(no subject)

[shadowkat]

I can never decide if there is much point to doing cross posts from DW to LJ, because no one appears to be on DW most of the time and I get comments once in a blue moon. What do you think?

Bad week. Really bad week. Started out bad on Sunday and just dove downhill...you know it's going to be bad when a) Monday morning first thing you see upon entering your building is a sign that the bathrooms do not work any where in the building, b)it rains all week long, including that day, with only one day of sunshine. So really glad over. But brain is mush. I didn't sleep last night. And I feel like warmed over crap on a stick - yes, delightful image, I know, but there it is. Also..today was the day people kept asking me questions I hadn't a clue how to answer.

So..I found my mind retreating to comforting things.

And was thinking about Buffy the Vampire Slayer for some reason or other. I blame my infrequent skims of Mark Watches blog and my flist for this one. Well that and two recent posts on the topic of fandom, not the show.

1. Regarding fandom? The Mark Watches fandom is ironic. They have serious issues with S1-2 Xander and are obsessed with something called "slut-shaming" - yeah, I know it's new to me too..I never really heard this term until this year. These kids and their funky slang. I find this ironic (not the slut-shaming, the Xander-criticism), because...in 2002-2009...it was usually Spike was the misogynist/chauvinistic pig and Xander was the nice boyfriend everyone wanted to have for their very own. NOW? People are highly critical of Xander. And in S1-2 no less. I can't wait until they get to the latter seasons. (I honestly have no idea how they are going to relate to Spike in S4-7..) The men in this show aren't exactly nice, people, it is after-all a horror show.

Which brings me to ...

2. It has been written at length elsewhere, most notably by coffeeandink, that Whedon's Buffy was a critique of the slasher horror film genre that was incredibly popular between 1970-2002. It's sort of fallen out of favor of late, replaced briefly with torture porn, then Japanese psychological horror, and now...video camera psychological horror. But from the 1970s until roughly the beginning of the 21st Century, this was still a popular genre. And it always began with a blond, petite girl getting killed by the slasher. She'd usually just had sex with her boyfriend. The boyfriend was either killed, or he is the killer, or he finds her and gets killed.
And it's gory. Kevin Williamson's Scream flick - did a very good job of itemizing the rules -

Scream was released and a huge hit in 1996, the sequel was released in 1997. In 1996 - Drew Barrymore played the blond who gets killed before the opening credits roll. In 1997 - it was Sarah Michelle Gellar, who at that time had been cast as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Gellar goes on to die in another slasher horror film - I Know What You Did Last Summer - where she met hubby, Freddie Prinze Jr. (Those are the two notable things about the film.)

Slasher films had three things in common: 1) Last Survivor is a woman, usually brunette, and often kick-ass and momentarily defeats the villain, with some male lead sidekick who helps or older guy (although not always) 2) First victim is usually the blond girl in the alley. And 3) The hero of the film and the character who keeps returning is the slasher or the killer. It's really all about him. The victims aren't memorable. Outside of Jamie Lee Curtis in Carpenter's Halloween which premiered in the 1970s, few people remember the heroines of these films. In other films within this genre - the girl's death often will motivate a sort of reluctant hero type or male hero, a geeky nerd what-have-you into manning up and becoming the hero.

What does this have to do with Buffy? Well, the writer was a horror film fanatic and critic.
And stated that's how he got the idea. But...if you look back at the series...and I was thinking about the first and second seasons today, forget the latter ones, just think about the first two seasons and Angel's arc, along with the Masters.

In both S1 and S2 - the Prophecy says that Buffy will die. And Angel will save the day. She's not supposed to survive the Master. Nor is she supposed to stop Acathla by killing Angel. Angel's supposed to stop whomever opens Acathla. Buffy is Angel's way to "becoming". Or so Whistler tells us. And that's usually how these stories go. It's really not about her, it's about him.
She's the motivator for him. Buffy motivates Angel, not the other way around. Buffy is the damsel.
Angel saves her. She's the girl in the alley. And in Angel's series - that's the case. They go the traditional horror route.

But here, Whedon changes it. The story is not about Angel. Angel really is not that important at all. He motivates and changes her. But he's just one of many. He's not the lead. He's not Hamlet, Buffy is. He's Rosencrantz. Or a better way of putting it? He's Stu in Scream. Any more than the story really was about the Master. The Master is killed and leaves. Angel leaves too, although not completely...and he remains important, but always a supporting character. And he can't deal with it - this drives him insane. Which is interesting if you know the film trope that is being critiqued here. Where the villain is not the main attraction or lead. And the girl who he kills first, actually kills him.

