![[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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-08 11:04 pm (UTC)Wasn't Time of Your Life written to derive Fray into a separate, parallel timeline? Thus making its mythology irrelevant to current BtVS?
If you remove all demonic impulses, all our criminal and evil thoughts, all the bad, aggressive behavior - do we instantly have peace?
I wonder if you read Stanisław Lem's Return from the Stars. Because the examples you mention, as brilliant as they are per se, are too abstract and don't regard the problem in all its complexity. Return from the Stars is fascinating because the novel convincingly shows not only negative, but also positive consequences of neutralizing aggressive impulses in humans.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-08 11:19 pm (UTC)It was? Where did you get that from? An interview? I don't remember seeing that in the comic at all. Although that would be a nice and nifty way of resolving the issue. Also a bit easy - comic book writers rely on parrelle universes far too much to get themselves out of corners.
I wonder if you read Stanisław Lem's Return from the Stars. Because the examples you mention, as brilliant as they are per se, are too abstract and don't regard the problem in all its complexity. Return from the Stars is fascinating because the novel convincingly shows not only negative, but also positive consequences of neutralizing aggressive impulses in humans.
Nope. Never read it. The problem with having incredibly generalist taste - is you tend to know a smattering of a lot of things, but aren't really a specialist in any one category.
Clockwork Orange and Demolished Man are agreeably not exact or perfect examples. But they were all I could think of at the time I wrote the above and they popped into my head - partly because I'd discussed both at length in a different forum and on a separate topic.
I probably should mention the above post is not betaed, edited or proofed in any way. I just wrote it all from my head into the little box on the live journal screen then posted with nothing more than a cursory read through.
Thank you for the book rec, by the way. I'll have to look that one up.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-08 11:50 pm (UTC)To be fair, there is
As to Clockwork Orange and Demolished Man I read them very long ago; apparently it's time to reread them. As far as I remember, the main catalyst of social changes in Demolished Man was telepathy and new type of ethics based on impossibility to hide thoughts. I clearly remember my fascination with the idea of blocking mind-reading with catchy songs :)
Hope you don't mind me linking your post on
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 12:09 am (UTC)No, the working theory shared by me and
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 12:11 am (UTC)What's this about Brian K. Vaughan? It's the first I've heard of that rumor. I'm not sure there's exactly been a falling out between Lynch and Joss as Lynch was just interviewed recently as emailing ideas to Joss about his Spike series, but saying that Joss has been too busy with Dollhouse to give much feedback.
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.
While it's clear that Willow didn't know about Buffy robbing banks, Xander has been around for much longer so it's possible that he was aware from the get-go. Giles, again we cannot tell. But if Xander was consulted or not, his reaction after the fact speaks very plainly as to how he viewed it - "incredibly sexy."
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.
I see her also feeling an incredible responsibility to the girls she's "chosen" to be Slayers. And that she empathizes with their situation even though she can't quite feel the connection. She's even sacrificed her morality in order to provide for her chosen sisters.
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.
I've been finding this reaction from fans a bit funny, too. Yeah maybe they feel it's OTT, but this actually exists in reality. How is it OTT if it's real?
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.
This is a fascinating point that reinforces my belief of how Spike and Angel are going to be very central to the story later in the season. Great analysis of Harmony's relationship to Buffy and how the world views them. I hadn't thought of that before.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 12:20 am (UTC)Okay, I need to go read stormwreath's spec when I have a moment. Because this doesn't make sense to me:
"Future!Willow has successfully changed history and, by her death deleted her entire timeline from existence"
Uh. That's only possible if she killed herself in the past or Buffy in the future. All she accomplished was Buffy killing her in Fray's present. That doesn't delete her entire timeline at all. Nor - has anything in Fray changed.
Now, if past Willow saw Future!Willow - yes she succeeded. OR if Buffy chose to tell past Willow. But that didn't happen.
Or if Buffy chooses not to do it because of what she experienced in Fray - sure. But that hasn't happened yet.
I may have to go read this. It may make more sense in context.
To be fair, there is angearia's theory why Buffy coming to the future is what causes the future to come into being. :)
I've read this theory and this one does make logical sense. It tracks. And it also fits with most time travel stories - not to mention Whedon's sense of irony.
As to Clockwork Orange and Demolished Man I read them very long ago; apparently it's time to reread them. As far as I remember, the main catalyst of social changes in Demolished Man was telepathy and new type of ethics based on impossibility to hide thoughts. I clearly remember my fascination with the idea of blocking mind-reading with catchy songs :)
Oh. I re-read Demolished Man about five or six years back. What I remember from it - is that they catch the anti-hero/bad guy - and rehabilitate him by removing his personality and inserting a new personality, a peaceful, non-aggressive personality. He tries to fight them on it, and the book spends a lot of time discussing the merits of that approach to rehabilitation and if a person can ever redeem himself if you change them. Behavior modification removes choice.
Hope you don't mind me linking your post on newly_legion.
Not at all. Link away! And thank you for asking.
The only posts I mind people linking to - are ones that deal with my personal life, refer to items on my flist that may be personal to those people, or personal topics. But I usually lock those, so it's not a huge issue. And if I get really worried, I delete them or make them private.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 03:17 am (UTC)Referring back to your 'conversation' about Tara's death; I always thought that THIS was the reason Tara had to die: sure her death provided all kinds of motivation for Willow to go over the edge, but the reason I wasn't surprised was because Tara was too perfect. Her character had evolved to a point where she really had inner strength and few, if any, faults.... so what could possibly be the point in her continuing to live? You couldn't have St. Tara running around being perfect all the time, and wouldn't it be kind of depressing to have have her start to go bad (like Riley inexplicably deciding to see vampire whores... that never made any sense IMO)?
