something Blue. So, it was the opposite path than the one they took with Angel. Except, what I liked about B/S - was instead of becoming the obvious fairly straight forward melodramatic love story B/A was, it became a complicated, ambiguous one where Spike represented at times less a love interest and more a metaphor of how Buffy was dealing with that part of herself that both frightened and intrigued her - people are still battling over whether these two characters loved one another or not. Unlike B/A - it was unclear that these two could work it out, their conflict was in some ways more real and more messy than a romantic curse. While in B/A - it was never even a question that Buffy loved Angel or Angel loved Buffy (one true love and all that sappy stuff straight out of a daytime soap opera) - it was so obvious, it was almost dull. B/R - I found more interesting - because again you weren't sure where they were going...much less obvious, did she love him? Was she using him to get over Angel? (Shrug). For me the less straight-forward "romantic" relationships Buffy had were the more interesting ones, the one I found the least involving was the most romantic one - B/A. I can see how people may have reacted negatively to B/S - thinking perhaps that the writers instead of building the character like they did with Angel, would deconstruct him down to a boyfriend. Thank god they didn't do that. In S5, I didn't really see that happening, since it was clear to me that Buffy did not love him nor would. S6 surprised me a little - but I still saw the romance going in a different more complicated direction, maybe because I've watched one too many daytime soaps, not sure. For me, and this may be key to why I loved the B/S romance, it was a metaphorical relationship - Buffy's relationship to the slayer or the demon inside. Struggling with how to handle the inner demon.
I felt in some ways Spike represented her struggles with that demon more than any other character, including Faith, in the show. Faith coming closest. And perhaps the fact I viewed it that way and that's what I was fascinated by, colored my viewing? Made me adore it and not be disappointed when he dies, literally melting away once she has faced, come to terms with, and embraced that demon? By the same token - I saw both the attempted rape in SR and the beating up in Dead Things - as metaphorical references to her fight with that inner demon - it's no coincidence she gets shot in the same episode that Spike attacks her, or that he leaves before she gets shot - all work towards that metaphor. And it was consistently done throughout all three seasons...Spike as the metaphor for Buffy's Shadow self. I think BTVs is more psychological in some respects than political - partly because that's where the writers came at it from.
Not sure that makes sense or not - sneaking this out before I start work.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

When I read this, my first response, was wait, but you don't seem to have any problems with B/A (or maybe you do and you aren't stating them?) which, if you've watched soap operas, was much more like those romances than B/S ever was.

But that was exactly it... B/A looks so much like a straightforward romance - yeah we don't doubt that they love each other - that it meant I could take that for granted and not have to devote any real thought to the "romance" at all and could instead move on to other things I'd rather think about. Namely - how are you going to deal with these circumstances...

What I like most are situations where a character has multiple sets of motivations, and those motivations conflict with one another - and the story examines how they make decisions which show them figuring out what they value most. It really helps if the character is conscious of those conflicts. Angel's storyline in BtVS-3 annoys a lot of people, but I liked it just fine because he had an inner conflict that made it interesting.

The two characters love each other, and have a certain amount of commonality in terms of value systems and what they want out of life, but also come into conflict in a number of ways that are very much about how each would go about doing their duties/jobs. Which is really interesting to me.

When they had Spike fall in love, it annoyed me because it (for me) really took that away from the storyline. If pretty much, all the he really values is getting Buffy - he doesn't have any inner conflict... just the frustration because his efforts don't work. And maybe that was the point in terms of "shadow selfing" but it didn't engage me as much... So he's only interesting to me, inasmuch as keeping him around means some inner conflict for other characters. He doesn't get that back, for me, really until S5 of Angel.

Spike as the metaphor for Buffy's Shadow self. I think BTVs is more psychological in some respects than political - partly because that's where the writers came at it from.

Which probably nutshells it. I didn't care as much for Spike as metaphor for Buffy's shadow self, and liked Faith better in that role - again because I just felt Faith had more interesting internal conflict, and more interesting conflicts with Buffy. So my sensibilities don't mesh.