Another interesting point? The slasher horror film did a lot of slut-shaming. It's known for that. As is torture porn horror films. In these films - the girl is often a sex object. She's pretty, scantily clad. Jamie Lee Curtis was an exception, but she survived. The girl who is killed is having sex with her boyfriend and is pretty and scantily clad. Women are viewed in these films as sluts. Often the man doing the slashing...is either intruding on "Prom Night", the Babysitter late at night - and he pretends to be her "boyfriend" on the phone, with heavy breathing. And there's often a geeky guy like Randy who plays the "Xander role". Actually the character of Xander sounds a lot like Randy in Scream.

Slut-shaming as it is currently called was part of these films, and part of the gothic genre, going back as far as Dracula. Lucy struggles against the seduction of Dracula - she is ruined by Dracula, as is Mina Harker, who equally struggles. And Dracula's daughters almost seduce Jonathan Harker and take him for their own. What Whedon does differently, is he sort of questions it and then twists it. Sure Angel loses his soul when he sleeps with Buffy, but if you watch the entire series including Angel, it becomes clear that Angel is not a good guy and would most likely cause these things to happen soul or no soul. The whole soul bit is a huge mislead, which is shown very clearly in the latter seasons of both series. Angel uses that as an excuse, which Spike points out on numerous occasions. The horror genre will often say - sex is the reason this happened. But no, it's not. If you look beneath the surface.

Anyhow nothing new, I know. Just popped into my head today and thought I'd share. Also since brain is mush...probably not all that coherent. I just got tired and lost my train of thought. Going to make dinner now. Make of this what you will..

Comments

[deird1]

I find these thoughts fascinating...

(Please don't stop posting to DW! I'm always reading, even when I'm not commenting.)

[local-max.livejournal.com]

One of the things that's interesting about all the slut-shaming is how automatic it is in the series for the women as well. Buffy and Willow both criticize Xander heavily for dating Cordelia because she's...Cordelia. It plays a lot differently because their criticisms are more sedate -- but also because there are different levels to the story. Cordelia and Angel are both, in a sense, the enemy -- but Cordelia is the enemy in a teen social setting drama, and Angel is the enemy in a gothic horror, as you point out. Well, so I don't they are equivalent in-story, but I feel like they come from the same place, if you know what I mean. (And Willow's horrified reaction to Xander and Cordelia is very close to Xander's feelings about Buffy and Angel....)

I like the point about Angel as Rosencrantz. I have realized a lot lately how much Angel actually is not really a character in seasons 1-2. Buffy obviously is. Xander and Willow are; I'd argue that Giles, Jenny, Joyce, and Cordelia are all more well-rounded than Angel. In fact, even Spike and Dru are -- at least, before Angel loses his soul. We actually get almost no scenes from Angel's POV before Innocence -- and the few we do are still arguable. Like, he has scenes with Darla and Drusilla and Spike -- and he is ostensibly a more important character. But it's still Darla and Dru and Spike who talk to Angel, and Angel reacts to them; we have a very clear sense of what they want, but not what Angel wants. I think part of the reason the Angel soul loss works so well as a story is that Angel was always a bit of a blank slate, and Angelus, from his first scene, feels like his own man (the killing of the prostitute, while horrible -- is primarily from Angel's POV). In season three, when they are setting up for AtS, Angel (with a soul) starts to have a POV, but it takes until then.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that Buffy/Willow criticisms of Xander and Cordy qualify as "slut-shaming". Unless you see Xander as the slut, in which case I might agree.

Anyway, I see their criticisms as based on the fact that Cordy isn't a very good person and they like Xander; hence he could find someone "more...better". IOW, their criticism isn't based on what Xander and Cordy might or might not do romantically, nor on some perceived sexuality of Cordy's, but on sheer suitability.

