(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Aw..nobody responded to my movie trailer post. (pouts) Not that I really expected anyone too. But...one squee over the Spiderman Trailer would have been fun. Apparently I'm the only one who thinks the Avengers trailer is lame?

Work has put me in a pissy mood. For lack of a better term. I am tempted to hibernate tomorrow and not deal with people. I had a headache by the end of the day...from email. Sigh. Project Managers and Engineers. Sigh. Actually - the men at work drove me nuts. Patronizing bastards. Who were completely clueless. One guy insisted on talking to another guy, and refused to listen to me, because I was female. I told him I was managing the project and had only pulled the other guy in for a bit of help. He was "assisting" me NOT the other way around. I know, shocking, but there it is.

After much thought and analysis, I've decided that Buffy the Vampire Slayer the Television series, in spite of Whedon or because of him (on the fence) was feminist. It unlike all his other stories did not fall into the victimized little girl trope popularized by Luc Besson and later by Stieg Larrson. I'm sorry, the victimized little girl trope is not what I'd consider feminist. How is showing a girl repeatedly at the mercy of men, until she finally gets fed up and kicks them in the balls feminist? It feels more like male guilt or a way of handling that guilt (much like the magical black man helped and aided by the nice white couple in The Blind Side is about white liberal guilt not the black experience and is insidiously racist), and in a way - female revenge fantasy, which is okay, I guess, but not what I'd define as feminist or even misogynist for that matter. Just female revenge fantasy.

What I liked about Buffy the TV Series is two things: 1) Buffy was not and never was a victim. She wasn't raped. She didn't let it happen. 2) She took the reins. She was a hero like guys are heroes. She didn't have to become a victim first. She was like Peter Parker in Spiderman.

My main problem with the victimized little girl trope is the girl can only become physically powerful and a hero after she is raped and tortured by men, not before. She can't be a hero just because she is - like men can. Buffy prior to the episode "Get it Done" was not about the victimized little girl. And in many ways subverted the stereotype portraying traditional male roles throughout much of the series (with the possible exception of the first two seasons). That is however the only thing that I've seen or read that Whedon has written that I can say that about. I don't know why or when he decided women can only be powerful after they've been brutally tortured by men or at the mercy of men. Nor do I know why everything else he created is scarily and disappointingly sexist in places, not completely, just in places. I suspect somewhere along the line Whedon fell into the same fantasy as Luc Besson and Stieg Larrson? Where he assauges his own guilt by creating a fantastical heroine who kills her rapist over and over again. She does what he'd do if he were female - as a friend of mine neatly put it. Forgetting the power women have which is uniquely our own. We don't have to kill the rapist to survive. We can forget he exists. Excise him from our memory. Or in some cases transform the experience into one that is not painful and lacks power. There are ways to handle things that do not require fists or guns. We can rise above. Our lives are not about our gender. Most of the time, we don't think about being women. We are just ourselves.


Sorry I keep editing this. I think one of the things I love most about lj and the internet social mediums...particularly the fanboards, is you can't always tell who is male or female, black or white, rich or poor, old or young, queer or straight...these things fall away. What we see is the essence of the individual, not the constructs or short-hand categories that we use to define one another. Race, gender, class, all of these things...fall away. You can fall in love with a person, not what they look like, not their physical essence. We live in such a material world, so physical, the internet..often strips that physical materiality away...and we are left with each others words and our perceptions of them. I love that. I can be male on the internet (people on a fanboard actually thought I was for a bit) and I can be black, I can be
short, I can be young, I can be ancient. I can be whatever I want. Rich, poor. It's freeing. Until people find out...and then that's lost.

Comments

[rogin]

yes, your two points also show quite well, why the series was feminist the comics are not. There she is just pushed around and two out of three times the sex she has is dubcon at best.

And while I do agree with you that the feminism in the larson books is not perfect at all, the comics stoop even lower than that by not even acknowledging rape is happening when one person is bereft of their agency.