And yeah - the writers don't come at it in a socio-political sense... at least, as someone who studied and has worked in political fields they aren't really interested in it, and don't do it very well when they go that direction.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I have completely the opposite view. For me, Angel's inner conflict was pretty straightforward. Which is I love her but can't have her because I'm cursed. But Spike's was - I want to be evil, no I want to be good, no this damn chip is telling me to be good, no I love her, no I hate her. Spike was conflicted about everything - half the time he didn't know how he felt.
And oh lord he hated himself or who he once was. Angel? He just hated Angelus - straightforward Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But Spike - hell I wrote 45 essays trying to figure him out and only one was about romance.
Angel - I only needed one essay - and nailed it.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Angel's inner conflict was pretty straightforward. Which is I love her but can't have her because I'm cursed.

That's not his inner conflict - it's a seemingly immutable external conflict which would apply to any serious romance he pursued, but doesn't apply for anyone but him. Which makes it, to me, actually beside the point.

Whether or not two people love each other is only one question. Even if there were no curse there's loads of conflict to mine - and ME made a point of showing a lot of non-curse related conflict. The problem of the curse is that the two characters can't comfortably spend enough time around each other for the story to mine that conflict. But, that conflict is still there.

Angel? He just hated Angelus - straightforward Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Angel? Mr. "It's not the demon in me that needs killing, it's the man" ... The depth there, is that his flaws are rooted in his humanity, and compounded by also being a demon. Stuff that isn't there before "Innocence" mostly just because no much attention was paid to his character. The curse was great in that it was the device which first got ME exploring that in, but that's really the purpose it served - but other than that I think it's an externality. The guilt and self-hatred was Angel's own.

Spike's was - I want to be evil, no I want to be good, no this damn chip is telling me to be good, no I love her, no I hate her. Spike was conflicted about everything - half the time he didn't know how he felt.

I think Spike's inner conflict wasn't on a much deeper a level than Harmony's inner conflict in "Disharmony" - mostly it was more intensified. Yes, the character is in conflict... he wants to do bad, he wants the girl, he wants to see himself as noble, but I didn't see where it's going any deeper than Impulse and Id. No real question of what it's adding up to - which as an INTJ personality type - is what I really want to see explored.

There's that question for him of wondering why his efforts don't succeed in getting him what he wants, but no valuation in play. It's missing a question of "and then what". (As it turns, because this is something he's psychologically predisposed to avoid - which should be raised as an issue, but isn't.)

Which is why viewers could fall into the sort of misreading we get with Kantayra. I.E. - he does bad things because he's a vampire, but his good deeds are a reflection of some "special" humanity he has. And because, it doesn't address the "and then what" (unlike "Something Blue") the romance focused reader can go with the fantasy that everything would be wonderful for Spike if people just loved him enough. The fallacy Spike tries to cling to instead of challenging. Yet which the story doesn't really speak to...

It doesn't actually explore humanity - and after the Pylea Demon scenes, I think it needed to. His humanity isn't just the source of goodness, but also what made his evil different from other beasts. But it's not explored until S7 (haphazardly) and then in AtS-5. And he starts to have valuations. That really interested me far more.

In the end, it's a personality preference, and I tend to think in terms of models and frameworks, and how we can take from one and export. Which Spike's storyline doesn't do. It's too intensely about the individual for my tastes. And ultimately it's not really about my approach being right or wrong, but that my tastes and preferences for story themes were divergent from ME's and so I didn't appreciate the story as much as others had.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It's been commented to me that if you look solely at the writing and ignore Boreanze's performance, Angel is written as an incredibly complex character as is the relationship with Buffy. I think, and I thoroughly admit this is purely a subjective thing, Boreanze's performance never sold me. And that, like I said, is a pure subjective thing. There's more than one show I haven't watched because the lead actor didn't work for me - Hercules is another example as is Highlander, yes I may be one of the few women alive who is not turned on by Kevin Zorbo or Adrian whatsist. To me, Boreanze's acting is similar to their's. Give me the guy who played in Forever Night, or Marsters, or Denisof, or Head instead of these pretty muscel bound types with wooden expressions.