Now, one could defend Xander on this ground when he criticizes Buffy and Angel, but (1) there seems to be an undercurrent of sex there ("I guess a guy's gotta be undead to make time with you"); and (2) in later episodes like Entropy and Seeing Red it's clear that sex *was* part of the issue for Xander.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

Xander is not the only one who does the slut-shaming in the early seasons. Willow and Buffy both call Cordelia names like "skanky ho". Cordelia calls Faith "Slut-o-rama" when she first lays her eyes on her, just based on her clothes. There are many examples like that. Willow also worries in Phases that she'll be a "slut" if she kisses Oz first (!). The characters weren't exactly feminist in their high school days.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Also this, though.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Excellent point; I'd forgotten those incidents. There are only two of them [adding: by Buffy and/or Willow] (I think) and I don't get the impression that they're the basis for the criticism, but point duly noted.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The difference though...is it is women doing it as opposed to men. Women do it a lot in adult life, actually. Women are notorious for it. But in tv it is a bit well, the difference between Jerry Steinfield telling a Jewish Joke or Eddie Murphy telling a Black Joke or using the "N" word and Newt Gingrich doing it. When Willow and Buffy do it, it doesn't have the same effect as Xander. It's about privilege. Xander can have sex without being called on it.
It's okay, expected. But for Buffy to - well she's such a slut.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

No, it's really not OK and it's not better than when men are doing it. It think it might even be worse. And it's not at all like Eddie Murphy using the "N" word, because that word applies to black people in general and it he would be seen as using it ironically as it would apply to him. "Slut" doesn't apply to all women, it applies to some women whose behavior is judged as sexually inappropriate. When a woman calls another woman a slut, she's not ironically using the word, she is shaming and ostracizing another woman, drawing a line between her and herself. I am the good woman, she is the bad woman.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily true. Women use it differently. We will often use it jokingly.
Slut, no you slut. Or bitch, no you bitch. (OR have you NEVER watched Sex and the City? Or for that matter The L Word?)

Girlfriends will use it in other ways. It's not as cut and dry as when guys use it. And yes, the context is very similar. I know I've seen it used both ways.

Not cut and dry by a long shot.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

The difference there is "used jokingly" and "used seriously to offend/judge", not "used by men" and "used by women". In those examples, Willow and Buffy were judging Cordelia, and Cordelia was judging Faith, none of those were friendly (Willow and Buffy were talking about Cordelia behind her back, and Cordelia was mocking someone she didn't even know). These are very different from the last scene of Dead Man's Party, where Buffy and Willow are jokingly "insulting" each other and where Buffy calling Willow tramp isn't serious.

On the other hand, there's actually an example of Xander using "slut" in a joking/friendly way to Buffy (in Faith, Hope and Trick)... she didn't react very well to that.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

No, I think it's totally slut-shaming Xander for his willingness to go out with Cordelia. :) I know what you mean, and I agree there are crucial distinctions. (Sorry for the short reply, gotta run! But yes -- I think that you state it all well. Xander does have moral objections to Angel, some of them valid, but it also is a sex/jealousy thing.)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No, I think it's totally slut-shaming Xander for his willingness to go out with Cordelia.

Interestingly enough...Mark Watches brought up that whole bit as a nice twist or subversion of the slut-shaming. In that the women shame Xander. They talk about how he's a total slut. And in another scene - Cordelia asks if all Xander thinks about is sex, Xander responds - "I'm a 17 year old boy, I look at lineoleum and I think about sex..."

Cordy shames him. As does Willow and Buffy at different points.

It's interesting that Xander never really exhibits jealousy of any of the other boyfriends but Angel and Spike and possibly Ford.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for teenage boys today, but in my experience it's impossible to shame a teen age boy about sex. They revel in it even if you criticize them. If Xander ever was shamed (and I don't remember it) that would have been unusual.

I only recall a couple of points at which Buffy made a comment to Xander about Cordy. She told him he could find someone "more better" in BB&B, and in IOHEFY she asked him if he lost a round in the closet to Cordy after the locker monster got him. I can't recall Willow ever saying anything to him after Innocence, and that criticism had nothing to do with sex. Willow did comment to Buffy, as boot noted above.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Good point. That actually backs up another point I made, somewhere else in this thread, about privilege. Where Willow and Buffy's comments about Cordy and Cordy's about Buffy aren't a big deal. But Xander's comments are. Because, of what you state here ....men and teen boys can have sex without fearing shame. Actually they are ashamed if they don't have it. While women are the opposite.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

"I can't speak for teenage boys today, but in my experience it's impossible to shame a teen age boy about sex. "

Unless you imply he's gay. Or not good in bed.

But "you're having too much heterosexual sex" would typically seen as a compliment.

