![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThat may not be the best title in the universe and to be honest, I've no clue what to call this post. But after reading several rather interesting reviews of Buffy S8 on live journal, specifically ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
stormwreath's review and the ensuing discussion, as well as posts in londonkds, and aycheb - I decided to write about what I think may be going in these comics and why I think Whedon is writing them and what he is trying to discuss through them.
Before I do so, want to clarify a few things:
1. I do not personally see these comics as a true continuation of the television series, but I believe that Whedon does see them as a continuation of his television series and this is how he would have continued that series if he had the power to do so. (He never would have, by the way. The tv series was a collaboration - that included more than just Whedon and his hand-picked writing staff. Even though the network left him alone most of the time - they did interfer on occassion. ) The comics are our chance to see the story as the writer wishes to tell it with no interference from pesky actors and producers.
2. Angel: After the Fall is not as relevant as I originally thought to a discussion of Buffy S8, since Whedon has stated in recent interviews, that he decided for whatever reason not to make it part of his story. This leaves his options open regarding the characters from Angel and how he can use them in Buffy. According to the interview, he is only restricted in his head by Angel S5. (I have no idea why he decided to do this. But I'm getting the feeling he and Brian Lynch may have had a bit of a falling out, not unlike the ones I sense happened between him and Brian K. Vauhn and with David Greenwalt. People are prickly, aren't they? - ETA: I appear to be wrong about the falling out. With Vaughn it was mostly a realization on Vaughn's part that he doesn't like to be told how to write stories and characters (I can relate), probably gets enough of that on Lost, and on Lynch's part - not a falling out, just Whedon ran out of time, and he is apparently still giving Lynch pointers - regarding the Spike series. He is not talking to or interacting with Kellly Armstrong on Angel. Because he's busy, I'm guessing. )
3. While I agree that a writer's intent is not vital to our understanding of the work and that more often than not a writer often has no idea what their intent is - except to discuss things niggling at them - I will for the purposes of this analysis, discuss what I think Whedon may be intending.
4.The reactions I've seen to the issues I'm about to talk about and to the comics in general, remind me a little of a series of increasingly frustrating conversations I had with a close friend regarding Buffy S6.
ME: Tara is probably going to get killed because That would-
Friend: but I love Tara! They can't kill her off.
Me: But killing Tara off opens story-lines, it furthers the plot -
Friend: I like her because she's so mature and has this great relationship with Willow
ME: What does this have to do with the story being told?
Friend: Are you saying my enjoyment isn't important? Besides she's a lesbian, they always kill off the lesbian and that's just offensive...
Me: Ah. Okay. This is not what I was trying to discuss and completely irrlevant to that, not that your feelings aren't-
Friend: You're saying what I think is irrelevant? What if I told you they were going to kill Spike off. That's far more possible.
Me: Soooo, what did you think of the President's speech last week?
Buffy S8
First off, if you have not read the comics, you are not going to be able to follow this. Well, you could, but you might get confused. Needless to say, spoilers for the comics and the series up to and including Buffy S8 issue 22, Swell.
1. Buffy's leadership approach in S8.
In Buffy S8, Buffy and her friends have relocated to a castle in Scotland and have become organized. With all sorts of state of the art military communications equipment, helicopters, weapons, and from last issue - a nuclear submarine. How they got all this equipment slowly over the course of about ten to twelve issues becomes apparent. They either stole it from nasty people and refrained from returning it to the rightful owners, or they financed it with stolen money. Their justification for this action is actually fairly similar to Angel, Spike and Mal's justifications for similar actions in both Angel the Series and Firefly - the ends justify the means. It's in other words Machiavellian. Although I've never been convinced Machiavelli actually was a proponent of this - The Prince seemed to be in my study of it, more of a denounciation of these actions than a celebration of them. Just as L.Ron Hubbards Dianetics is a condemnation of self-help books, not a celebration, but people are a bit literal and often miss the sarcastic tone or metaphor's in things. Jonathan Swift got into all sorts of trouble back in the day for his "Modest Proposal". I bring this up, because from what I've read and seen of Whedon's tales - I don't believe he's proposing that we steal or that these are heroic or good actions. In the past, his characters have suffered doing these things. I think this an examination and critique of that approach.
At any rate - the Watcher Council is Giles, Xander, Willow and Andrew. Although Xander and Willow seem to be reluctant participants and pretend not to be watchers. I'm not really sure what they are. Willow is the witch with the mostest. Xander is Buffy's right hand guy or communications whiz. She calls him her Watcher. Giles and Buffy are not on speaking terms - the rift that began in S7 of the series has become wider. She talks to Andrew more.
Buffy, as a leader, reminds me a great deal of Giles. She's secretive. She's isolated. She patronizes those around her. And sets them apart from others. Giles clearly wasn't the best teacher in the world, but he didn't exactly have the best teacher's himself. Through-out these 22 issues, Buffy is shown as set apart. She's with people, but at the same time, seems to be isolated. Unable to really confide in or trust anyone. The closest she comes seems to be a dreamscape tour with Willow - that ends with both characters incredibly uncomfortable with one another, and sexual romp with Satsu - which also ends with tension and discomfort. She can't talk to her sister, Dawn, who has her own issues. Nor can she really talk to Xander, but then she never really could about certain things. And Giles - who she was once upon a time able to confide in - she can't talk to at all.
This distance is actually realistic and it makes sense within the framework of the story.
Within the series, actually all of Whedon's works that I've seen, there is a common thread about the lone wolf leader. The leader who is secretive, who doesn't seek council, who takes increasingly machiavellian actions to protect those around them. From a socio-political perspective - this may be an indictment of our own political system - specifically presidents such as George W. Bush, Margret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and Ronald Regan - who tended to isolate themselves and make somewhat ruthless yet in their minds necessary decisions. It's not until the leader seeks the council of those around him or her, requests their assistance, and actually works with the team - that the disaster is averted. If you look at BTVS - you'll note that from S1 through S7, Buffy had help in the end-games. When she decided to do it all herself without help, she put everyone in danger. Becoming - she takes Angel's bait, much as she took the Annoited One's in the first episode of that season, When She Was Bad, and takes off by herself to handle the problem, leaving her friends who beg to come with her or assist, alone and unprotected. The villain goes after her friends, takes the ones he needs to accomplish his ends, and leaves Buffy on the outside hunting them - with the remaining friends who are furious at her for her actions. Eventually they come together and solve the problem.
The message that we need others to solve these problems, even if we don't want their help and don't like asking for it and are often convinced we are better off without them - is fired home in three monologues by Spike (a would-be lone wolf character, who realizes much to his own chagrin that he likes and needs people) - "a slayer with family and friends? That wasn't in the brochure" - he whines to Dru in School Hard. Later in Fool for Love, he states: "What keeps you alive are your mom, your sis, the scoobies". In the flashbacks - each of the slayers he killed were alone. Fighting him alone. Nikki who fought him twice - survived, oddly when her son was accompanying her, but died when she was alone. And in Yoko Factor, S4 - Spike states again - this time to the villian, "If you want to defeat Buffy, you have to separate her from her friends. If you break them apart, put them at odds, she is weak." (Not exact wording, because I'm lazy and don't have the time to hunt it down.)