The whole thing with character development is that they have to have some problems and faults from which to grow, and sometimes it makes sense that they keep making the same mistakes over and over, or that they are influenced to do wrong by others, or that the pressures are just too much for them. Actually I've always felt that Joss has done a good job of exploring all of Buffy's faults without ever making her seem lame or like a hopeless case!
LOL
Oh another thing I wanted to comment on was the watchers' salaries... I had always felt that there was a commentary to be made here, but not about sexism (since there were female watchers) but about the nature of a hero. The Watcher's choose this as a profession, and as professionals they get paid, but the hero is chosen, and has no choice. There was (IMO) an implication that accepting money would sully the purity of that 'divine' relationship w/TPTB.
But now stealing to support herself seems to be kind of sullying that purity (way worse than a salary), so I'm pretty interested to see exactly what Joss is going to say about that ultimately.
BTW I am right now watching Sully (the Captain who saved the lives of the airplane full of passengers) on 60 minutes - wow, talk about a hero!
Last night I was watching one of the later episodes of BtVS S5, when Buffy is having to kill a whole bunch of those Knights (who want to kill Dawn), and it hit me: aren't these the first humans Buffy kills? They don't really explore this; clearly she had no choice, but I was kind of surprised that it was never seen as a turning point for her, because she had always avoided it in the past...
Anyway, I loved your essay, you brought out some fascinating points which have given me a lot to think about... I just mentioned here some thoughts that have occurred to me.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 03:29 am (UTC)Largely speculation on my part. I'd read an interview where Vaughan had stated that while he liked Whedon, this was the last time he was going to work on a comic that was not his own characters that he'd created and had control over. Or something to that effect. I read that as - yes, Whedon's a great guy, but I feel like I'm suffocating with all the oversight.
On Lynch - I may have read more into Whedon's interview regarding Lynch than is there. Whedon said that Angel After the Fall isn't Angel S6, and he gave Lynch some pointers, that was that. Lynch states that he asked Whedon's advice, but Whedon left him on his own a lot of the time. And told him at one point to not use Cordy unless absolutely necessary. Then Lynch was off of the Angel comics, Whedon's not giving any pointers any more....so I thought, uhm okay, what happened?
Because initially - the whole thing was sold as Whedon co-plotting Angel S6 with Lynch.
What probably happened is Whedon got busy with Dollhouse and just did not have the time. So he told Lynch - look this is where I'm going and this is how I see the characters and how I plan to fit them into Buffy. If you want to write something that can blend into what my plans are - this is what you do.
That's my guess. But I could be wrong. They aren't telling us.
This is the problem with trying to figure out authorial intent.
It's largely guesswork - even when you have interviews.
Thank you for the news on Lynch - I didn't know he was asking Whedon for pointers on the Spike comics or that Whedon had provided a few.
While it's clear that Willow didn't know about Buffy robbing banks, Xander has been around for much longer so it's possible that he was aware from the get-go. Giles, again we cannot tell. But if Xander was consulted or not, his reaction after the fact speaks very plainly as to how he viewed it - "incredibly sexy."
Your point on Xander makes a lot of sense. And continues to disprove the theory that some posters have that Xander is Twilight. The guy would have to have a major personality change for that to happen. He finds powerful women sexy and cool.
I see her also feeling an incredible responsibility to the girls she's "chosen" to be Slayers. And that she empathizes with their situation even though she can't quite feel the connection. She's even sacrificed her morality in order to provide for her chosen sisters.
This is a great point. I hadn't thought of that. Buffy feels responsible. And she keeps losing girls. Each girl that dies - she feels in her gut. And she's lost quite a few. And the ones that turn rogue? Also her responsibility. To be responsible for a 1000 people is a bit overwhelming. Dawn was hard enough.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 03:30 am (UTC)I've seen it outside of fandom as well. People have an odd tendency to put blinders on - not seeing things that lie outside of their experience. And they don't want to be reminded of it - or see it. They just want to be entertained.
Keep the nasty out of my face, please.
I've seen some knock-down drag-out flame wars regarding misogyny, chauvnism, and racism online - in other fandoms. Supernatural is amongst the worste - a show that I enjoy, but I avoid the fandom like the plague. Doctor Who also has some of this - (god forbid there be a female Doctor Who).
And, I remember very heated debates regarding Alice Walker's novel Temple of My Familar which dealt with the mutilated gentilia issue.
I think Whedon may be deliberating commenting on it - because he is in two industries that are known for their chauvinism and misogyny towards women - film and comics. Both are old boy clubs. And he also has condemned the recent spat of torture porn horror flicks that exploit women and condone torture of women. Not to mention youtube videos of women being beaten and killed and stoned. We live in a frightening world.
This is a fascinating point that reinforces my belief of how Spike and Angel are going to be very central to the story later in the season.
The only question right now is how. I'm thinking Harmony is the key. Both are central to both Harmony and Buffy's arcs.
Angel took Harmony in more than once. He gave her the benefit of the doubt in S5 Angel. Knowing full well she'd betray him.
And Spike and Harmony have a conversation about Buffy in Harm's Way - where Harmony asks Spike why he didn't go after Buffy. Then he realizes half-way through his explaination and her response that she's upset he doesn't care about her that way - so he, in a soulful moment, states - something to make her feel better - that having someone hate you - is careing in a way. She responds to this gleefully - partly because she's a vampire and vampire's would get off on that.
Those four characters are linked in the story. Amy and Warren are linked to Willow. Dracula is linked to Xander. Harmony is linked to Buffy - partly because Harmony is representive of who Buffy used to be. The pretty cheerleader with the lollipop who only thought about shopping and great shoes. And was running for homecoming queen. The valley girl. The dumb blond joke - who gets killed in all those slasher flicks and every guy makes fun of. Whedon purposely turned those dumb petite blonds - Darla, Buffy, and Harmony - all with those cutsy girl names - and turned them deadly. Darla is the one who turns Angel into a vampire. Harmony betrays Angel with Adam, and gets her own reality series where she bites guys nightly. And Buffy is a vampire slayer. They are the opposite of the dumb blond joke.