I wonder sometimes how someone who has seen Veronica Mars can handle the issue so badly.

[shadowkat]

I was using Larson to skip around the comics issue...because it is a powderkeg in fandom at the moment, and I'm currently arguing with poor stormwreath on his lj regarding it - at the same time. Actually this post was in part, not completely, but in part motivated by that discussion.

But yes, I agree. What I've been trying to explain about the comics and how the two differ - is that it's not about who the big bad's are, so much, as all the rest.

We have Buffy at the mercy of men everywhere in her life. She has no agency, no power. The villians hunt her. The women hate her - not Angel. Willow blames her for the seed, not Giles, not Angel. And in the S8 comics? It was about taking away her agency, criticizing her power, demolishing it.

I wonder sometimes how someone who has seen Veronica Mars can handle the issue so badly.

Yes. I hadn't thought of that. But, yes, exactly this. I'd say it was a passing thing...but they do it in S8 too.
It's highly implied that she was "drunk on power" when she had the space-sex. And not herself.

[rogin]

because it is a powderkeg in fandom at the moment

Tell me, I just deleted my Whedonesque account over it.

I completely agree with you about the lack of agency and I'm beginning to hate this claim that people who have a problem with this want to "make Buffy into a victim". She was already victimized by the plot, ignoring that doesn't make her strong, same as it did not make Veronica weak that she acknowledged someone had faulted her.

Bad enough they can't simply go without a rape plot but worse that they can't and try to downplay it. Twice.

[shadowkat]

Exactly. Say what you will about Veronica Mars, but at least she acknowledged it was rape, as did the series, and she fought back. She confronted the men who did it to her and who threatened to do it to another woman. In the Buffy comics...they act like its no big deal, that this is common, worse that it was "Buffy's fault" for getting drunk. And Buffy should alone pay the consequences. Bad Buffy. Or that the consequences are a child..and Buffy should take responsibility for it and again Bad Buffy. Not to get Freudian, but someone over there has some serious Mommy issues. Because both times - the result is a kid, and both times Buffy is the bad guy. And both times, Daddy isn't an issue. Nor is the fact that Daddy knocked Buffy up against her will. And there are people telling me that this is a layered feminist comic book? Okay.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Sorry, i don't watch movies.... ;-)

As to what you write about the "victimized girl trope", guilt, sexism and feminism:

Thank you for writing that, i feel very much the same (and i actually know what i'm talking about when talking about "male guilt"). I read what you wrote on stormwreath's journal - and that's what i wanted to express myself.

Revenge fantasy, or just plain fucked up world and fucked up people - yeah, tell this story, why not. But that isn't feminist in my book. I think it is a dire problem, people declaring one thing, and doing/writing another (as can be seen a lot in politics...).

So - thanks again for expressing this so eloquently.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Never sure how these posts come across. It's a difficult topic to talk about, but an important one.

[gingerwall.livejournal.com]

Basically the same thing as Norwie, except I am not so eloquent.

I didn't read the Dragon Tattoo book, but saw the movie and was especially disturbed by the fact that she was willing to repeatedly go into situations expecting (non-intercourse) rape. That definitely does not count as "feminist" and mostly negates whatever powerful message the whole rape-revenge storyline had going for it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

Having read the first book, and seen the Swedish film, I can say that yes, the book is equally disturbing. Although - at least you have the business fraud story-line, which Blomkvist was in prison for and Lisbeth rescues his reputation from at the end - that story, I actually liked even if it was fairly dry and read like an IKEA catalogue. That story, and the strong character of Erika are to a degree excised from the Swedish film version - a huge weakness. That version unfortunately focuses almost completely on the rape/serial killer storyline. Not sure if the Fincher version is similar in that manner or not?