But Spike is not the only one who states this - so does the First and Caleb - who in S7 work hard to isolate Buffy from her friends, who want her to feel superior to them, without them she is weak and the First can take her over, become corporeal. Buffy wins when she shares her power with the others, brings them into her plan and asks for their council.
The question a lot of people have raised is why hasn't she figured it out yet? Why does Buffy keep making the same mistake over and over and over again. I think the larger question may be, why do we? What is the conflict between lone wolf - I can do it all by myself, the rest of you be damned, and the realization that we have to work together?
Another question, more character specific, may well be - why does Buffy feel the need to isolate herself? Why is it such a struggle to include the others? Is she conscious of the fact that she is even doing this?
Buffy - from the get-go was taught not to include anyone. The slayer works alone, the Watcher's told her. Just one slayer and one watcher. You don't tell anyone. You keep it quiet. Everytime she told someone, Giles yelled at her, and told her that she'd put that person in danger. Every time she tried to have a life outside of slaying, even in her dream sequence in the comic books, she either puts people in danger or puts the person she cares about in danger. Giles is always proven right. Remember the episode about the poet, Owen, when she tells Giles - if the apocalypse comes, beep me? Owen is almost killed. He tries to help her. Is turned on by the adventure. But she realizes he'll die if she lets it continue. Each time she tries to have a romantic love interest - the love interest is put in danger, is sent to hell, turns against her, or dies. This theme is not exclusive to Buffy, it is actually seen in other stories as well, real and fictional - when you are in a profession that involves people who want to kill her - your friends and family become targets.
Giles also taught her Machiavellian tactics, as did the Watcher Council, Professor Walsh and her Initiative, Robin Wood and Spike and Angel. Not to mention her own parents - who were not exactly present in her life. Her father clearly left her life completely when she was 17. Joyce was barely aware of what she was doing. Neither were strong or nuturing. Granted Joyce had a lot on her plate - as Buffy discovers in the sixth season of the series. But Buffy is in many ways forced to act like an adult at any early age. When her mother dies, she is left as the only parental figure for a 14 year old younger sister. The only father figures she has are: the ones I mentioned above. And they are, with the exception of Walsh - the mad scientist - male. Their methods patriarchial. And their motives complicated and in some respects opportunistic. Of the role models - only Spike seems to tell her that her friends and family are important and her strength. Giles - to a degree supports that advice. But Giles hides a lot of things from Buffy. She's not sure what he feels towards her or what he thinks. And of the one's mentioned above - I think Giles may be the most important - he is the only real father Buffy has had. Her biological one took off. But like Hank, Giles is uncomfortable in the role, as he is in the role of Watcher, neither were ones that he asked for. The fact that she feels she can no longer trust his council and that he no longer feels it is needed or wanted - may be a comment on the complexity of the Father/Child relationship.
But like most children, whether they want to admit it or not, Buffy emulates aspects of her father figure. The aspects she can, as do Xander and Willow. They act much like siblings. Giles's children. Buffy takes on Giles' ruthless tatics, Willow his ache for knowledge, regardless of the cost, and Xander his somewhat reluctant role of Watcher, stumbling through the fray.
So I think the reason Buffy keeps making the same mistakes - is partly because she like the rest of us, is human, and falls back on old patterns of behavior. We see her trying not to at different points - but the overwhelming responsibility she carries may be making that impossible. If you've been taught to hide who you are, to not share your ideas or feelings with anyone, to keep people away from the line of fire, and if necessary to kill one person to save millions - it's difficult to go against that teaching. Particularly when you haven't always benefited from doing so. Buffy has learned she can't save everyone, especially those who matter to her the most. And that she can't appear to have a normal life - sharing her power with the other slayers did not free her, it only put her in a different cage with different challenges. She wasn't trained to run an army - she didn't deal well with the Initiative. She was trained to be the lone wolf in the night - who slays by herself. Each time she varied from that path - while it worked on occassion - she also on occassion was punished severly for it.
2. Why did Buffy make the decision to finance her army with stolen funds or "borrowed" items, that she may or may not return?
I've seen a lot of posts that state this is out of character and needs to be explained. But if you look over the text - going back to Season 6 - it makes sense. Buffy attempts in the sixth season to get a job. She can't seem to find one. The one she finally lands in the seventh season - she's fired from after a falling out with her boss - who hired her because she was a slayer and he wanted to romance her, only to get upset over her involvement with the vampire who killed his mother, also a slayer. And you think you have issues with your bosses? So money is shown to be an issue. She gets a loan from Giles - who is being paid by the Watcher Council - and that helps a bit.
Curious why the watchers get paid but slayers don't? Seems deliberate and possibly a critique on the unequal pay between men and women in our society. The boss gets paid. The slayer is the watcher's weapon, he takes care of her, she lives with him, and therefore does not require a salary?? That actually sort of tracks textually - if you consider that Buffy was doing fine until she told the Watcher Council and Giles that she didn't need a watcher. Most slayers we're told die before they reach 21 and they become wards of their watcher's. So the watcher is a sort of teacher/mentor/parent figure - much like Xander is to all the women in the comics. He has control over the slayer - who is his daughter. He gets paid and a portion of that pay supports her. Nikki - lived near or with her watcher, and when she died her son became her watcher's ward. When Buffy becomes 18 - Giles is told to take her powers away to test her. Again - she's the weapon, the student he is honing. Not really a person in her own right. In society - historically - women were at one time seen as property. On the law books in Missouri - it still states that the wife is the property and responsibility of her husband. He provides for her. And it is her task to give him what he wants. It's an old law that they haven't gotten around to removing, even though other more current laws take precedence. In other countries around the world - this theory is still in practice. In Palistine and Jordan, a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding day is killed for betraying her husband. Tainting his property. In some cultures, a woman's genitilia is mutilated so she won't enjoy sex and won't be tempted to cheat on her husband.
The Watcher Council has also shown a tendency to do whatever is necessary under the circumstances. Giles excuses Willow's hacking into the security system of the sewers because it provides necessary information. We don't really know how they got their money, but if Wesley's actions are any indication in Angel - I wouldn't put stealing above their principles. While Buffy, herself, sees stealing as wrong - those around her seem to okay it depending on the situation.
In the comics - she seems to be uncomfortable about the reveal - when it is shown in the dreamscape issue with Willow. It's clearly something she hid from Willow - because Willow states - "oh that's how you got the funds, I wondered" or something to that effect. And Buffy blushes and turns away, stammering some excuse. I don't think Willow or Xander were consulted. Giles may have been. But I can't tell.
Whedon in his stories - tends to like people who make horrid mistakes. Then over a period of time he explores the consequences. Every time Mal in Firefly smuggled something - he usually got caught and got in trouble over it. Same thing with Fray - her stealing causes the rift with her sister and is partially responsible for getting her brother, Harth, turned into a vampire. In the comics - the ripple effect is already evident.
* Several of the slayers have gone a bit rogue, including one with a red punk hairdo. Who we see on video cameras robbing banks.
* The footage of slayers robbing banks has added fuel to Twilight's campaign.