Also, Xander and the other boy were mocked for being virgins in Teacher's Pet.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I didn't see that as mocking. As I saw it, they were themselves reluctant to be seen as virgins (consistent with the teen bragging earlier in the episode), but I didn't take the comments as criticism and Willow was definitely complimentary.

Agreed to your qualifications about boys and sex.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The Xander slut-shaming vs. the Buffy/Willow slut-shaming - I examined below, but will answer briefly here. I think the difference is really about privilege. Women do it to each other all the time - but it really lacks "punch". It's no different than say a black man calling another black man the "n" word. But when a guy calls a woman slut...it has a different connotation. Same thing with the word "bitch". When a woman calls another woman a "bitch" it's very different...than when a guy does it. It's about privilege or who has power. When two people of equal power or privilege do it - no problem. But when you have unequal power...problem. Xander can basically have sex with whomever he wants, no problem. But Buffy...gets slammed. Ironically...in this series - it's Angel and Spike who go insane when they have sex with Buffy, not the other way around, which is a nice subversion. Same deal with Xander - when he finally has sex with Faith, she rapes him, she uses and throws him away...complete role reversal.

Regarding Angel - I hadn't really thought of that...but it is so true, he lacks much of a personality until he loses his soul. And in S3, what is interesting - is we start to see things from his point of view, and what we see is that Angelus is always part of Angel, the wicked cruelty in Angelus, that desire to manipulate...is always there, soul or no soul. It's very evident in Enemies. He plays the part of Angelus too well. And if you re-watch the episode Angel - Angel tells Buffy that the only difference is "he cares". He's not happy about having the soul. As he states - can you imagine doing the things I've done and to care? He dares her to kill him, half wants her to. What I always found the most interesting about Angel is when you get inside his pov, you realize - that Angelus is always there and Angel is constantly fighting him, constantly trying to be a better man. The redemption story in Angel doesn't work - unless Angel and Angelus are one and the same. But Buffy...can't see that they are. So when we are in her pov, they are always separate. Prior to S2 Innocence, we see Angel mainly through Buffy's rose-colored teen glasses. BUT...if you look at different episodes, where we are not in her pov and see Angel from another pov...you see a different picture. He's cryptic at times, provides very little information. Lies about Spike and Dru or covers the truth. And protects them - telling Dru to get out of town - he doesn't stake her, nor does he try to kill Spike. (Granted there'd be no story if he did). In addition..he's vague about the Master, and seems to think Buffy will lose. He doesn't really help her in S1, so much as lead her right to him. It's Xander who helps. But from Buffy's pov? Angel does. I find what Whedon did with Angel in the tv series fascinating...because he really does play with the audience's perception of the character, and continues throughout to subtly undercut it.

[boot-the-grime.livejournal.com]

Quite the opposite, it has all the more punch when a woman is doing it, because it's about women excluding and ostracizing another woman from their social circle, drawing the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" female behavior. I don't see how "women do it all the time" is a defense any more than "men do it all the time".

"It's about privilege or who has power."

And a woman or a group of women often have the power to ostracize another woman/other women. Environments like high school are perfect examples of that. Or women of certain status/class who look down on other women.

"Ironically...in this series - it's Angel and Spike who go insane when they have sex with Buffy, not the other way around, which is a nice subversion. "
If that were the case, it wouldn't be a nice subversion, it would be the stereotype of a vamp/harpy who drives men insane. But it's not the case. Spike didn't go insane from having sex with Buffy, not at all. He went insane when he got his soul back, which wasn't related to having sex with her. And Angel didn't go insane either, but him being transformed after sex with Buffy can be seen as a reversal of the idea that a woman undergoes a transformation when she "loses her virginity". But then, I don't think it was sex as such that made him lose his soul in the first place.

"But Buffy...can't see that they are. So when we are in her pov, they are always separate."

I don't know why people keep saying that? She knows they're the same, she says so in Amends and in Sanctuary when she shouts at him for things he did and calls him a murderer.

"He doesn't really help her in S1, so much as lead her right to him. It's Xander who helps. But from Buffy's pov? Angel does."

Where does that idea come from? When did Buffy ever think that Angel helped her in S1? She knew it was Xander. She thanked Xander. She is not an idiot people make her out to be. The fact that she was in love with Angel doesn't mean that she thought he did something he didn't. Do people think she should have jumped into Xander's arms just because he saved her, even though she wasn't into him, or that she should have ditched Angel because he wasn't useful enough?