The next two books in Larrson's series are in some respects worse...in those we focus on how Lisbeth became Lisbeth. I couldn't get through Girl Who Played With Fire...the explanation of why Lisbeth gets breasts implants...is beyond disturbing. And I was told enough of the plot of the books...to realize they were not for me. (Lisbeth was sexually molested and beaten by her father, who beat her mother. Until Lisbeth set him on Fire.)

What I liked about the books oddly was the business story line and how Lisbeth researches and resolves it. The serial killer/rape/victimization/revenge fantasy story - was cringe-inducing.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

the explanation of why Lisbeth gets breasts implants...is beyond disturbing.

Oh, my god, yes. I got through it and Hornet's Nest but I really can't remember much other than the courtroom scene. Possibly the driest writing ever. To be fair, maybe it was the translation, I don't know...

[gingerwall.livejournal.com]

The Fincher is frame-for-frame the same as the Swedish version. Until the very end, when he very clearly goes back to his editor-lover and she's left surprised lurking in the shadows with the awesome and expensive jacket she brought for him, clearly thinking they were still together in some meaningful way.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I couldn't tell from the trailers and reviews, but it appeared to be. And I was avoiding it in part, because of that. I didn't like the Swedish version that much, can't imagine liking the US one.

Also, what a nasty ending - but it does set up the next two films very well, and is exactly how the book ended. The book ended with her watching him go back to Erika...in the same way.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I sometimes wonder if the reason Buffy was different from his other works is because it was originally based on a sexist trope rather than a more formal idea. It was originally a "not" something as opposed to Dollhouse or Angel or Firefly. Not feminist in its origins necessarily. Sure, Joss says that was his original goal, but given more recent comments by him and his new team, I really wonder if it wasn't his habit of taking credit for accidents after-the-fact. Buffy is arguably the creation whose genesis he had least control over.

It would explain some of the resentment for it and the character he's been showing as of late.

Where he assauges his own guilt by creating a fantastical heroine who kills her rapist over and over again.

I've come to think it's more of a kink, really.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Buffy is arguably the creation whose genesis he had least control over.

Very true. If you read the movie script - which used to be available on the internet, and was written when he was 19, that reads very differently than the series. In it - Buffy gets "menstrual cramps" whenever she senses vampires nearby. She has a much older mentor. And has flashbacks of past lives where she is pursued and fighting a beautiful master vampire - who is portrayed by Rutguer Hauer - and looks a bit like a 32 year old Lestate from Anne Rice. Her speech is valley girl. She's a bit of an idiot. And there's a male sidekick - who aids her and is the smarts, along with her Watcher, also the smart one. She's just the pretty dumb blond valley girl who kicks ass.
This is conveyed in both script and film version. The difference is? The female director of the film version chose to make it a comedy, a sort of parody of the vampire trope, and made the men sort of silly as well. The script is more serious.

The TV version - Gail Berman, a producer at the WB (I believe) approached FOX who owned the writes and requested Whedon help her develop the concept into a television series. He didn't approach her, she approached him. She said they were looking for a series about a female heroine - that would attract young women, as a companion to Dawson's Creek. He'd be given creative control - well to an extent. Berman was "heavily" involved in the development, casting, and overall concept. She wasn't involved with Angel or any of the other series. And it may very well be Gail Berman's influence that
was the main factor. I don't know. I've watched and read enough of his work prior to Buffy and after, to think that it is more than likely it was feminist in spite of Whedon. Which is ironic.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

ETA: I don't know, Gail may have been involved with Angel - I have no idea.
But I know she wasn't involved with any of the other series, and not involved with Buffy past S5. Although by S5 - we had a lot of female writers on the show - Rebecca Rand Kirshner, Marti Noxon, Jane Espenson, and someone else whose name I can't remember. Also the Kuzuis had rights to it.