* It has also aided Harmony in her campaign to demonstrate vampires aren't evil, slayers are.
Sure the money Buffy got from robbing one or two Swiss bank accounts helped her fund an organization that has saved millions of lives, but at what cost? The questions being explored - why shouldn't we steal - if it is for a good cause? If you are stealing to help others isn't it okay? Especially if those we are stealing from can afford it?
It goes back to what Buffy said to Giles in S7 - we can't fight evil with evil. Or when you look into the abyss, it looks back into you. Yet, if Buffy knew this in S7, why does she do it now? For many of the reasons I mention above - she's strung-out, overwhelmed, and a bit desperate. Also tired of saving the world on the cheap.
We don't know all the particulars - but I'm not sure we need to - a careful reading of the text, does demonstrate that Buffy has graduated from a black and white morality. She's no longer sure what is right and wrong in her own universe. Stealing is wrong, but if the circumstances are dire - is it? Killing is wrong too, but she does it every day. Of course those are demons not humans. But what about evil humans? Like Amy and Warren, assuming they are still human. And Willow in Fray? Or how about Spike and Angel? They helped her save the world - should she have staked them? What about Dawn - should Dawn have died to save the world if killing herself had not worked? It's not simple any more. And feeding over 1000 slayers, funding their travel, acquiring weapons, fighting a war, with no funding source and a need for secrecy, does pose a problem. Taking a few bucks here and there, borrowing a submarine, is that really such a big deal?
The ripple effect of consequences is demonstrating that yes, it is. We pay for our actions. Nothing is free in this life. It just depends on how high a price we want to pay.
3. Harmony vs. Buffy, the debate over the role of gender and women in our culture.
Feminism is a dicey topic, just like racism is, but for different reasons. I think at the core of the issue is a somewhat vehement and increasingly personal debate over what the female role should be in society and to what degree if any we all should cater to that role or if there should not be any defined role at all, and people should be allowed to just be themselves regardless of their gender.
In both Swell and Harmonic Divergence - Harmony is featured and compared to the slayers. Not as a character per se, but as a woman. In case we miss the comparison in Harmonic Divergence (Espenson is a far more subtle writer than Stephen DeKnight), Deknight underscores it in Swell with the possessed Satsu's attire and tirade.
Satsu is a gay woman who is very individualistic in her attire and slept with Buffy about five or six issues back. She's also a slayer. In Swell, she gets possessed by a vampire version of a Hello Kitty stuffed cat. Hello Kitty is Japanese product marketed to little girls - with purses, makeup, etc. - quite the trendy item.
Once possessed - Satsu turns hetero, does a homophic rant against homosexuals and a somewhat male chauvinistic/misogynistic rant about women. Stating more or less that women are meant to have children, not fight, and wear nice komonos - which is what she is wearing. Painted face. Hair up. The geisha - who caters to men - and exists only for their pleasure. The woman has no role outside of bearing the male's babies, pleasuring him, and serving his needs. If she sleeps with and prefers women - this cuts the male out of the picture and she no longer serves him.
You may rage at this idea and think it's a bit over the top - but it does exist in culture's around the world. And many women, not just men, subscribe to this view.
Harmony is a vampire. As a human - Harmony wanted nothing more than to be a pretty girl, with lots of cools dresses, cute dogs, and a boyfriend. Even if she had not been turned into a vampire - it is more than likely she'd have gone after the boyfriend, the dogs, the fashion, and maybe done a playboy centerfold ad. Harmony doesn't make me feel superior by the way, if anything she frustrates me - because she is what many men believe women should be, that this all we are. And Harmony subscribes to the view that the only way to get ahead is to manipulate men with your sexual appeal, to sleep with them, to flirt, to flutter your lashes, and to appear to be the silly dumb blond. She loves to shop. Loves to accessorize. Loves fame. Loves to look at pictures of herself. And loves her little puppy dogs which she dresses much as one might a doll. Harmony is basically Ana Nicole Smith, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton with fangs and no singing voice. She's the pin-up that guy's put on their locker doors and swoon over.
The slayer or female slayer - is a woman who is physically strong. Uses a stake to kill her prey, usually male sometimes female, and can be whoever she wants to be. Some are into fashion, some wouldn't be caught dead in it. None are married. None need men to protect or provide for them any more. When they do enter into a romance and a few have - it is as equals. Both partners pulling their own weight. At least that's what they want. Some even have children - although none in the comics. Most are heterosexual, two are gay.
In both Harmonic Divergence and Swell - the media scoffs at the female slayer - who is not in nice clothes and makeup, is not white and pretty and blond, and doesn't smile, and show off her great body, or cuddle her puppy dogs with a Marilyn Monroe wiggle. If you look at the media - the commericials - many of them show women like Harmony - thin, beautiful. Romantic comedies feature beautiful women but fat and not that attractive men. Knocked Up is just one example. On TV - we have Hugo or Hurly, but all the women are goregous by the media's standards. The only heavy-set women I've seen on TV are the gorgeous Callie and a woman in a supporting role on Samantha Who, next to the blond, beautiful, somewhat flirty Christina Applegate. Even reality shows demonstrate this - from American Idol to Beauty and The Geek. Women want men who are interesting - society tells us, while men just want a girl who looks great in a dress.
When Harmony bites into the slayers neck and drinks her blood - a human dead on the ground. The media is happy. People applaud. In Swell, when she says the slayers destroyed the stuffed kitty cats with fangs - after she did this - she gets their applause - in that was just mean.
Granted, from the media's and public's pov - the slayer that Harmony killed was attacking Harmony - Harmony acted in self-defense. They don't read between the lines. They don't see that Harmony had invited everyone at the party to be potential victims. She was feeding off of them, using them to promote herself. Nor did they see that the Swell - the vamp kitties could have been dangerous, that maybe the slayers had another reason for killing them.
This is not to say that the slayers necessarily are right here. It's not that cut and dried. The slayer who got killed by Harmony - was there partly due to Andrew and Buffy's bungling of her recruitment and the fact that she was understandably wary of joining yet another exclusive club of violent women. Buffy's own actions have to an extent isolated her. People don't like to be excluded. If you want to piss someone off - just tell them I'm chosen, I'm special and you aren't. Cultures throughout history have made this mistake. No one is chosen or special or above anyone else - we all have our own purpose to play. When you start thinking that way, you begin to put yourself above everyone else - which is what Buffy has been taught to do. She says as much in S7, Conversations with Dead People - I'm better than my friends, I'm above them, yet at the same time, I'm beneath them, I can't have what they do. Superiority/Inferiority complex. Harmony is a good mirror to Buffy - for Harmony is much the same way - she sees vampires as superior to humans, more powerful, all vampires think this way, but at the same time, she feels excluded from them. Both attitudes have consequences.
4. The Swell of the Vampire Kitties
Hello Kitty is a Japanese cartoon and series of products that the artist based the Swell on. The Swell are these stuffed animales that basically resemble Hello Kitty dolls with fangs. Hello Kitty is quite the cult item. They are marketed mainly to little girls.