And Harmony much like Darla is who Buffy might have been if she hadn't been a slayer and if she'd become a vampire.
They are in some respects mirror reflections.
The next few issues should be interesting.
I don't believe Angel or Spike is Twilight, like Xander, they'd have to go through a serious personality change. No, I think Whedon has something else planned. Not sure what, but I think it is tied to the whole vampires are cool, slayers evil media blitz that Harmony is creating.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 03:50 am (UTC)So will touch briefly on some points.
I agree about Tara. The conversation posted above is partly to demonstrate the pointless arguments you get into regarding this sort of thing online.
Spike made no sense to kill in S6, which was why I knew he wasn't going to die then. I also knew he was probably going to get a soul or become human at the end of the season. Not turn evil again with the chip removed like a lot of fans thought - partly because they weren't thinking logically, or about the story, they were thinking with their gut.
You're correct - they'd written Tara into a corner - she was the only sane character in the story. And killing her - would be the worst thing you could do to the other characters - the one thing that would send them off the edge. Just as turning Angel in S2 was the worst thing they could do. Plus it fit the whole metaphor - Buffy wanted to die. She did not want to be a mother to Dawn. Tara represented what Buffy and Dawn lost in Joyce, and possibly never really had. And what Buffy admired.
Doesn't really make sense why someone who choses the occupation gets paid and someone who doesn't - has to suffer?
Twisted logic that. Almost as if being chosen is a curse. And in a way perhaps that's how Buffy sees it. So why shouldn't she use it to get money to pay for these girls? She didn't choose this life. It hasn't rewarded her. It gives her pain.
And the world doesn't care.
That's one way of looking at it.
I'd agree with you on the Watcher point - except for one little thing - they treat the slayer as if she is a weapon not a hero. And refer to her as a weapon. Also even though there are female watchers - they are almost aesexual or depicted as such. And the organization is patriachial in nature - the counter-opposite to the Guardians and the Coven - which is matriarchial.
Buffy in how she treats the other slayers is unconsciously adopting Watcher tactics. The Watcher's weren't very nice.
They stole. And they killed humans. Even proposed doing so.
Giles kills Ben - remember. And tortures Glories minions.
I think over time the relationship has become somewhat complicated as has the idea of what a hero is and what a hero must do. It's not as cut and dried as it was in the early years - not as simple.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 03:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 04:38 am (UTC)I had wondered about that, too. I think that the reason it was never really mentioned again was because she didn't make a conscious decision to kill these people. They showed up and wouldn't back off, and her family was being attacked, so she did what was necessary.
I think that's the way she sees things in season 8, unfortunately. She's doing all of these things because she feels like she doesn't have any options.
I'm eager to see what Joss has in mind as a conclusion for all of this, because the only thing I think Buffy can really do now is use the scythe to take away the slayer powers from everyone.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 04:50 am (UTC)Thus, when I say forced, I mean exactly that-- not one of us has complete control over our lives, and Buffy would be no different, no matter how powerful she is. While Whedon hasn't yet revealed the reason for the rift between Buffy and Giles, I suspect it may be related to the sheer number of Slayers that became empowered by Willow's spell. You will recall that Giles heartily approved of Buffy's idea to empower multiple Slayers, but I tend to think both he and Buffy felt that the number involved would not be more than those they knew of, plus maybe a few dozen more.
Then suddenly, there's thousands of them. Being the leader for 50 or a hundred soldiers is nothing like being the leader for thousands. Where will the money come from to equipe, train, or even simply feed and house them all? I suspect once the white light began to settle a bit, Giles and Buffy had very different ideas of what to do, and thus evolved the rift.
Note that we have been given evidence of what Giles wanted to do by virtue of the earlier four-issue Faith arc, and how it ended up, with Giles and Faith reprising the low-key "Avengers" style of righting the wrongs of the world.
Is one right and the other wrong? It all depends on one's perspective. Buffy understandably wants things to get better, now. Giles' way might work, but it will take much longer and why in the meantime should the skills of all these young women be wasted or minimized?
You say you want a revolution...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 09:12 am (UTC)I got the impression it was more the othe way around. They already knew that Tara was going to get killed and send Willow off the deep end as early as Season 5... originally she was going to die in 'Tough Love' and Willow, not Glory, would have been the S5 Big Bad. When they decided not to do that, they had the whole of S6 to make Tara even more lovable and kind and strong, so it would be an even bigger shock when she got killed.
Joss is a sadist. :-)
Also even though there are female watchers - they are almost asexual or depicted as such.
They're women who've bought into the male-dominated conventional power structure, so they get treated as honorary men. And the Slayer, who can't be bought over, is instead kept young and ignorant and dependent on her Watcher.
Regarding Buffy killing humans; somewhere online there's a list, but I do remember it includes the zookeeper in 'The Pack', the coach in 'Go Fish' and the two German assassins in 'Homecoming'. Her insistence in S6 that the Slayer has no right to kill humans actually seems like an idea she developed over time.
PS: interesting meta! :-)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 09:44 am (UTC)Well, to be fair, The First starts its journey in Istanbul. Former Vyzantium.
Of course, it could be just a coincidence...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 10:15 am (UTC)I have to confess that I could never understand time-travel mechanics. But, from writer's POV, it's a good technique to get rid of the past mythology that burdens the current narrative. Reload the verse and discard what hampers the story.