Oh "writes" should be "rights" above.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

6-7 also had less Joss. I've long suspected his disinterest was a result of him not being able to do what he wanted the way he wanted. Unlike his other shows, he wasn't the only one with clout on BTVS.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

Joss had lots of involvement in seasons 6-7. Many of the 'controversial' plot points that the fandom was harping on were his ideas, he signed up for the rest of it, he rewrote some scenes and when he didn't have the time to write the dialogue, he gave the writer notes to follow them (the latter is what StevenDeKnight says he did for Dead Things). Everything points out he was doing exactly what he wanted. He always had more a lot more clout than anyone else in the show, including Noxon as the nominal showrunner.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I said he had less involvement. And he did.

I didn't say he had no clout, I said he wasn't the only one *with* clout. And he wasn't.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well yes and no...boot_the_grime is actually correct on this. The controversial plot points in S6 and S7 were either pitched or permitted by Whedon, as Whedon stated himself in various interviews. Noxon and Fury had some power, true, but Whedon did change things. He notably reviewed and changed the beating scene in Dead Things (made Spike's face less battered)
and he suggested the balcony sex in Dead Things and the invisible sex in Gone, per both Marti Noxon's commentary/interviews and Stephen De Knight's. Seeing Red? Whedon signed off on.

(I didn't have issues with S6-7, I actually like those seasons.)

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I never said he had no control. I said he was involved less. To clarify, in prior seasons there would have been no need to review the beating scene because he would have been there. Gellar herself commented on his absence. She went to him about the Dead Things balcony scene because she didn't understand it and, rumor has it, might have complained to someone over it. But he talked her into it by explained the character was lost. A more notable instance perhaps is the Beneath You rewrite that she took to him to get changed.

I'm not talking about network restrictions, but the ability of actors (and to a lesser extent, directors) to have influence. Gellar's contact only allowed a certain amount of hours, for instance, leading to the Gone plot. There would be no firing a la Charisma Carpenter.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

UPN was less hands on than the WB according to various interviews. Marsters notably stated or summarized - the switch from WB to UPN was a bit like no longer having the parents in the room. UPN had not standards and practices moderator or even rules - since they were showing Jamie Fox reruns, Wrestling, and Voyager. Mostly their own content. Then they acquired Buffy, and gave Whedon carte blanche. So things the WB would not permit - for example body piercings, popped up in the first episode that aired on UPN. Smashed? No way that would have aired on WB. Dead Things? Forget about it. Seeing Red? Not in this lifetime. WB was pretty stringent. They notoriously axed an episode David Fury wrote for Angel in season 1 Angel - made Mutant Enemy rewrite it.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

Exactly. The Willow/Tara sex, for instance, was something that couldn't have aired on WB - they made a big fuss even over a female/female kiss in The Body. I believe DeKnight when he says that the balcony scene in Dead Things was something Whedon wanted to do for a long time. Dark Willow was also planned years in advance, I believe.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I've read it a long time ago, yeah. I've got it on my HD somewhere. I'm probably a minority because I think the way it was done was the only way it actually would have worked. It was too self-serious to work as a conventional horror-type (honestly, reminded me of that vampire movie with Jon Bon Jovi) and at the same time not stylistic enough for camp to work like, say, Scream. He was young and it was the first thing he wrote, so I give some leeway. Well, except when people claim it was butchered 'cause, no.

Berman was "heavily" involved in the development, casting, and overall concept.

Yeah, that's my belief, too. I know Buffy and Cordy were more or less cast by the WB, not Joss. Different target audiences than the others, as well.

I've watched and read enough of his work prior to Buffy and after, to think that it is more than likely it was feminist in spite of Whedon. Which is ironic.

Absolutely. After Life, Suspension and of course Alien 4 aren't what I'd call feminist in the slightest. A4 actually seemed to get more disturbing with each draft. CitW, I can barely talk about without ranting. Only thing I don't think I've read of his are Avengers and Wonder Woman. I fully believe Buffy was a result of everyone else rather than Joss's wondrous vision.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm probably a minority because I think the way it was done was the only way it actually would have worked. It was too self-serious to work as a conventional horror-type (honestly, reminded me of that vampire movie with Jon Bon Jovi) and at the same time not stylistic enough for camp to work like, say, Scream. He was young and it was the first thing he wrote, so I give some leeway. Well, except when people claim it was butchered 'cause, no.