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Good points about Angel and the impact of Buffy's POV. That's how I see it too.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Huh. I remember a *lot* of Xander bashing in late Season 2. Hence the need by the writers to revisit the "lie" Xander told Willow in Becoming a long time later in Season 7. Because it was an infamous scab the fans wouldn't stop picking on.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

You probably just remember my Xander posts. :) Nah, my Xander-bashing on line came later because I wasn't on line in S2.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

This was on the Buffy board at the WB.com.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

There was a Buffy board at WB.com? Damn. I missed that. All I could find was some teens Bangle site with cool spoilers and art work (she was also into that submarine sci-fi series with Roy Schneider that I can't remember the name of).

Bronze things, things of bronze

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

The WB's Buffy.com board was Bronze posting board--that's where I first was introduced to online fandom and online social interaction in general. I hung out there in season 3, mostly.

I remember there were all sorts of fandom games we played, including laying claim to random objects and cool quotes on the show. Once you claimed something, you included it in your signature (we posted our signatures from time to time, they got rather long).

I started claiming all the Buffy quotes and scenes I thought had philosophical content. But there got to be too darned many of them to include in my signature, so one day I just claimed all of them, and signed my name on the board as "Masquerade, owner of all things philosophical on Buffy."

I posted about the different philosophical things I saw in the episodes and the Buffy.com posters suggested I list them on a web page and link to it in my signature.

The rest is Webistry.

Re: Bronze things, things of bronze

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah. I knew you started ATPO sometime around S3...just wasn't sure how it came about.

S3 was actually the season that story got a bit more layered and complex, less juvenile. The writers began to experiment more and there were less MOTW or stand-a-lone episodes.

So the WB Buffy.com was the genesis of Bronze Beta?

Re: Bronze things, things of bronze

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Bronze Beta is what happened to the Bronze after the WB Buffy.com site folded. The community was still going strong, so they just moved it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

But you did bash Xander about S2 in retrospect...that I remember. I couldn't find fanboards in S2, so my knowledge was limited to websites - and the only one I could find was a Bangle one - and ACIN NEWS. (I was admittedly a huge Angel and Bangle fan back in 1998, that whole Angel/Angelus, mysterious guy thing turned 28 year old me on, not so much later though.)

I just remember the boards in 2002...most of it was SPIKE and Willow WARS.
Xander would pop up here and there...but mostly as a counterpoint. Although people did go a bit nuts in Hells Bells, OMWF and Entropy...

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Very much so, to the point that Mal once put up a thread titled "Why Sophist Shouldn't Hate Xander".

One of the reasons I got on well with Mal is that at the end of the thread he decided I was right. :)

You're right though -- by S6 the emphasis was definitely on Willow and Spike.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I always thought one of the reasons you went after Xander was a counter-point to Mal and various other posters attacks on Spike and Willow.

Poor cjl - he loved Xander, Spike, Willow and Angel. He just wasn't that crazy about Buffy. LOL! He'd often tell me when fans wanted to put Xander with Buffy - "do they want to hurt the character?"

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Oh I definitely used Xander for that purpose, but I really didn't much care for him. Hate is too strong, but I think he was mostly a jerk. A jerk with some great moments, but most often a jerk.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Must have been difficult to watch the show at times, if you disliked Xander that much?

See? I actually like the character. I only disliked him when people online were using the character to bash another character I happened to like. I tended to be somewhat reactionary. You hate on my character? Watch me hate on yours! (not exactly the most mature response in the world, but what the hey). For example? lunasea, Mal, and scroll ironically made me hate Angel. I mean really hate Angel. They almost destroyed the series Angel for me. If it weren't for Arethusa, Masq, D'H, and CJL...I might have stopped watching Angel. I had to stop reading their posts. Mal and Doc made me hate Xander. If it weren't CJL who told me to ignore Mal (who I thought was female for the longest time), that may clouded my posts. CJL loved Xander.

I've always found it ironic how a fan's love of a character can destroy another fan's love of that same character. This happened with Spike shippers too - a lot of Spike shippers made other fans hate the character in reaction to their posts.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

No, it never caused me to dislike the show at all. I just accepted that Xander would usually annoy me. I always had a very Buffy-centric view and mostly concentrated on her. I did really like Willow and Spike too.

I completely agree about how the interaction of the fans caused some character hatred. This seemed particularly true for Spike. That wasn't what happened with me and Xander; I already found him annoying before I ever went on line.