Fray mythology is based on the suggestion that the last slayer had closed the hellmouth and banished all demons from our dimension. BtVS finale is more or less compatible with that mythology. But current situation contradicts it.
The idea of all demons banished from our dimension works great as a closure. But it looks like Joss doesn't plan to stop. So, it would be logical to reload the mythology that stands in the way.
That's why I tend to think that after ToyL Frayverse is a different timeline.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 10:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 10:34 am (UTC)(This opinion may be further strengthened by irritation at just how ignorant and US-stereotyped the depiction of England in the Vaughan arc was, although that wasn't really gender-related.)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 01:18 pm (UTC)Well, this was my basic idea (and bear in mind that after writing the original review that moscow linked to, Emmie and I discussed this at length):
In the original timeline, Buffy and Willow made various decisions and choices, which eventually led to Fray's future.
The Willow in Fray's future brought present-day Buffy forward in time. Buffy killed future!Willow, then returned to her own time.
Present-day Buffy now remembers having to kill Willow, which was a traumatic experience for her. My theory is that she will now make different decisions and change the future, so that Fray's world never happens.
This creates a paradox, of course, since Buffy has seen Fray's future. Therefore Fray's future splits off into a parallel timeline, like the WishVerse.
I don't know if this is what the writers intended, but it makes sense to me. :-)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 03:25 pm (UTC)Early on Buffy refused to kill one of the Knights, but she took his sword, but then she killed ten of them in the battle of the Winnebago, and nothing was even said about it. It surprised me is all...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 03:31 pm (UTC)...including people who enjoy fanwank - like me! :))
Love your avi!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 03:32 pm (UTC)You know, I really love discussing all this stuff again... thank you again for the long interesting and thought provoking post!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 05:31 pm (UTC)This creates a paradox, of course, since Buffy has seen Fray's future. Therefore Fray's future splits off into a parallel timeline, like the WishVerse.
Ah. That's makes sense then. I more or less came up with the same theory when I read Time of Your Life.
Or rather, I came up with a couple of possibilities based on what I know of time travel storylines.
Time travel annoys me a bit in fiction, because writers will often do it to see the future, then they won't show the effects of the time travel on those who traveled into the future or the past, or for that matter the effects on the timeline that occurred because they did it.
Ray Bradbury wrote an excellent short story regarding this entitled Sound of Thunder - where a guy travels back to the stone age and crushes a butterfly.
Changing everything.
Here - you can go one of three ways:
1. Nothing changes. (I like to call this the Star Trek approach - where everyone forgets what happened and the future happens regardless.)
2. The Fray Universe still comes into existence in Buffy's timeline - due to her actions, but in a different way and the universe is changed. DarkWillow may not exist in it for example. Or Harth may not have gotten turned. (This I like to call the Journeyman or Tru Calling Effect.)
3. Buffy prevents it from coming into existence by doing something completely different and it splits off.
(The Time Paradox - which both the Wishverse and Star Trek dealt with, not to mention numerous marvel comics.)
At any rate, by doing the story - Whedon kept his options open. Now his ending is neither predictable or pre-ordained.
The philosophy behind the second and possibly third approach is basically the future is never stagnate. It remains unwritten. And can be changed at any time. There is no such thing as destiny or fate. It is not pre-planned. God/the writer is making up as he goes along and there are an unlimited number of ways it can go based on the unlimited choices everyone makes. Since we can't know all these variables or all the actors involved- it is impossible to know what choice will tip the balance one way or another.
I'm guessing Buffy will try not to create the Fray Universe - but what I don't know for certain is her attempts not to do it - cause it to happen after-all.
There's a trope in sci-fi time travel storylines - which Emmie touches upon - where you are destined to travel forward or backward in time and will only be able to change that which you are destined to change. As a result of that travel - you may attempt to either change the past in such a way as to dramatically change your future or you try to make choices based on what you saw in the future to ensure it doesn't come to pass - but it does anyhow. Because the time stream cannot be changed. We will be stopped, unless our actions fit where it must go. This is the theory proposed in the tv series' Lost. That you can only change those things that needed to be changed. If you try to change something else - time will loop until it is fixed or you will be prevented.
I don't think Whedon subscribes to that theory, considering both Angel and Buffy the series seemed to go by the old time paradox view and never did a groundhog day episode or a time loop episode outside of the Mummy's hand - which was merely a perception spell cast by Jonathan.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 09:26 pm (UTC)Word.
Hmmm...may I offer another view?.;-)
Date: 2009-02-10 02:40 am (UTC)As it stands? I'm not sure at this point whether I agree or disagree. I do see your points and I can see the pattern that you point to in the series and the comics. But, I also see another possibility, not to mention an explanation for that pattern. Since I don't see anyone else challenging you on this, dang it - I'm going to - because I'm not sure. But please realize, as I do so, that I honestly do not, at this point, know where I stand on the issue.
1.Satsu's speech in Japan and how Japan is characterized in the comic.
Isn't it possible that Whedon is satirizing how American's view other cultures? The Japan bit felt a bit over-the-top to me, exaggerated.
A stereotype that is well known from "Sayonara" (Brando film) to "Memoires of A Geisha" - and like many such stereotypes is often used to justify a certain, right-wing, pov - the submissive Japanese female in the kimono who waits on men and speaks politely and has children. There are numerous novels and films not to mention commericials and ads that promote the view that American women should be more like Japanese women - demure, submissive, the geisha. And in Japanese culture there are - to a degree- horrors done to women, from a Western perspective, such as foot-binding - to make the women's feet smaller, delicate, and attractive to men. This information whether real or unreal has invaded the American perception of Japanese culture. "Hello Kitty" - is part of that perception - the cute little kitty-cat.