I agree. I've actually seen the film, read the novelization, and much later the teleplay. The novelization isn't bad, although have very vague memories of it, and it wasn't good enough to purchase. I think I read it in a book store. But yes, I think, after reading the teleplay...how they did that movie is the only way it could be done. I remember reading an interview with Whedon - that he'd written the film for his Mom - who was dying of cancer at the time. And was upset when he saw it - because he didn't feel she'd like it. So the tv series was his second chance to..write that tale for her. When reading anything Whedon's done, it's probably worth keeping in mind that his mother was the founder of NOW, raised him as more or less a single Mom, and died of a horrible disease that he couldn't save her from.

After Life, Suspension and of course Alien 4 aren't what I'd call feminist in the slightest. A4 actually seemed to get more disturbing with each draft. CitW, I can barely talk about without ranting. Only thing I don't think I've read of his are Avengers and Wonder Woman.

I think I saw bits of his Wonder Woman script - which was, according to things I read back in 2007-2008 informed the comics. I'm not positive, but I think the Buffy Comics were heavily influenced by the defunct Wonder Woman script.

I haven't seen or read the movies you've mentioned. But I'm guessing that's probably not a bad thing. ;-)

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I'm not positive, but I think the Buffy Comics were heavily influenced by the defunct Wonder Woman script.

I think the initial premise was from a WW script, yeah. The World turning against the hero bit and the vast incongruity with AtS. I'm certain Jane E said as late as 2005--it was a Halloweencon, I believe--that the original ideas being kicked around followed the AtS stuff. Buffy and Dawn in Italy. Then suddenly we got what we got.

I do subscribe to the theory that the underlying motivation was resentment, though. He became mad Buffy overshadowed everything else and started tearing it down. It's like a footnote at the bottom of every page.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

That's a pretty weird theory. So he's been making that much effort and directly writing so many comics focused on Buffy's character because he wants to "tear her down"? Really?! Sorry but I find that a bizarre idea.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

Effort? What effort? The 2 1/2 comics he's written in 2 years? The finale he had his editor write? S9, that will be more or less written by Chambliss because he couldn't get Simone to write it (and I guess we can see why)? All the research he put in that he couldn't remember major character deaths and mythology? The storyline that even fellow writers weren't aware of?

Sorry but I find that a bizarre idea.

Of course you do. You're a Joss fan. I'm not. He's long since passed the point where he deserves the benefit of any doubts regarding his characters or feminism. Hey, if you want to keep drinking what he's pouring, go right ahead, but I'm done trying to rationalize away his Final Girl and rape/violation obsessions, especially since his stance on it appears to be one that I find rather appalling.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

Effort? What effort? The 2 1/2 comics he's written in 2 years? The finale he had his editor write?

2 1/2?! Huh? He wrote 14 out of 40 regular issues on his own - far greater percentage than on the show - plus a one-shot and a short e-comic, plus he co-wrote 3 more issues. So, 18 full length and 1 short comic issue, and that includes 17 out of 40 regular issues, i.e. 42.5 %.

What finale did his editor write? The finale, #40, was all written by Joss. The previous arc, Last Gleaming 1-4, was written by: #36 - Whedon, #37-39 - co-written by Allie and Whedon.

S9, that will be more or less written by Chambliss

And that's because Whedon is disinterested in Buffy, not because he's incredibly busy with The Avengers?

because he couldn't get Simone to write it (and I guess we can see why)?
Gail Simone was never asked to be a writer for season 9. That was just a speculation by fans, and she said she wasn't asked, but if she does, she'll try to finally see BtVS, which she hasn't yet.

The storyline that even fellow writers weren't aware of?