The Swell - the stuffed vampire kitties - is in part a metaphor for Buffy's organization. Buffy keeps saying we are legion. I have an army. You can't beat us all. The Swell says the same thing - we are legion. And it is oddly when the Swell joins together that Satsu defeats them. Putting everyone in the same place - making them all part of the same arm, without ideas of their own, without their own opinions - hurts them. It's when people are permitted to be individuals yet also act within the group - that the group as a whole is strengthened.
Buffy hurts her organization - when she says - my way or the highway. I'm ordering you to do this. She helps it when she allows them to council. Yet at the same time, she can't just do one or the other - there are times in which someone has to take the lead and make the decision. Telling others what it is - can hurt you - as we see with Satsu. She works with Kennedy, but she also takes the lead.
The Swell like the Slayers is gender specific. We are brothers! We are sisters! The other gender is excluded or given subsidiary status.
Vampire Kitties - Harmony is to some extent seen as a harmless kitty cat, by all concerned. It's how she's stayed alive as long as she has. But as we see with the Swell, a kitty cat can bite and infect. Cat's by the way have the dirtiest mouths. You get bitten by a stray, you might want to get a rabies shot. Dogs mouths are actually cleaner. I remember being told this years ago. Has something to do with saliva. Also women are often compared to cats. Which is why it's odd that the swell are male. Men often call women pussycats, kitties, or kittens. And refer to female genitila as "pussy".
Whedon likes to show things that appear to be harmless, actually being quite dangerous.
Irony has always been part of his writing. In Angel - it's the muppets of Smile Time.
In Buffy - Spike without his chip does quite a bit of damage. As does Jonathan, Warren and Andrew. Also, Buffy herself is not seen as someone who can hurt anyone. She's so tiny. So pretty. Not what you think of when you think "vampire slayer". Vampire kitties - are a similar play on that theme. What appears to be innocuous can often be deadly. Harmony's seemingly harmless reality series - could prove detrimental to humans. She's found a way to feed off people and get paid for it. It's diabolical. The vampire kitties are little dolls, harmless, cute, but once they climb into your mouth, they suck you dry.
5. Vampires vs. Slayers
Up until the last two issues, I have to admit I really wasn't sure Whedon would include Spike or Angel in the Buffy comics and just leave the characters to Dark Horse to play with. But now, I'm convinced he plans to use them.
I'm also convinced that the end-game has a lot to do with vampires and Buffy's relationship with vampires. A relationship that has been touched upon in several issues. In her dream with Ethan Raine - who upon first appearance looks like and sounds a bit like Spike, going so far to call her pet in a somewhat sarcastic tone of voice. He even reveals a sexual fantasy, with Buffy in a nurse's costume between the naked bodies of Spike and Angel in a heart shaped bed, surrounded by cupids. Later, in Time of Your Life - DarkCrazedWillow mentions how both Buffy and Fray have influenced by vampires, that to a degree the most important people in their lives were vampires - the one's they were closest to. Then in her dream sequence - Buffy asks Angel, realizing when she does so that they were never very good at talking, if she should tell Willow what happens between them in the future. She does it in a round-about way, but she does it. And it is Angel and no one else in that sequence that she asks.
Throughout the seasons - 1-7 on the tv series, Buffy's confident was a vampire. She cuddled with a vampire. She revealed her worste nightmares to vampires. It is Holden Webster - a vampire - that she confides in regarding her feelings for Spike. At it is Spike in Lover's Walk that figures out she's still in love with Angel.
Throughout her life, Buffy has lived in the light, the vampires in the shadows. When she kills them they convienently become dust - no proof of their existence. And they were already dead. They lurked. Hid who they really were. Pretended. Played roles. Now, the vampires are out on the streets and Buffy is behind doors and hiding. Not that she told the world she was a slayer - but she didn't because the world did not believe in vampires. Now that it does, it has accepted the vampires whole-hearted and sees slayers as the enemy.
Buffy is now a fugitive. She's now hunted by the military. The vampires are being protected. She's the enemy. And she's being told that vampire Harmony is more human than she is, more the type of female that we want - normal. Buffy is a freak of nature.
There are only two vampires in the world that may not be happy about this turn of events. Two that may look at Harmony and Buffy differently and know both Harmony and Buffy intimately. One who has slept with and been involved with both of them.
Also, if you've read Fray and Time of Your Life - you know that Buffy seals off the vampires and everyone or thing with magic into another dimension. So what will she do regarding those two vampires? Assuming she even knows they are alive. To what extent is she prepared to sacrifice them for the greater good - again? And should she? And to what extent will they sacrifice themselves - go into yet another hell, because it would not be death, but hell that they would be heading into. Would she go with them? Is there another option? And is this the best one? She's been to Fray's world and knows the consequences of this action. Will she make that choice knowing them? We're told at the end of Time of Your Life that she does, since Fray's world still exists. But it is not explained how lurks still exist in that world. How vampires still do. And how Willow still does.
There's also the larger metaphor - which is can you solve the problem by removing what you believe is the cause? Alfred Bester and Anthony Burgess addressed this issue to a degree in Demolished Man and Clockwork Orange - respectfully, as has Joss Whedon in Firefly (the film Serenity - and a much better example). [ETA and Clarify: In case you haven't read Demolished Man and Clockwork Orange, no reason why you should have, Demolished Man is about a society that instead of killing criminals, it rehabilitates them by removing their personality and removing the criminal intent. Creating in essence a new person. One of the characters in the story argues against this approach, stating you are removing free will, removing choice, and any possibility for remorse. In Clockwork Orange - they modify a criminal's behavior by forcing him to feel sick whenever he does or sees violence - sort of similar to what the Initiative did to Spike in S4 with the chip. The criminal in Clockwork Orange is not really rehabilitated. He has no choice. He does not choose to be good. He is forced to be good to avoid pain. Also he is made vulnerable - is unable to defend himself against any acts of aggression and unable to listen to music he used to love. He is a weakling. No aggression. Much as the character in Demolished Man is at the end of his personality removal - a shell.]
If you remove all demonic impulses, all our criminal and evil thoughts, all the bad, aggressive behavior - do we instantly have peace? Should we just kill everyone who ever does an aggressive act? Kill all the serial killers? All the rapists? All the murderers? And theives? Regardless of the reasons? Is that the answer? And if we do, what are the consequences? Have we removed free will? Have we removed the possibility of redeemption? Can good and evil be that black and white, that easily separated?
These aren't easy questions (far more complex than stated here) - and I don't think the writers know the answers. Through telling their story, they are exploring what the answers might be.
[ETA: According to one of the responses below - Fray is apparently a parallel universe? I'm not sure about that. I don't remember seeing it mentioned in the issue nor is that how I read the text. But, that does not mean they won't do that or it was not mentioned. I'm on the fence about it - if it is true. Parallel universes are used far too often in science-fiction/fantasy as a easy way of doing a 'what-if' story, but not having to lose the original story as a result. Whedon has certainly suggested in the TV series that there are parralell universes - Anya states in Buffy that there are numerous ones. As does Fred in Angel with the concept of parrellel string theory. But I think writers use it as a quick retcon far too often, as recently demonstrated by the tv series Heroes.]