So, the speech to me, knowing what I know about mainstream imports and non-mainstream Japanese imports, as well as cult items such as Battle Royale (which I'm willing to bet Whedon has seen along with the Host) - felt like a deliberate exaggeration of a specific American stereotype regarding Japanese culture. One that is quickly derailed, by Satsu asking what the hell am I wearing? Also, the Wolves At The Gate issues = where the Japanese characters were very modern.
If you compare this exaggerated stereotype to Harmony and how she's portrayed - also a stereotype - you see an interesting comparison. Once again - we have a woman catering to traditional views of how a woman should act. Pretty, little puppy dogs, little girl voice. The quintessential dumb blond valley girl. Much like Buffy herself. But - we know that Harmony is anything but dumb and if a guy gets too close..
Also, Whedon and his writers have a long history of satirizing stereotypes - such as "Buffy" the Vampire Slayer. This is basically the "dumb blond girl joke". Men tell it all the time - I recently heard it at work. Whedon sort of flips it, with Harmony (who is clearly anything but dumb), Darla (ditto) and Buffy.
Regarding Japan - we've had several issues take place in Japan. One showed Buffy and Satsu having sex in Japan, and Satsu from what I gathered had come from Japan or her parents had, and knew Japanese. Also we had other girls who were from Japan. They did not wear kimonos. And did not cater to the stereotype. Nor for that matter did the Japanese vampires - if I recall. Granted Satsu is not a well-developed character as of yet, but neither are a lot of the subsidiary characters. Part of the problem of having a cast of 1000s. She is, however, more developed than Kennedy and that's saying something.
[apologies for typos]
TBC
Continued from above...
Date: 2009-02-10 02:53 am (UTC)While I have no way of knowing what Vaughn intended outside of a brief interview and a few of his writings that I've read -this also felt very over-the-top to me. I mean, come on, it was right out of a X-men comic strip with Jean at the Hellfire club's English country estate. Or a romance novel. Even the antagonist's name.
Actually it felt a lot like a satire of a cliche ridden gothic romance novel - hitting and twisting all the classic tropes - with the romance being between two women as opposed to a woman and a man. I can see how it would be grating, but satire, often is. "A coming out party?" Who does that? It was all very Eliza Doolittle and Pgymalion. And I think they did that comparison to play with yet another female/male stereotype of how women should be viewed. Who we should become.
3. The American stereotype - is Harmony. The Paris Hilton.
They haven't ignored that one. Nor have they down-played it. So I'm not sure you can claim that they are showing other cultures are more oppressive of women than the US, so much as they oppressive women differently.
Each stereotype is false. All are a bit over-the-top in places.
Much like the name "Buffy" is over the top.
Dawn's story is also a bit over the top - she cheated on her boyfriend and she has been turned into each of the items that women often call whores or sluts. "Giant slut", "Ridden Hard and Put Away Wet"...and next issue, a doll. These are the words we derisively call women who sleep around and cheat on their boyfriends. Numerous sex jokes are made at Dawn's expense or shown, and at first they annoyed me and I found them offensive - but now I see a definite pattern emerging - I think I'm supposed to find them somewhat offensive. They are also by the way similar to the sex jokes and double-entdre's that I see in a lot of comics - specifically female magna and female underground. The woman as the brunt of a sex joke - is a common theme in US comics and film.
I think and I may be wrong about this - but I think Whedon is not only pointing to male stereotypes regarding women, but female ones. How society views us. And he's in part mocking it.
Showing how we remove female power, belittle women, make women subsidiary or a joke. Dawn is an adolescent - and has growing pains, but female teens are often ridiculed for big breasts or periods or being taller than the boys.
It does feel like the "American" take on things, ignoring other views that are outside the US, and that too may well be deliberate, because America - whether we like or not - has inundated the global media with its presence. Dictating to other cultures how it views the world - in a way that can be and most likely is jingoistic. America - in the last several years - has told the world that it's more modern and more with it. You need to adopt our culture because it's better. In Whedon's tales - I see a mockery of that. Buffy's speech to the girl slayer who says hell no - pretty much demonstrates a reluctance to cater to the "group" mentality. As does Faith and Giles break with Buffy's organization. Not to mention Satsu's reaction at the end of this issue when she throws the cinnamon lip gloss in the trash and goes shopping for another flavor.
Then there is Twilight - who may be representative of the American Military might makes right. His covert operations. Torture tactics. Invasion of cultures - with the vampire kitties - assuming Twilight was indeed behind that.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 03:09 am (UTC)I got the impression it was more the othe way around. They already knew that Tara was going to get killed and send Willow off the deep end as early as Season 5... originally she was going to die in 'Tough Love' and Willow, not Glory, would have been the S5 Big Bad. When they decided not to do that, they had the whole of S6 to make Tara even more lovable and kind and strong, so it would be an even bigger shock when she got killed.
Yes. This is what I argued online back in 2006 before the spoilers came out. I'd figured out that either Tara or OZ were going to die before the series was over sometime in S4. Because they kept showing how Willow would go to magic whenever she got upset or felt powerless regarding events.
Also - I think Whedon became intriqued with the idea of Willow going bad after The Wish. Don't blame him - I did too. Dopplegangland remains one of my all time favorite episodes.
Tara unfortunately, much like OZ was a means to an end - she was only there to further Willow's arc.
Whedon has even stated that he had Tara's death scene written as early as S4 and had been looking forward to Willow going bad. (Another favorite episode of mine is Villains.)
Joss is a sadist. :-)
Yep! Of course to give him a bit of credit - Buffy is meant to horror - not romance. People keep forgetting that. Whedon is more of horror writer.
They're women who've bought into the male-dominated conventional power structure, so they get treated as honorary men. And the Slayer, who can't be bought over, is instead kept young and ignorant and dependent on her Watcher.
You articulated this much better than I did. Thank you. This is what I meant to say.