[elisi]

You hate on my character? Watch me hate on yours!
Oh fandom. *g* Although I have a different variant of this - if someone hates something, I will go out of my way to like it. Hence me being a staunch Eleven-fan within a few days of Matt Smith being revealed as the new Doctor. I was still a fervent Ten-girl (and my heart ACHED at the knowledge that I'd lose him), but fandom's rather hysterical reaction to someone they didn't know made me like him just because. (I've had this icon for YEARS now! I picked it up within, like, a week of Matt being announced.)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

For me, it was usually...I loved Matt, but everyone else hated him. So I began to question what they thought was so great about Tennant.

This happened when Spike jumped to Angel. The Angel fandom went insane, there was post after post about how Spike would DESTROY Angel and how it was ANGEL's series.

And I remember thinking, okay, I like Angel well enough, but the character you are describing in your posts is disgusting. And I'm starting to wonder...

Blind Devotion or worship to anything or anyone brings out the crabby cynic in me. To the Whedon fanatic, I want to say, okay, if Whedon told you to jump off a cliff? Would you? Come on! He's a good writer, but let's put things in perspective, okay? It's not the end of the world if Marti and Fury share executive producing duties while Whedon is off doing Firefly, people. Get a grip!

Maybe I should mail the book I just got entitled "Stop Overreacting" to fandom? LOL!

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

To the Whedon fanatic, I want to say, okay, if Whedon told you to jump off a cliff? Would you?

Depends. If it was a very low sort of cliff, and he agreed to make a movie from a script I wrote? Hey, I might.

I always felt that Whedon saw himself as someone who wanted to be Buffy, but in reality was like Xander, and wrote accordingly. Later on, he started to explore placing both characteristics in a single character, such as Echo/Caroline in Dollhouse. Before that, it was Illyria (no, really-- stop and think about some of the nuances involving her dual personality aspects. Same with Riley before that, you know, "Yes, I am secretly a lesbian" Riley. He uses this trope over and over again.

There wasn't anyone among the main characters that I think I actively disliked, although it did take me a while to realize that the reason seemingly everyone disliked Andrew was because Tom Lenk did such a good acting job making a character who was intended to be annoying-- annoying.

Perhaps Whedon also introduced Andrew to counter some fans' Xander dislike by showing that Xander wasn't so bad by comparison.

The only fan reaction I ever found troubling were those viewers who watched the show, but didn't like Buffy. Never understood that one, sorry.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Interesting.

Personally? I think Warren Miers and Topher from Dollhouse come closest to who Whedon really is. And the writer, has said as much at different points. With Spike and Angel representing his unresolved parental issues. Riley and whomever that actor from BSG played whose name I can't remember the name of in Dollhouse (I keep wanting to call him Helo) represented Whedon's ideal or who he wanted to be, along with Captain America. Xander representing who he is at least on the outside. And Warren Miers and Topher representing his behavior as a Hollywood writer and creator.

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

Topher I can totally see. Warren Miers? Not so much, have to disagree on that one.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

When asked in an interview which of the Trioka, Whedon was, he said, "Warren."

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

Humm... Now was he being sincere, or was he being a dick just to get the fans riled up?

[yeahsure]Not that he would ever do that, of course. [/yeahsure]

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

was he being a dick just to get the fans riled up

And now, you understand the Warren Miers reference. ;-)

Whedon was also more than a bit of a bully to his actors. The other reason for the reference.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

"Slut-shaming" sounds like an overblown way to describe a natural writing technique. Whether it's Malfoy in Harry Potter or mouthy spoiled/nasty blonde who sleeps with the hero's best friend and is the second girl to be murdered in innumerable horror flicks, defining someone as not nice, unfriendly or whatever as quickly as possible is a necessary part of some kinds of fiction.

Victim x is one of those people to be killed off. You demonstrate that no nice person would like Victim x. You may or may not explain why Victim x is hanging around with the heroes. Nobody cares much when the bad people get murdered (except for the ick part). Going deeper than that is taking the analysis out of the realm of what is necessary. You don't dwell on Victim x being dead. Nobody in the audience cares that Victim x is dead, just how they died. It's just to show what's going to happen to nice person y if the killer isn't stopped.

In Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None," Miss Emily Brent is quickly defined as prissy, self-righteous and generally unlikable. She gets killed about half-way through. Is the description of her functionally different from accusing a teenage girl in a slasher flick of being a slut. Not really.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. Because of the pattern. Also the fact that you have other characters saying "you slut" right before the girl gets raped or killed.
And it doesn't help that women are raped and killed about on average one per second...

What they are complaining about is ...well, Xander blames Buffy for Angel becoming Angelus, because she sleeps with Angel. Or in the horror film?
You got killed because you slept with your boyfriend. You dirty slut.
Caleb is in some respects a commentary on that trope, as was the Master - I must kill the pure innocent virginal blood.

While your examples are just the general murder mystery trope. And there's no definable pattern there - except of course the unlikable character always gets killed, and the killer is often the person you suspect first, everyone else a red-herring. But that's hardly worth commenting on. ;-)

[elisi]

The Mark Watches fandom is ironic. They have serious issues with S1-2 Xander and are obsessed with something called "slut-shaming" - yeah, I know it's new to me too..I never really heard this term until this year. These kids and their funky slang.
Thanks to Doctor Who and AMY'S SKIRTS I am sadly far too aware of this term. (Moffat is sexist because Amy has short skirts - or Amy is a slut because she wears short skirts - and so on. People just really like to complain. *sighs*) Anyway, re. Mark then I think one of the problems is his lack of analysis. Not that he HAS to be analytical, but - and I'm speculating here, since I don't really read the comments - I guess it doesn't foster an atmosphere for meta. I'm reminded of this bit from an interview with RTD post-Children of Earth:

Question: One of my readers wondered if you were under pressure to de-gay Torchwood and that’s why you killed him off.
DAVIES: I think you can forget about people picking up gay rights as an issue. It’s rather like children picking up nursery blocks and waving them in the air but having no idea what it entails. We’re talking about issues in my entire life here, not just one small television program. If they did research they’d go and look at the history of gay and lesbian characters that I have put on screen. They should simply grow up, do some research, and stop riding on a bandwagon that they actually don’t know anything about.

OK, so Joss' credentials as a feminist are a bit wonky (and nowhere near RTD's very personal gay 'crusade'), but what strikes me about all this shouting about 'slut shaming' is how it's obviously the current buzzword. Like you say, it used to be Spike who was vilified. Not that it's a bad thing to be aware of how our culture views women, but there's a giant gap between shouting about something on the internet (an 'old' show, and a seminal work in feminism!) and actually doing anything concrete, you know? And Buffy subverts everything (as you point out) and I think that they don't really notice because they're familiar with the story.

/early morning rambling

[lusciousxander.livejournal.com]

This post turned into my experience in fandom. I hope it's okay.

the Xander-criticism), because...in 2002-2009...it was usually Spike was the misogynist/chauvinistic pig and Xander was the nice boyfriend everyone wanted to have for their very own. NOW? People are highly critical of Xander.

People hated and bashed and criticized Xander since I can't remember. Things used to be so vicious back in 2001/2002/2003 when the show was still on the air. It was so hard being a Xander fan back then, other than calling him a useless asshole in every episode review I read I had to get used to the Nicholas Brendon fat jokes and people accusing me of being repressed because my favorite character somehow hates and abuses women. The only place I knew back then that will accept my Xander love was the Slash fics corner. Seriously. I didn't really know the Xander Zone – which apparently was very famous for Superpowered Xander fics and hated Spike's character. But then, I was never into Superpowered Xander and I always loved Spike.

This is funny, because while I don't deny that were was Spike hate, I've come across more Spike/James love in episode reviews than Spike hate. I guess it depends on the fandom corners we go to.

I remember being blessed to find people who liked both Xander and Spike. Because those people were so rare in fan boards and forums, unlike the Slash corners, those slashers used to be my BtVS family back in the day.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for sharing your experience. I was amongst the few fans who actually liked all the main characters. (the only ones I couldn't stand were people like Robin Wood (ghod I hated that character, and I'm not crazy about the actor either - have the same reaction to him that I do Dylan McDermott), Warren Miers (I actually do like Adam Busch quite a bit though - excellent singer), Harmony (was never a fan of the Marilyn Monroe type), Sam (Riley's wife) and what's his name, the guy played by Tom Lenk who the writers fell in love with in S7 (ghod knows why).) This was good luck on my part. Since most of those characters with the exception of ...oh, Andrew...(slaps head, of course)..and possibly Warren were barely in the show. I could easily ignore them.