That helps your argument how?

Look, you may hate Whedon's work and hate the comics - but it just doesn't make sense to say he hasn't put effort in them, when facts say otherwise.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

2 years. The last 2 years. In that time he wrote 36, 40 and 1. Excuse me. 3 whole comics--1 weeks worth of television workload. In 2 years. Effort, you say?

Show me an instance where an author let his friggin' editor write the finale of a series he had all heart into. Any of it.

not because he's incredibly busy with The Avengers?

And Shakespeare and various other things. Sure sounds like he's ripping and raring to write for "his baby", doesn't it?

That was just a speculation by fans, and she said she wasn't asked, but if she does, she'll try to finally see BtVS, which she hasn't yet.

She wasn't formally asked.

That helps your argument how?

What writers who care for their story operate that way? Hey, come write for this story I deeply care about. I'm not going to tell you anything about it or anything. It'll be fun.

Look, you may hate Whedon's work and hate the comics - but it just doesn't make sense to say he hasn't put effort in them, when facts say otherwise.

No, it doesn't make sense to you because you see and read things you want to hear. Like above where you blatantly ignored that I said 2 years and tried to include the whole comic run into it (17 issues in 5 years, btw? Nothing to brag about). Or you try to act dumb, which you're not, and infer the writing operations of S8 were anything but lazy.

I don't hate Whedons' work. I wouldn't be here now otherwise; I wouldn't have been here as long as I have otherwise. I certainly don't hate Buffy or Angel or Roseanne. I'm not going to ignore the issues, though.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm stepping in as moderator here... It's time we agreed to respectfully disagree, I think.;-)

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I'll go with that. I was just going to send an apology your way.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thanks.. ;-)

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

So now Gail Berman was the real uncredited author of "Buffy"?! Somehow it's not Whedon who wrote all those scripts and many more he's not credited with because he rewrote so many of the scripts, as every writer who worked on the show tells you? Somehow Buffy the show and the character of Buffy became what she is not because, but in spite of episodes like Welcome to the Hellmouth, Prophecy Girl, Lie to Me, Innocence, Becoming I/II, Anne, etc. and later Restless, The Gift, Once More, With Feeling, Conversations with Dead People...?

And since Whedon now says he understands that Buffy is his avatar ("Buffy was me") I suppose this means he really hates and despises himself?

Sorry but that just doesn't make sense to me. It looks a lot like Season 6 fandom 2.0 but now with Whedon as the reviled figure instead of Noxon.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

because he rewrote so many of the scripts, as every writer who worked on the show tells you?

Same writers who claim he was an absentee showrunner more often than not? Espenson said in a Fireflyfans interview he was around less and less.

But that's beside the point. Story arcs are influenced by the PTB for content and approval (for instance, they had to run the AtS5 bible past the execs before they even picked it up for another year). Showrunners are very, very rarely left to their own devices, especially greenhorns.

Whedon now says he understands that Buffy is his avatar ("Buffy was me")

You mean when it wasn't Xander? How about when he said no one understood Buffy the way Gellar did? Did SMG know himself better than he knew...himself? All of a sudden Comic!Buffy is his avatar. The level of privilege from that statement is terribly funny given the world and business he lives and works in.

It looks a lot like Season 6 fandom 2.0 but now with Whedon as the reviled figure instead of Noxon.

As someone who has defended Marti for almost 10 years, it's not even remotely close. The level of hate directed at that woman was insane. I've seen some true Joss haters and even their bile didn't come close to what she was shown.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

So now Gail Berman was the real uncredited author of "Buffy"?!

No, that's not what we are saying. An editor is a better word. In television - the network will often edit content or change it. It happens in publishing and newspapers too. Berman was known for her editorial touch. Writers have a tendency to get carried away. Often what works in our heads, doesn't work on the page. Or what we think is cool - comes across as really horrible. We are not the best judges of our own work. (Otherwise why would so many accomplished fanfic writers request people to beta their work in depth before they release it to the masses?)