Each of the women we've seen who are Watchers - dress and act like honorary men.
It's like the First stated in S7, it's not about right or wrong, it is about power. Who has it and who doesn't. Or as Buffy puts it in S5 - I have the power and you all want it.
The Watcher only had power as long as the slayer was under his control. When Buffy was young and ignorant - Giles could control her - while to a degree, he never really had much control. When she got older - he had no role, he was sidelined, his power removed - which Spike calls him on in S4, S5, S6 and S7.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 03:13 am (UTC)so it is all cardboard and papermache (it couldn't hurt anyone if you tried).
This certainly turned into a lively discussion... um... where did the discussion go? Is it hidden?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 03:20 am (UTC)As Faith figures out - there's things about Giles that Giles would rather Buffy did not know about, but Faith - who in a way he identifies with - he can tell. Giles was apparently the bad boy back in the day, a bit like Faith. And that ruthlessness is not gone.
Remember he killed Ben and he wanted to kill Dawn. He also sent the watcher council after Faith in Who Are You - which he felt uneasy about.
Add to all of this - Gile's own dark and sordid past, when he resisted being a Watcher and instead explored dark magic. A past that he shares with Ethan Raine.
He tells Faith in No Future for You - that maybe by helping her, he can redeem himself a bit in his own eyes.
Regarding Buffy - I think Giles sees her as a hero, above him.
That she's left him beyond and doesn't need him any more.
I don't believe he would be in disagreement with her actions. He was always a bit ruthless and often condoned ruthless acts, which Buffy was against. Buffy got angry at Giles in No Future - for hiring Faith to go after Gigi and not confiding in her about it. For going behind her back. Can't say I blame her for that. She may have wondered at the time what else Giles had been doing without telling her.
I'm hoping some of Gile's views on this will be explained in the upcoming Faith/Giles one-shot that they are doing. I thought it would be next month's issue - but from the cover spoiler - I'm guessing it's not.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 03:31 am (UTC)At the end of S7 - she did the only thing she could do to stop the First. And at the time it was the best thing to do.
But I'm not sure she appreciated the consequences or knew where it would lead. I seriously doubt she envisioned herself leading 1000s of slayers. We see that in Angel S5 - with Spike who acts a little surprised by Dana's appearance. I think the enormity of what they'd done didn't quite occur to him either.
Also at the end of S7 - Buffy may have thought she could do anything now - as did her friends. That they could go shopping, have normal lives. Until reality set in - and they realized they had a bus full of girls that needed to be taken care of, not to mention many other girls just like them out there.
How do you lead 1000s of people? I think this is a question that Whedon has been pondering. Most superheroes in comic books don't lead 1000s of people, they usually have a small team of just about ten or so, or they are lone wolfs. Superman was up until he founded the Justice League - and that's not made up of 1000s. Also in this case, it's not men and women, but women of varying ages, cultures, languages, creeds.
I think Whedon and his writing team may be exploring what happens to the superhero when they have empowered an army, have to feed it, and lead it. What are the ethical questions involved? Can you have a personal life? How isolated are you?
They are interesting questions.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 03:47 am (UTC)Ah, you clearly weren't privy to the long and at times vehement arguements we had about this on a couple of fanboards back in the day.
The first time it came up - the whole not killing people thing - was in the episode with John Ritter - where she thinks she killed her mother's boyfriend, who'd been abusive to her.
She discovers he's a robot.
Prior to that - there are humans killed, but often by accident, in self-defense, or they are, like in the case of the zookeeper - no longer human and threats. Amy's mother is one. Without exception everyone Buffy kills is in self-defense. Even the vampires - to a degree are that way - she fights them, they fight back, and it becomes an issue of its them or me.
In Later seasons - it's not that clear-cut of course.
Early on Buffy refused to kill one of the Knights, but she took his sword, but then she killed ten of them in the battle of the Winnebago, and nothing was even said about it. It surprised me is all...
Well, there is a distinction between the Knight she didn't kill and the one's attacking the Winnebago. The Knight she didn't kill was disarmed and couldn't hurt her or her family.
Sure he could report on her. But he was more or less harmless at that point. She avoids killing them in the alley when they attack as well - because she can escape and it's not necessary.
When she is fighting them in the Winnebago - it is clearly a case of them or us. The Knights won't stop until they are dead.
They aren't going to negotiate. Also Buffy doesn't initiate the attack against the Knights, the Knight's initiate it against Buffy.
She doesn't go after them in revenge. Even after Dawn is taken by Glory - she doesn't go on a killing rampage and take out the Knights.
This is also not the same as Katrina's death in Dead Things or Warren's alleged death at Willow's hands. In Dead Things - Buffy believes she killed Katrina, a victim, who she was attempting to save, with her negligence. In law school - we'd call this involuntary manslaughter - which she'd have gotten if she'd successfully turned herself in. While Warren's alleged death in Villians at Willow's hand was an act of vengence - with malice aforethought and clear intent. Willow intended to torture and kill Warren. Not only Warren but Andrew and Jonathan - who had nothing to do with Tara's death - they were in prison at the time.
With the Knight's - Buffy was fighting for her life and her friends. If she did not kill them, they would have killed her.
They almost did kill her friends. The Winnebago is turned over, Giles is speared, and they barely make it to a shelter, also Spike's hands are torn to shreds. Plus they end up being surrounded by the Knights - still intent on killing them.
Again, this is not the same as Giles murdering Ben who is defenseless and lying on the ground at his feet. Or Giles hiring Faith to kill Gigi. Buffy only kills the Knights because there is no other choice. In a court of law - she'd be considered a solider fighting for her life or get off on self-defense.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 03:55 am (UTC)There was a popular rumor floating about online back in 2002 or 2003 - that Willow would turn after Tara got killed by Glory in Touched, try to kill Glory (who turned out to be Xander), and Buffy would die saving the world from Willow, who in turn would have been killed by Giles.