Okay this is incredibly long. If you made it to the end, kudos! And it took me far too long to write it. Off to take a much needed walk.
stormwreath's review and the ensuing discussion, as well as posts in londonkds, and aycheb - I decided to write about what I think may be going in these comics and why I think Whedon is writing them and what he is trying to discuss through them. Before I do so, want to clarify a few things:
1. I do not personally see these comics as a true continuation of the television series, but I believe that Whedon does see them as a continuation of his television series and this is how he would have continued that series if he had the power to do so. (He never would have, by the way. The tv series was a collaboration - that included more than just Whedon and his hand-picked writing staff. Even though the network left him alone most of the time - they did interfer on occassion. ) The comics are our chance to see the story as the writer wishes to tell it with no interference from pesky actors and producers.
2. Angel: After the Fall is not as relevant as I originally thought to a discussion of Buffy S8, since Whedon has stated in recent interviews, that he decided for whatever reason not to make it part of his story. This leaves his options open regarding the characters from Angel and how he can use them in Buffy. According to the interview, he is only restricted in his head by Angel S5. (I have no idea why he decided to do this. But I'm getting the feeling he and Brian Lynch may have had a bit of a falling out, not unlike the ones I sense happened between him and Brian K. Vauhn and with David Greenwalt. People are prickly, aren't they? - ETA: I appear to be wrong about the falling out. With Vaughn it was mostly a realization on Vaughn's part that he doesn't like to be told how to write stories and characters (I can relate), probably gets enough of that on Lost, and on Lynch's part - not a falling out, just Whedon ran out of time, and he is apparently still giving Lynch pointers - regarding the Spike series. He is not talking to or interacting with Kellly Armstrong on Angel. Because he's busy, I'm guessing. )
3. While I agree that a writer's intent is not vital to our understanding of the work and that more often than not a writer often has no idea what their intent is - except to discuss things niggling at them - I will for the purposes of this analysis, discuss what I think Whedon may be intending.
4.The reactions I've seen to the issues I'm about to talk about and to the comics in general, remind me a little of a series of increasingly frustrating conversations I had with a close friend regarding Buffy S6.
ME: Tara is probably going to get killed because That would-
Friend: but I love Tara! They can't kill her off.
Me: But killing Tara off opens story-lines, it furthers the plot -
Friend: I like her because she's so mature and has this great relationship with Willow
ME: What does this have to do with the story being told?
Friend: Are you saying my enjoyment isn't important? Besides she's a lesbian, they always kill off the lesbian and that's just offensive...
Me: Ah. Okay. This is not what I was trying to discuss and completely irrlevant to that, not that your feelings aren't-
Friend: You're saying what I think is irrelevant? What if I told you they were going to kill Spike off. That's far more possible.
Me: Soooo, what did you think of the President's speech last week?
Buffy S8
First off, if you have not read the comics, you are not going to be able to follow this. Well, you could, but you might get confused. Needless to say, spoilers for the comics and the series up to and including Buffy S8 issue 22, Swell.
1. Buffy's leadership approach in S8.
In Buffy S8, Buffy and her friends have relocated to a castle in Scotland and have become organized. With all sorts of state of the art military communications equipment, helicopters, weapons, and from last issue - a nuclear submarine. How they got all this equipment slowly over the course of about ten to twelve issues becomes apparent. They either stole it from nasty people and refrained from returning it to the rightful owners, or they financed it with stolen money. Their justification for this action is actually fairly similar to Angel, Spike and Mal's justifications for similar actions in both Angel the Series and Firefly - the ends justify the means. It's in other words Machiavellian. Although I've never been convinced Machiavelli actually was a proponent of this - The Prince seemed to be in my study of it, more of a denounciation of these actions than a celebration of them. Just as L.Ron Hubbards Dianetics is a condemnation of self-help books, not a celebration, but people are a bit literal and often miss the sarcastic tone or metaphor's in things. Jonathan Swift got into all sorts of trouble back in the day for his "Modest Proposal". I bring this up, because from what I've read and seen of Whedon's tales - I don't believe he's proposing that we steal or that these are heroic or good actions. In the past, his characters have suffered doing these things. I think this an examination and critique of that approach.
At any rate - the Watcher Council is Giles, Xander, Willow and Andrew. Although Xander and Willow seem to be reluctant participants and pretend not to be watchers. I'm not really sure what they are. Willow is the witch with the mostest. Xander is Buffy's right hand guy or communications whiz. She calls him her Watcher. Giles and Buffy are not on speaking terms - the rift that began in S7 of the series has become wider. She talks to Andrew more.
Buffy, as a leader, reminds me a great deal of Giles. She's secretive. She's isolated. She patronizes those around her. And sets them apart from others. Giles clearly wasn't the best teacher in the world, but he didn't exactly have the best teacher's himself. Through-out these 22 issues, Buffy is shown as set apart. She's with people, but at the same time, seems to be isolated. Unable to really confide in or trust anyone. The closest she comes seems to be a dreamscape tour with Willow - that ends with both characters incredibly uncomfortable with one another, and sexual romp with Satsu - which also ends with tension and discomfort. She can't talk to her sister, Dawn, who has her own issues. Nor can she really talk to Xander, but then she never really could about certain things. And Giles - who she was once upon a time able to confide in - she can't talk to at all.
This distance is actually realistic and it makes sense within the framework of the story.
Within the series, actually all of Whedon's works that I've seen, there is a common thread about the lone wolf leader. The leader who is secretive, who doesn't seek council, who takes increasingly machiavellian actions to protect those around them. From a socio-political perspective - this may be an indictment of our own political system - specifically presidents such as George W. Bush, Margret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and Ronald Regan - who tended to isolate themselves and make somewhat ruthless yet in their minds necessary decisions. It's not until the leader seeks the council of those around him or her, requests their assistance, and actually works with the team - that the disaster is averted. If you look at BTVS - you'll note that from S1 through S7, Buffy had help in the end-games. When she decided to do it all herself without help, she put everyone in danger. Becoming - she takes Angel's bait, much as she took the Annoited One's in the first episode of that season, When She Was Bad, and takes off by herself to handle the problem, leaving her friends who beg to come with her or assist, alone and unprotected. The villain goes after her friends, takes the ones he needs to accomplish his ends, and leaves Buffy on the outside hunting them - with the remaining friends who are furious at her for her actions. Eventually they come together and solve the problem.
The message that we need others to solve these problems, even if we don't want their help and don't like asking for it and are often convinced we are better off without them - is fired home in three monologues by Spike (a would-be lone wolf character, who realizes much to his own chagrin that he likes and needs people) - "a slayer with family and friends? That wasn't in the brochure" - he whines to Dru in School Hard. Later in Fool for Love, he states: "What keeps you alive are your mom, your sis, the scoobies". In the flashbacks - each of the slayers he killed were alone. Fighting him alone. Nikki who fought him twice - survived, oddly when her son was accompanying her, but died when she was alone. And in Yoko Factor, S4 - Spike states again - this time to the villian, "If you want to defeat Buffy, you have to separate her from her friends. If you break them apart, put them at odds, she is weak." (Not exact wording, because I'm lazy and don't have the time to hunt it down.)