I don't know how people watched and loved the series - who despised one of the lead characters. I mean, Xander? He was in almost every episode, as was Willow and Buffy. Spike, Angel and Giles...sort of came and went more.

I was mainly on ATPO and Buffy Cross and Stake - those two boards had serious Xander fans. Malandaza loved Xander, as did CJL, and several others. BC&S - had Oz and various others. The Spike shippers and Xander shippers were in equal numbers, and usually got along, it was the Bander and Spuffy shippers that were at each others throats. LOL!
And well Bangel hated everyone who wasn't Bangle. (I'm generalizing, obviously, there were exceptions - myself included. I had no problems.
I could see where the story was going. There was no way in hell, Bander would happen - any more than Harry/Hermoine were going to happen. For more or less the same reasons. I also knew Bangel was dead except for an angst factor that the writers would yank out at any given moment to boost ratings (*cough*EndofDays*cough* or *cough*Forever*cough*) - but Angel was more interesting to the writers in his own world, away from Buffy. Spike? There were possibilities. They could go there. Much safer ship to pursue. I've watched too many soap operas and serials in my life-time...I subconsciously pick up on these things. LOL!)

But you are right, just see the posts below...there were people who hated Xander and thought he was a jerk. How much of this was reactionary? I don't really know. I know I'd get annoyed at the character, much like I did Angel more as a reaction to Mal on the ATPO board or OZ on the BC&S board than in reality to the character. If I avoided Mal and OZ's posts...I liked the characters fine. LOL!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Sigh that should posts above this one. Not below.

[lusciousxander.livejournal.com]

I can vaguely remember Buffy Cross and Stake, was the background of the main page black and the writing in red or yellow? I don't remember going into the discussion boards, but I remember episode reviews.

What does ATPO stand for?

it was the Bander and Spuffy shippers that were at each others throats.

Shipper wars. Shakes head. Mal and OZ were members at the old discussion board? Do you still see them around or you just remember them because they had a big impact on your experience with fandom?

I'm rocking my brain trying to remember the places I used to visit. I think that the majority of posters used to be Spuffy/Spike fans, that's all I remember.

The first Buffy forum I felt quite safe and brave to post in was Buffyworld. I think I joined it in 2003 or 2004, I don't remember exactly because the forums were taken down and most of my friends over there are now in Buffyforums. There were amazing posters there, and while I was the only Xander fan among them, we were all friendly and open-minded toward each other's fannish opinions: Murusaki used to be a Spike fan but eventually her interest switched from Spike to Buffy. Irene was a Bangel fan. Francy was a huge Spuffy fan. Cori was a huge Spike fan. Jo was a huge Oz fan. Kirki adored Spuffy. Beck was also a Spuffy fan. Ros was the only one who shared my interest in Spander. I was finally happy to have found a place that wasn't hostile toward Xander's character and the Xander fans.

All of these people have moved on and some of them have disappeared suddenly and some I've lost touch with, but I still remember our time together fondly.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

ATPO

It was actually the "All Things Philosophical about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel the Series" and is still in existence. You can go to the archives and Malandaza's posts in support of Xander, as well KdS's posts, and various others.

Here you go:

http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives.html

Have fun!

Buffy Cross and Stake, was the background of the main page black and the writing in red or yellow?

It is no longer in existence.

See here: http://www.angelicslayer.com/tbcs/main.html

And here's the spoiler board (she stopped posting spoilers a long time ago):

http://www.voy.com/13746/ - the archives go back to 2005. You can find silveragent - a huge Xander fan on the board, talking back then.

Mal and OZ were members at the old discussion board? Do you still see them around or you just remember them because they had a big impact on your experience with fandom?

Had a big impact. Mal made me nuts. Oz made me laugh.

We had a lot of interaction online.

[fenderlove.livejournal.com]

Have you ever seen "Behind the Mask: the Rise of Leslie Vernon?" It is an excellent mockumentary of a "slasher" killer set in a world where Fred Krueger, Jason Voorhees, and Michael Myers are real. It actually takes a decent look at why the "survivor girl" is important with the killer actually believing that he is taking his "survivor girl" on a journey of self-discovery where she will find her own strength to not only survive but kill him in defense of herself; the killers want the "survivor girls" to survive. It's very meta, for lack of a better word, to see what horror movie fans writing their own slasher villain actually believe is the psychology within these horror universes. It makes for twisted logic.