I think what BTVS had, which the others didn't, was a REALLY good editor. ;-)

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Most of the time, we don't think about being women. We are just ourselves.

I think that's the big problem with for a lot of mainstream creators, they just can't the idea that gender or race or sexual orientation isn't front and centre in the minds of people who fall outside of their own white male default setting. Thus we end up with "edgy" jokes about race or endless movies with women "owning their sexuality" by dressing in fetish wear and manipulating men. Funny, the women I've known who were the most comfortable with sex didn't give a shit about how they looked and were incredibly straightforward about their expectations.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Yes, that's it exactly. Thank you.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Agreed re: the victim angle. I've occasionally heard people say that there's no real difference between the standard Last Girls of every slasher movie ever and Buffy; those women also go toe-to-toe with the monster and beat him (until 2 minutes into the sequel, at least, when it's revealed that he was Not Quite Dead). Which is a good point, since that's what Buffy was based on, but the difference is: they're still very much victims, even if they survive (and not always unscarred, either). Their story is entirely dependent on the monster, and they have no agency of their own - they only exist to be victimized by him. Horror movie fans remember the names Laurie Strode or Nancy Thompson; everyone remembers Michael Myers and Freddie Krueger. Buffy, on the other hand, isn't the victim of her monsters; she's the one who seeks them out and kills them. She walks willingly into the Master's lair, knowing what she'll meet, and when he kills her, she's the one who comes back at the last second. It's her story.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree that's where Buffy the TV series differs from the established trope. She's not a victim. Even when the Master kills her, she isn't a victim.
While you can say that Xander saves her, she saves Xander and confronts the Master.

As I was trying to explain to someone on another post...the difference between Buffy in the TV series and those other characters you mention or Lisbeth Salander, is simply this - her story is not a "revenge fantasy". Not really. The big bad she fights isn't really that relevant. In all those horror films, from Friday the 13th to Halloween - the main character is the male serial killer or The Master or the Big Bad. In Dracula - it's Dracula. In Buffy - she's the main character. He's a footnote. She hunts him down and slays him. He doesn't hunt her down. And she doesn't hunt him down because he raped her or anything like that. She hunts him down because it's her job to, he has no more significance than just another vampire. While in the slasher films, the Jamie Lee Curtis character...the heroine has no more significance than just another victim.

It's the difference between the comics/Larson's GWTD and Buffy the series as well - in Buffy comics/Larson - the story is about the girl being victimized and hunted, until she gets fed up and fights back with mixed results, while in Buffy the tv series, she's hunting the bad guy. She really isn't ever victimized. She pursues the bad guy for the same reason Spiderman or Van Helsing would.

Victims or social conditions?

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I have a slightly different take, in part anyway. Maybe it's because I'm a few years older, but I see some of the "coming back from victimization" stories as a metaphor for the social condition of women until very recently. It's hard to start from somewhere other than that and explain why feminism, per se, is so important. Kind of like why Frederick Douglass titled his autobiography "Up From Slavery".

That's not to say that every single instance of female victimization fits this more limited trope; most are just the sort of fantasy you describe. But I think some of them do, and in particular I think Get it Done does.

Re: Victims or social conditions?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree with Get it Done. Although I see where you are coming from, and you aren't wrong.

What saves Get it Done - is that it is telling Buffy where the slayer came from, but she rejects that as defining her. She rejects them doing it to her too. Or continuing this condition. She says - I'm going to empower people in another way - there is another way. I'm not going to be your victim, like she was.

Which is what Booker T Washington and Ralph Ellison and Toni Morrison state in their works - I'm not going to let this define me.

It's a fine line I think between - empowerment and "revenge fantasy". The TV Series Buffy did a good job sticking with empowerment and never crossing over to revenge. Steig Larrson's novels I think crossed over to revenge fantasy, much like the slasher horror films do.