But Spike is not the only one who states this - so does the First and Caleb - who in S7 work hard to isolate Buffy from her friends, who want her to feel superior to them, without them she is weak and the First can take her over, become corporeal. Buffy wins when she shares her power with the others, brings them into her plan and asks for their council.
The question a lot of people have raised is why hasn't she figured it out yet? Why does Buffy keep making the same mistake over and over and over again. I think the larger question may be, why do we? What is the conflict between lone wolf - I can do it all by myself, the rest of you be damned, and the realization that we have to work together?
Another question, more character specific, may well be - why does Buffy feel the need to isolate herself? Why is it such a struggle to include the others? Is she conscious of the fact that she is even doing this?
Buffy - from the get-go was taught not to include anyone. The slayer works alone, the Watcher's told her. Just one slayer and one watcher. You don't tell anyone. You keep it quiet. Everytime she told someone, Giles yelled at her, and told her that she'd put that person in danger. Every time she tried to have a life outside of slaying, even in her dream sequence in the comic books, she either puts people in danger or puts the person she cares about in danger. Giles is always proven right. Remember the episode about the poet, Owen, when she tells Giles - if the apocalypse comes, beep me? Owen is almost killed. He tries to help her. Is turned on by the adventure. But she realizes he'll die if she lets it continue. Each time she tries to have a romantic love interest - the love interest is put in danger, is sent to hell, turns against her, or dies. This theme is not exclusive to Buffy, it is actually seen in other stories as well, real and fictional - when you are in a profession that involves people who want to kill her - your friends and family become targets.
Giles also taught her Machiavellian tactics, as did the Watcher Council, Professor Walsh and her Initiative, Robin Wood and Spike and Angel. Not to mention her own parents - who were not exactly present in her life. Her father clearly left her life completely when she was 17. Joyce was barely aware of what she was doing. Neither were strong or nuturing. Granted Joyce had a lot on her plate - as Buffy discovers in the sixth season of the series. But Buffy is in many ways forced to act like an adult at any early age. When her mother dies, she is left as the only parental figure for a 14 year old younger sister. The only father figures she has are: the ones I mentioned above. And they are, with the exception of Walsh - the mad scientist - male. Their methods patriarchial. And their motives complicated and in some respects opportunistic. Of the role models - only Spike seems to tell her that her friends and family are important and her strength. Giles - to a degree supports that advice. But Giles hides a lot of things from Buffy. She's not sure what he feels towards her or what he thinks. And of the one's mentioned above - I think Giles may be the most important - he is the only real father Buffy has had. Her biological one took off. But like Hank, Giles is uncomfortable in the role, as he is in the role of Watcher, neither were ones that he asked for. The fact that she feels she can no longer trust his council and that he no longer feels it is needed or wanted - may be a comment on the complexity of the Father/Child relationship.
But like most children, whether they want to admit it or not, Buffy emulates aspects of her father figure. The aspects she can, as do Xander and Willow. They act much like siblings. Giles's children. Buffy takes on Giles' ruthless tatics, Willow his ache for knowledge, regardless of the cost, and Xander his somewhat reluctant role of Watcher, stumbling through the fray.
So I think the reason Buffy keeps making the same mistakes - is partly because she like the rest of us, is human, and falls back on old patterns of behavior. We see her trying not to at different points - but the overwhelming responsibility she carries may be making that impossible. If you've been taught to hide who you are, to not share your ideas or feelings with anyone, to keep people away from the line of fire, and if necessary to kill one person to save millions - it's difficult to go against that teaching. Particularly when you haven't always benefited from doing so. Buffy has learned she can't save everyone, especially those who matter to her the most. And that she can't appear to have a normal life - sharing her power with the other slayers did not free her, it only put her in a different cage with different challenges. She wasn't trained to run an army - she didn't deal well with the Initiative. She was trained to be the lone wolf in the night - who slays by herself. Each time she varied from that path - while it worked on occassion - she also on occassion was punished severly for it.
2. Why did Buffy make the decision to finance her army with stolen funds or "borrowed" items, that she may or may not return?
I've seen a lot of posts that state this is out of character and needs to be explained. But if you look over the text - going back to Season 6 - it makes sense. Buffy attempts in the sixth season to get a job. She can't seem to find one. The one she finally lands in the seventh season - she's fired from after a falling out with her boss - who hired her because she was a slayer and he wanted to romance her, only to get upset over her involvement with the vampire who killed his mother, also a slayer. And you think you have issues with your bosses? So money is shown to be an issue. She gets a loan from Giles - who is being paid by the Watcher Council - and that helps a bit.
Curious why the watchers get paid but slayers don't? Seems deliberate and possibly a critique on the unequal pay between men and women in our society. The boss gets paid. The slayer is the watcher's weapon, he takes care of her, she lives with him, and therefore does not require a salary?? That actually sort of tracks textually - if you consider that Buffy was doing fine until she told the Watcher Council and Giles that she didn't need a watcher. Most slayers we're told die before they reach 21 and they become wards of their watcher's. So the watcher is a sort of teacher/mentor/parent figure - much like Xander is to all the women in the comics. He has control over the slayer - who is his daughter. He gets paid and a portion of that pay supports her. Nikki - lived near or with her watcher, and when she died her son became her watcher's ward. When Buffy becomes 18 - Giles is told to take her powers away to test her. Again - she's the weapon, the student he is honing. Not really a person in her own right. In society - historically - women were at one time seen as property. On the law books in Missouri - it still states that the wife is the property and responsibility of her husband. He provides for her. And it is her task to give him what he wants. It's an old law that they haven't gotten around to removing, even though other more current laws take precedence. In other countries around the world - this theory is still in practice. In Palistine and Jordan, a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding day is killed for betraying her husband. Tainting his property. In some cultures, a woman's genitilia is mutilated so she won't enjoy sex and won't be tempted to cheat on her husband.
The Watcher Council has also shown a tendency to do whatever is necessary under the circumstances. Giles excuses Willow's hacking into the security system of the sewers because it provides necessary information. We don't really know how they got their money, but if Wesley's actions are any indication in Angel - I wouldn't put stealing above their principles. While Buffy, herself, sees stealing as wrong - those around her seem to okay it depending on the situation.
In the comics - she seems to be uncomfortable about the reveal - when it is shown in the dreamscape issue with Willow. It's clearly something she hid from Willow - because Willow states - "oh that's how you got the funds, I wondered" or something to that effect. And Buffy blushes and turns away, stammering some excuse. I don't think Willow or Xander were consulted. Giles may have been. But I can't tell.
Whedon in his stories - tends to like people who make horrid mistakes. Then over a period of time he explores the consequences. Every time Mal in Firefly smuggled something - he usually got caught and got in trouble over it. Same thing with Fray - her stealing causes the rift with her sister and is partially responsible for getting her brother, Harth, turned into a vampire. In the comics - the ripple effect is already evident.
* Several of the slayers have gone a bit rogue, including one with a red punk hairdo. Who we see on video cameras robbing banks.
* The footage of slayers robbing banks has added fuel to Twilight's campaign.
* It has also aided Harmony in her campaign to demonstrate vampires aren't evil, slayers are.