I say this, because as I'm reading your passage above I'm thinking, yes, yes, in theory that is what I should have felt when I watch those episodes now, but I don't. And that in a nutshell is the difference, I think, between watching something performed by actors and reading a novel.

In regards to the Spike-Buffy relationship, I disagree that the conflict was only about love, I saw more there - conflict over fighting styles, conflict over tastes, there was a sort of sibling thing going on at times.

I think the main reason some people prefered Angel to Spike or Spike to Angel or B/A to B/S or vice versa - is possibly what the central conflict was at the heart of them. Angel's conflict was Daddy issues. Religion - very deeply routed in the view of God's approval or disdain and the idea of doing a number of jobs or chores to obtain forgiveness - stations of the cross as it were. Spike's conflict was Mommy issues. How you deal with Peer rejection, failure, loss of love, rejection at love, and who you are. Do you define who you are? Do your actions? Does God? Does the loved one? Angel was the prodigal son, the oldest, the entitled. He had the world handed to him. And time after time he treats it like garbage.
It's not enough. Spike is the neverdowell, the kid who tries everything in the book and falls on his face - Wile E Coyote. Which character you identify with is I think a deeply personal thing.

Oh - depending on which day I take the test - I come out as either INFJ or INFP. I think once I got INTJ. Never been an easy person to catergorize, I guess. Which is ironically amusing to me, since I keep trying to catergorize things.

Also, regarding Angel - my views on the character and Boreanze's performance have never been stagnant. Loved the character and the B/A relationship in 97-99. I think it was the Faith Two-parter in Angel, Yoko Factor and I Will Always Remember You combined that ended that relationship for me. The writers convinced me that they had nothing more to say about it. So moved happily on to Riley. I may be one of the few fans out there who at the time Riley was on Buffy - actually adored the relationship and the character. I went where ME took me, without any resistance. Shipped who they wanted me to ship. (With a few possible exceptions.) I think my difficulties with the Angel character only come up as a response to some of the Spike character bashing I witnessed online - there's this odd need in me to point out to bashers - wait, your ideal character and relationship is just as flawed and just as silly as the one you are bashing, get over yourselves. It's a flaw, I know. ;-) )

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I thoroughly admit this is purely a subjective thing, Boreanze's performance never sold me.

It's an interesting thing... Neither Boreanaz nor Blucas really gripped me in their roles on BtVS, yet it didn't really affect me as a viewer because the stories worked. With the Spike character - no matter how affecting Marsters' performance was it didn't draw me any more into the character. Which actually, was similar to the Willow character and Alyson's acting for me as well. The only actors who gripped me to a character and made a difference for me were SMG and Tony Head, where I probably would have checked out of the show right away if lesser performers had taken the part.

is possibly what the central conflict was at the heart of them.

I think you are very probably right with that. I'm often thinking in terms of "big picture! big picture!" and "what are the larger set of stakes" and Angel's story is broader and about bigger themes, while Spike's is about the personal. And, while I can acknowledge the personal, it's mostly to the extent that I find it useful to know when I approach larger themes and such...