When we heard it - we decided that it was a really good thing this did not happen. Also I'm not sure it worked. Too over the top, and Xander/Glory - would have required a bit more back story and retconning.
But I think Whedon may have toyed with it until he learned that UPN had chosen to carry Buffy S6 and Buffy S7. I don't know for certain and I'm not sure where the rumor arose. I've never been able to locate anything said by the writers or Whedon that supports it.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 03:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 04:13 am (UTC)"Prior to that - there are humans killed, but often by accident, in self-defense, or they are, like in the case of the zookeeper - no longer human and threats. Amy's mother is one."
regardless of how human Amy's Mother was or wasn't, the fact was that Buffy didn't kill her, she killed herself when her spell bounced off the mirror onto herself. If Buffy HAD staked her then it could be argued that it was in self defense, but in fact the writers on purposely made it that Buffy was not responsible for her death at all.
(actually she isn't dead, she is still trapped inside that cheerleading trophy, but that is neither hear nor there)
I felt that up until this point the writers had gone out of their way to avoid making Buffy directly responsible for the death of any human beings (that they all died through their own evil actions), but all of a sudden the writers abandoned that and put Buffy into this dire situation of having to kill a lot of people.... I totally agree that she had to do it, I was just surprised that there seemed to me to be this big change in the way the show was written without some clear statement of why the change occurred.
Now when Giles kills Ben THAT is clearly heartless murder, it is necessary, but it was something Ben refused to do (when he could have killed Dawn earlier) but that was something I could see as part of Giles' personality... I think if push came to shove that Giles might have been capable of killing Dawn (I think that that is why Buffy wanted Spike protecting Dawn).
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 06:41 am (UTC)I have very little knowledge of the contempory comics world, but it strikes me that indeed this has to be pretty rare. Can you cite any other superhero series where the lead character actually is responsible for thousands, or even just hundreds of other supers?
X-Men is about the closest thing I can think of.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 10:25 am (UTC)Re: Continued from above...
Date: 2009-02-10 10:34 am (UTC)PS: footbinding was a Chinese thing, so far as I gather in Japan it was either non-existent or restricted to a much smaller social group.
Re: Continued from above...
Date: 2009-02-10 02:06 pm (UTC)Satire can be really really subtle. As can sarcasm.
Often it goes over my head.
Regarding the footbinding mention - my point was not that it is a Japanese practice, but that there is an American perception that it may be. People - and not just Americans - have a tendency to generalize about other cultures. We make assumptions based on a smattering of evidence. More often than not our facts are wrong - we do not take the time to look it up or research it. And even when we do - we cannot be certain that the information we've found is accurate.
Most people are a bit on the lazy side - as I am, admittedly, we write or speak without carefully checking our facts and carefully editing what we say.
Foot in mouth disease.
Some writers are very detailed, precise in their writing, others very intiutive - they go with their gut, and their prejudices and assumptions fly out on the page. Some write to make a point. Others to ask questions.
I write to figure things out for myself, to figure out what I think and what other's think - for example.
My guess is Whedon is an intiutive writer who does much the same thing, but I don't know that. I have no way of knowing. I'm not in his head. And I'm not sure if what you and others are reacting to in the text is something that I should react to as a negative depiction of other cultures and should be critiqued and possibly squashed or censored. Free speech is a difficult thing. Or if it is something we should discuss? Become aware of? Be sensitive to and comment on? Is it intentional on the writer's part - is he making a statement? Or unintentional - a mistake, a lazy mistake that could have been corrected by research and study?
I sort of wish I could put you in a room with Whedon, and let the two of you discuss it. Because that would answer some of these questions nibbling at my brain.
Re: Hmmm...may I offer another view?.;-)
Date: 2009-02-10 10:05 pm (UTC)I agree that both Japan and England are being satirised, but it doesn't feel jingoistic to me. 'Buffy' satirises everything. The satire is more nuanced when it comes to the US because the writers and most of the audience have a much greater familiarity with American culture, but it's the same motivation. And the stereotype of traditional Japan had a lot of truth to it, as stereotypes often do - but note that Satsu is just as horrified by her kimono as Vampire Willow was by her fuzzy pink sweater. ;-)
Satsu always strikes me as very much a typical product of modern Japanese teenage girl culture, with the random badges and the ironic use of 'cute' accessories like wearing a Hello Kitty hat into battle, and showing a demure and respectful surface to strangers that hides sarcasm and strength of will underneath...
no subject
Date: 2009-02-11 03:47 am (UTC)What if Future Willow showing Buffy the future did change the past, yet Fray's world still comes into being for different reasons (as Shadowkat discusses the option below). So Buffy does in fact act differently thanks to her trip to the future ("This Warn You") and perhaps rights certain wrongs, but the future still ends with only one (half really) slayer with a world full of radies and limited magic. Or perhaps one slayer, but more magic. Who knows? The only comfort we're given from ToYL is that Fray still exists. If Buffy doesn't banish magic, Fray's future def would have been questioned. So now we know whatever Buffy does, Fray will still exist. The exact nature of how these two worlds relate to each other remains a mystery and I imagine that Whedon merely wanted to muddy the waters into creating a circumstance where he shows us that Buffy's actions are free to unfold and that Fray's world will still come into being. Whether this occurs because the worlds exist on separate timestreams now or because Buffy's actions can change certain events but the future in certain regards is inevitable, that remains unclear.
If bringing Buffy to the future only changes history in a limited regard, Future Willow's motivation is more personal as it saves Buffy more than it saves Fray's future world (perhaps Fray's world was never in danger). And perhaps it also saves Buffy's past world.