Sure the money Buffy got from robbing one or two Swiss bank accounts helped her fund an organization that has saved millions of lives, but at what cost? The questions being explored - why shouldn't we steal - if it is for a good cause? If you are stealing to help others isn't it okay? Especially if those we are stealing from can afford it?
It goes back to what Buffy said to Giles in S7 - we can't fight evil with evil. Or when you look into the abyss, it looks back into you. Yet, if Buffy knew this in S7, why does she do it now? For many of the reasons I mention above - she's strung-out, overwhelmed, and a bit desperate. Also tired of saving the world on the cheap.
We don't know all the particulars - but I'm not sure we need to - a careful reading of the text, does demonstrate that Buffy has graduated from a black and white morality. She's no longer sure what is right and wrong in her own universe. Stealing is wrong, but if the circumstances are dire - is it? Killing is wrong too, but she does it every day. Of course those are demons not humans. But what about evil humans? Like Amy and Warren, assuming they are still human. And Willow in Fray? Or how about Spike and Angel? They helped her save the world - should she have staked them? What about Dawn - should Dawn have died to save the world if killing herself had not worked? It's not simple any more. And feeding over 1000 slayers, funding their travel, acquiring weapons, fighting a war, with no funding source and a need for secrecy, does pose a problem. Taking a few bucks here and there, borrowing a submarine, is that really such a big deal?
The ripple effect of consequences is demonstrating that yes, it is. We pay for our actions. Nothing is free in this life. It just depends on how high a price we want to pay.
3. Harmony vs. Buffy, the debate over the role of gender and women in our culture.
Feminism is a dicey topic, just like racism is, but for different reasons. I think at the core of the issue is a somewhat vehement and increasingly personal debate over what the female role should be in society and to what degree if any we all should cater to that role or if there should not be any defined role at all, and people should be allowed to just be themselves regardless of their gender.
In both Swell and Harmonic Divergence - Harmony is featured and compared to the slayers. Not as a character per se, but as a woman. In case we miss the comparison in Harmonic Divergence (Espenson is a far more subtle writer than Stephen DeKnight), Deknight underscores it in Swell with the possessed Satsu's attire and tirade.
Satsu is a gay woman who is very individualistic in her attire and slept with Buffy about five or six issues back. She's also a slayer. In Swell, she gets possessed by a vampire version of a Hello Kitty stuffed cat. Hello Kitty is Japanese product marketed to little girls - with purses, makeup, etc. - quite the trendy item.
Once possessed - Satsu turns hetero, does a homophic rant against homosexuals and a somewhat male chauvinistic/misogynistic rant about women. Stating more or less that women are meant to have children, not fight, and wear nice komonos - which is what she is wearing. Painted face. Hair up. The geisha - who caters to men - and exists only for their pleasure. The woman has no role outside of bearing the male's babies, pleasuring him, and serving his needs. If she sleeps with and prefers women - this cuts the male out of the picture and she no longer serves him.
You may rage at this idea and think it's a bit over the top - but it does exist in culture's around the world. And many women, not just men, subscribe to this view.
Harmony is a vampire. As a human - Harmony wanted nothing more than to be a pretty girl, with lots of cools dresses, cute dogs, and a boyfriend. Even if she had not been turned into a vampire - it is more than likely she'd have gone after the boyfriend, the dogs, the fashion, and maybe done a playboy centerfold ad. Harmony doesn't make me feel superior by the way, if anything she frustrates me - because she is what many men believe women should be, that this all we are. And Harmony subscribes to the view that the only way to get ahead is to manipulate men with your sexual appeal, to sleep with them, to flirt, to flutter your lashes, and to appear to be the silly dumb blond. She loves to shop. Loves to accessorize. Loves fame. Loves to look at pictures of herself. And loves her little puppy dogs which she dresses much as one might a doll. Harmony is basically Ana Nicole Smith, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton with fangs and no singing voice. She's the pin-up that guy's put on their locker doors and swoon over.
The slayer or female slayer - is a woman who is physically strong. Uses a stake to kill her prey, usually male sometimes female, and can be whoever she wants to be. Some are into fashion, some wouldn't be caught dead in it. None are married. None need men to protect or provide for them any more. When they do enter into a romance and a few have - it is as equals. Both partners pulling their own weight. At least that's what they want. Some even have children - although none in the comics. Most are heterosexual, two are gay.
In both Harmonic Divergence and Swell - the media scoffs at the female slayer - who is not in nice clothes and makeup, is not white and pretty and blond, and doesn't smile, and show off her great body, or cuddle her puppy dogs with a Marilyn Monroe wiggle. If you look at the media - the commericials - many of them show women like Harmony - thin, beautiful. Romantic comedies feature beautiful women but fat and not that attractive men. Knocked Up is just one example. On TV - we have Hugo or Hurly, but all the women are goregous by the media's standards. The only heavy-set women I've seen on TV are the gorgeous Callie and a woman in a supporting role on Samantha Who, next to the blond, beautiful, somewhat flirty Christina Applegate. Even reality shows demonstrate this - from American Idol to Beauty and The Geek. Women want men who are interesting - society tells us, while men just want a girl who looks great in a dress.
When Harmony bites into the slayers neck and drinks her blood - a human dead on the ground. The media is happy. People applaud. In Swell, when she says the slayers destroyed the stuffed kitty cats with fangs - after she did this - she gets their applause - in that was just mean.
Granted, from the media's and public's pov - the slayer that Harmony killed was attacking Harmony - Harmony acted in self-defense. They don't read between the lines. They don't see that Harmony had invited everyone at the party to be potential victims. She was feeding off of them, using them to promote herself. Nor did they see that the Swell - the vamp kitties could have been dangerous, that maybe the slayers had another reason for killing them.
This is not to say that the slayers necessarily are right here. It's not that cut and dried. The slayer who got killed by Harmony - was there partly due to Andrew and Buffy's bungling of her recruitment and the fact that she was understandably wary of joining yet another exclusive club of violent women. Buffy's own actions have to an extent isolated her. People don't like to be excluded. If you want to piss someone off - just tell them I'm chosen, I'm special and you aren't. Cultures throughout history have made this mistake. No one is chosen or special or above anyone else - we all have our own purpose to play. When you start thinking that way, you begin to put yourself above everyone else - which is what Buffy has been taught to do. She says as much in S7, Conversations with Dead People - I'm better than my friends, I'm above them, yet at the same time, I'm beneath them, I can't have what they do. Superiority/Inferiority complex. Harmony is a good mirror to Buffy - for Harmony is much the same way - she sees vampires as superior to humans, more powerful, all vampires think this way, but at the same time, she feels excluded from them. Both attitudes have consequences.
4. The Swell of the Vampire Kitties
Hello Kitty is a Japanese cartoon and series of products that the artist based the Swell on. The Swell are these stuffed animales that basically resemble Hello Kitty dolls with fangs. Hello Kitty is quite the cult item. They are marketed mainly to little girls.