The writers convinced me that they had nothing more to say about it. So moved happily on to Riley. I may be one of the few fans out there who at the time Riley was on Buffy - actually adored the relationship and the character. I went where ME took me, without any resistance

This, I think, made you an ideal viewer for them... it seems you were really wired to connect with what the writers were going for in a way that I often did not. Because I was looking to be told stories ME wasn't really looking to tell, so there was dissonance... When ME was indicating they had nothing more to say about certain storylines, I was still caught in thinking "but there is more to tell..." which may have been true, but doesn't really help me see the story they reach for... and you seem to be more in tune with.

there's this odd need in me to point out to bashers - wait, your ideal character and relationship is just as flawed and just as silly as the one you are bashing, get over yourselves. It's a flaw, I know. ;-) )
Read Comments

This too, is not uncommon. Which is why I got into that debate with the Riley basher, probably knowing it wasn't going to make a difference to her. It's a convenient convergence of a general need to promote what I think is more genuine and of my general contrarian/argumentative impulses. In the end, I didn't get the basher to see any sort of points, but I did have fun arguing...

[(Anonymous)]

This, I think, made you an ideal viewer for them... it seems you were really wired to connect with what the writers were going for in a way that I often did not.

I guess I have much lower expectations from tv shows than a lot of people do. I'm always shocked when we get an episode like the Body or a Restless or something that jumps outside the box. Because I know it's a miracle. The process is akin in many ways to how legislators pass a bill - organized chaos. (a term I remember from taking Legislative Clinic in law school). How many people throw their ideas into a hat along with the problems, then pull something out and vote. Granted there are rules and procedures and yes, someone can veto it - but it's still chaotic. Writing a tv series is chaotic. In your own collaborative group project - you've possibly witnessed a small amount of this, but you have more control in your project than Whedon and Co. did in theirs. Heck you can even take more time with it. (Cjl would probably have been fired by now, for taking two-three months to write the next episode. And Masq would have taken over and hammered it out - if you were really writing a TV series. And the script would have had to get network approval and half of it would have been cut and you would not have gotten the right actors or you may have had to cut actors due to budgetary constraints or a character in the episode couldn't be any longer because that actor wasn't available. ) People don't realize how miraculous it is to get a show on the air, let alone have it be good.
TV is the hardest gig in town. Theater and film are far easier. TV - 13 hour work days, no weekends, and for 6-8 months out of the year. Add to that dependency on ratings. You've pulled off a Brilliant episode, but everyone is watching the season finale of American Idol. ARRRGH. Reading tightropegirl's lj is quite informative regarding the difficulties of the industry.

So if a show engages me, has good acting, isn't predictable and keeps the story moving forward? I'm happy. (That's not to say, I'm not picky, I am.
Only watching three tv shows at the moment.)


Which is why I got into that debate with the Riley basher

Ah Riley bashers... I've had fun doing the same thing - although I'd usually handle it with an essay. ;-) I tended to be pretty verbose back then.

The problems Riley had were 1)Blucas who fits into the "Buff boy" school of acting, atheltic, boy next door look but not all that expressive, which writers like Whedon seem to love for some reason that escapes me. 2)the character was a little cliche in places - the stock military guy hero. As my brother stated - "that character and story has been done too many times now and better elsewhere..." 3)the writers did not know quite what to do with him after they lost Lindsey Crouse. They had a storyline plotted and Lindsey Crouse up and left on them. 4) a few of the writers were overly enamored with the actor and character to the point that he came close to being idealized in some episodes. I honestly think Doug Petrie's love for all things Riley may have hurt As You Were. Whedon and Fury wrote the character best in my opinion. I had troubles with both Marti and Petrie's versions.

That said, what many fans don't see is the value in the character and I thought the writers did a brilliant job of showing the character through Buffy's eyes consistently. We saw Riley as Buffy did. Just as we saw all the characters on Buffy's show as Buffy did. Hard to sustain that consistently on a tv series - I give them credit for it.

In fact the most interesting thing about BTVS and ATS - is how characters on one show appeared or were written on the other. People say that Buffy characters seemed out of character on Angel's show and vice versa, but I think we just got a completely different pov on them. Angel after all will look at certain characters very differently than Buffy would. The fact they made the characters different on the other show - means the writers understood the value of pov and stuck with it. When watching either series you need to remember that everything you saw regarding supporting characters is often limited to how it effects the lead character.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Sigh, the above post was mine. Lj is annoying at times.