I can't escape the feeling that Whedon keeps playing with there being only one slayer as inevitable or even right. That slayers don't gain strength from each other the way vampires do and the oncoming fallout of the Slayer Organization in the worldview we see in the Predators and Prey arc. Have you also seen this recent interview with Whedon in Rolling Stone where he says:
"All of my stories lately involve massive corporations that are destroying the wills of the people who work for them."
The Slayer Organization is bad (in it's current form) for Buffy - that's my take on it. Buffy the bank robber, Buffy who is even more emotionally shut down, Buffy ignoring Dawn, Buffy believing they're "more than" and calling her organization a "race of slayers".
So if the new status quo Buffy has created is meant to be viewed as a dangerous change, what is the ideal answer? Or perhaps more to the point, what is the lesser of several evils? Where is the balance between victory over evil and destroying free will?
Another reason I believe the Slayer world might go back to being only one (or two, with Faith) is because I see magic as having finite limitations. Willow gains power from her surroundings and feels drained after doing too much. So I wonder if the Slayer Power has a limited cosmic charge that regenerates itself over time in order to last as many millennia as the Slayer is needed. But perhaps it's not meant to fuel nearly 2000 slayers all in one generation.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 07:11 pm (UTC)This is an interesting point, which often gets lost in most conversations on the topic - and almost did in this one.
I think you may have underlined a tonal shift in the series - from S1-3 and 5-8(if you include the comics) that is worth noting. Season 4, and the second half of S3, is the transition period. I think it really starts in S3 - with the Wish and Lover's Walk, picking up speed with the Faith/Buffy battle - where Buffy goes to kill Faith to save Angel. It's not to stop Faith, nor is it self-defense, but to save Angel. And she almost succeeds in killing Faith. But she doesn't. And she regrets it.
S4 is the true transition point. The break from the old formula or pattern of the series. It's also when the show picked up a lot of new viewers and lost a lot of old ones.
It's in this season - that Willow for the first time concocts a spell that really harms her friends and she does it out of vengence. She does it, because OZ left her and she's furious at her friends for not understanding. The spell is in some respects similar to what she does in Seeing Red. And in that episode in which she goes after Glory with the knives. All three times - are the direct result of losing someone she is romantically in love with.
It's also in this season - that we see the friends drifting a part a bit. Pursuing their own things, less a solid unit. It's during this season that we have the pivotal "Who ARE You" episode, where Faith and Buffy switch bodies, which has both characters questioning their authority figures and moral paths.
Speaking of the Faith/Buffy episode - The villians aren't as clear-cut here either. Jonathan and Walsh are both humans - who mean well. They aren't intending to do evil. While Spike? You are not sure what his intentions are. He is written rather ambiguously in this season, capable of horrible acts (Harsh Light of Day) yet also, surprising acts of assistance. The morality has shifted. But it had been shifting since Season 3. Restless - a sort of outline or roadmap to the character arcs in the seasons ahead, shifts it even further.
By the time S5 arrives, characters we thought would never do anything bad, do.
The buffyverse is no longer the simple - we go hunt the nasty demons, and all is well. It's no longer as black and white as it used to be. People with souls can do unspeakable things, while those without can save you. You can't neatly index and catergorize them. Buffy the hero - might kill humans to save her family, she is willing to destroy the world to save her sister if she has to. Giles, her faithful father figure and mentor, is willing to kill Ben, who is rendered harmless, to prevent a reappearance of Glory - even if Glory can no longer destroy the world. Willow is willing to hurt anyone who hurts Tara. And Spike, evil Spike, would risk life and limb and sanity to help and save a child.
A lot of viewers got upset about this. The tv show wasn't neat anymore. Simple. Not that it had ever been. But in the first three seasons...the morality was easier to put into neat boxes.
Angel was good because he had a soul. He was absolute evil without a soul.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 07:55 pm (UTC)really since Buffy had had to stab Angel in the gut (he isn't human, but he was human to her) she started changing... and her angry willingness to kill Faith really was probably the biggest leading indicator.
Angel's show was alway much more into the gray areas... but Buffy was definitely embracing her moral ambiguity.
It looks like Dollhouse will be ALL gray area all the time, I can't wait until tomorrow night!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 10:22 pm (UTC)1. Whedon's first series as headwriter/show-runner/creator
2. Targeted a teen audience - specifically 13-18 year old girls and the 18-35 year old market. But mostly the younger group.
3. Aired at 8 Eastern/7pm Central - teen market.
4. High School fantasy series
Add to this the time period - when you didn't have many or any at all anti-heroes on TV. And TV was very moralistic in tone. The hero didn't kill people. Very black and white. I remember a friend telling me back in 2002 that there couldn't be a Spike TV series, like there was an Angel one. Spike was too ambiguous. (Odd statement, but he'd never seen the Sopranoes, so didn't know that there was already a series with ambiguous characters). When Buffy started, the Sopranos hadn't yet. Nor had Six Feet Under, or The Sheild - the harbringers of the morally gray tv-verse that we see now.
TV has changed a great deal since Buffy premiered in 1997.
Regarding Dollhouse? Don't expect too much from the pilot. Joss sucks at pilots. His series tend to get better as they move along. I'm hoping Fox gives it time to build an audience and the audience is patient with it. That's another difference between TV when Buffy and Angel first aired and now.
Back then - there was less competition and less tv shows. DVR's and Tivo's did not exist. You couldn't download off the net or watch via hulu. So, tv shows lasted longer sometimes. WB and UPN gave them more time. Now...it's a lot harder, there's always someone waiting in the wings. This March there are about five-six tv shows popping up. And the crop that I'm used to starting in the summer - popped up in Jan, crowding my tv beyond reason.
I just hope the audience is patient.