The Swell - the stuffed vampire kitties - is in part a metaphor for Buffy's organization. Buffy keeps saying we are legion. I have an army. You can't beat us all. The Swell says the same thing - we are legion. And it is oddly when the Swell joins together that Satsu defeats them. Putting everyone in the same place - making them all part of the same arm, without ideas of their own, without their own opinions - hurts them. It's when people are permitted to be individuals yet also act within the group - that the group as a whole is strengthened.
Buffy hurts her organization - when she says - my way or the highway. I'm ordering you to do this. She helps it when she allows them to council. Yet at the same time, she can't just do one or the other - there are times in which someone has to take the lead and make the decision. Telling others what it is - can hurt you - as we see with Satsu. She works with Kennedy, but she also takes the lead.
The Swell like the Slayers is gender specific. We are brothers! We are sisters! The other gender is excluded or given subsidiary status.
Vampire Kitties - Harmony is to some extent seen as a harmless kitty cat, by all concerned. It's how she's stayed alive as long as she has. But as we see with the Swell, a kitty cat can bite and infect. Cat's by the way have the dirtiest mouths. You get bitten by a stray, you might want to get a rabies shot. Dogs mouths are actually cleaner. I remember being told this years ago. Has something to do with saliva. Also women are often compared to cats. Which is why it's odd that the swell are male. Men often call women pussycats, kitties, or kittens. And refer to female genitila as "pussy".
Whedon likes to show things that appear to be harmless, actually being quite dangerous.
Irony has always been part of his writing. In Angel - it's the muppets of Smile Time.
In Buffy - Spike without his chip does quite a bit of damage. As does Jonathan, Warren and Andrew. Also, Buffy herself is not seen as someone who can hurt anyone. She's so tiny. So pretty. Not what you think of when you think "vampire slayer". Vampire kitties - are a similar play on that theme. What appears to be innocuous can often be deadly. Harmony's seemingly harmless reality series - could prove detrimental to humans. She's found a way to feed off people and get paid for it. It's diabolical. The vampire kitties are little dolls, harmless, cute, but once they climb into your mouth, they suck you dry.
5. Vampires vs. Slayers
Up until the last two issues, I have to admit I really wasn't sure Whedon would include Spike or Angel in the Buffy comics and just leave the characters to Dark Horse to play with. But now, I'm convinced he plans to use them.
I'm also convinced that the end-game has a lot to do with vampires and Buffy's relationship with vampires. A relationship that has been touched upon in several issues. In her dream with Ethan Raine - who upon first appearance looks like and sounds a bit like Spike, going so far to call her pet in a somewhat sarcastic tone of voice. He even reveals a sexual fantasy, with Buffy in a nurse's costume between the naked bodies of Spike and Angel in a heart shaped bed, surrounded by cupids. Later, in Time of Your Life - DarkCrazedWillow mentions how both Buffy and Fray have influenced by vampires, that to a degree the most important people in their lives were vampires - the one's they were closest to. Then in her dream sequence - Buffy asks Angel, realizing when she does so that they were never very good at talking, if she should tell Willow what happens between them in the future. She does it in a round-about way, but she does it. And it is Angel and no one else in that sequence that she asks.
Throughout the seasons - 1-7 on the tv series, Buffy's confident was a vampire. She cuddled with a vampire. She revealed her worste nightmares to vampires. It is Holden Webster - a vampire - that she confides in regarding her feelings for Spike. At it is Spike in Lover's Walk that figures out she's still in love with Angel.
Throughout her life, Buffy has lived in the light, the vampires in the shadows. When she kills them they convienently become dust - no proof of their existence. And they were already dead. They lurked. Hid who they really were. Pretended. Played roles. Now, the vampires are out on the streets and Buffy is behind doors and hiding. Not that she told the world she was a slayer - but she didn't because the world did not believe in vampires. Now that it does, it has accepted the vampires whole-hearted and sees slayers as the enemy.
Buffy is now a fugitive. She's now hunted by the military. The vampires are being protected. She's the enemy. And she's being told that vampire Harmony is more human than she is, more the type of female that we want - normal. Buffy is a freak of nature.
There are only two vampires in the world that may not be happy about this turn of events. Two that may look at Harmony and Buffy differently and know both Harmony and Buffy intimately. One who has slept with and been involved with both of them.
Also, if you've read Fray and Time of Your Life - you know that Buffy seals off the vampires and everyone or thing with magic into another dimension. So what will she do regarding those two vampires? Assuming she even knows they are alive. To what extent is she prepared to sacrifice them for the greater good - again? And should she? And to what extent will they sacrifice themselves - go into yet another hell, because it would not be death, but hell that they would be heading into. Would she go with them? Is there another option? And is this the best one? She's been to Fray's world and knows the consequences of this action. Will she make that choice knowing them? We're told at the end of Time of Your Life that she does, since Fray's world still exists. But it is not explained how lurks still exist in that world. How vampires still do. And how Willow still does.
There's also the larger metaphor - which is can you solve the problem by removing what you believe is the cause? Alfred Bester and Anthony Burgess addressed this issue to a degree in Demolished Man and Clockwork Orange - respectfully, as has Joss Whedon in Firefly (the film Serenity - and a much better example). [ETA and Clarify: In case you haven't read Demolished Man and Clockwork Orange, no reason why you should have, Demolished Man is about a society that instead of killing criminals, it rehabilitates them by removing their personality and removing the criminal intent. Creating in essence a new person. One of the characters in the story argues against this approach, stating you are removing free will, removing choice, and any possibility for remorse. In Clockwork Orange - they modify a criminal's behavior by forcing him to feel sick whenever he does or sees violence - sort of similar to what the Initiative did to Spike in S4 with the chip. The criminal in Clockwork Orange is not really rehabilitated. He has no choice. He does not choose to be good. He is forced to be good to avoid pain. Also he is made vulnerable - is unable to defend himself against any acts of aggression and unable to listen to music he used to love. He is a weakling. No aggression. Much as the character in Demolished Man is at the end of his personality removal - a shell.]
If you remove all demonic impulses, all our criminal and evil thoughts, all the bad, aggressive behavior - do we instantly have peace? Should we just kill everyone who ever does an aggressive act? Kill all the serial killers? All the rapists? All the murderers? And theives? Regardless of the reasons? Is that the answer? And if we do, what are the consequences? Have we removed free will? Have we removed the possibility of redeemption? Can good and evil be that black and white, that easily separated?
These aren't easy questions (far more complex than stated here) - and I don't think the writers know the answers. Through telling their story, they are exploring what the answers might be.
[ETA: According to one of the responses below - Fray is apparently a parallel universe? I'm not sure about that. I don't remember seeing it mentioned in the issue nor is that how I read the text. But, that does not mean they won't do that or it was not mentioned. I'm on the fence about it - if it is true. Parallel universes are used far too often in science-fiction/fantasy as a easy way of doing a 'what-if' story, but not having to lose the original story as a result. Whedon has certainly suggested in the TV series that there are parralell universes - Anya states in Buffy that there are numerous ones. As does Fred in Angel with the concept of parrellel string theory. But I think writers use it as a quick retcon far too often, as recently demonstrated by the tv series Heroes.]
Okay this is incredibly long. If you made it to the end, kudos! And it took me far too long to write it. Off to take a much needed walk.
