![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[Have a lot to say in a limited amount of time, no time to edit or proof, so you will have to bear with me. And have two things, which may seem to be completely unconnected.]
1. Have you ever been a fan? Been so emotionally invested in something that you actually bought season tickets to every game, stood line for hours, dressed up in the colors, and skipped work for the ticker-taper parade when they won? Or have fallen so deeply in love with a tv show that you taped every single episode, rescheduled your life around it, and even read heaven forbid a fanmagazine? Or followed a band across the country, no matter where they went, and collected every single version of their song? If you have -- do you know what it feels like when that team loses, not just loses, but loses sooo badly, that you want to throw rotten tomatoes at the coach? (I think they wrote a poem about this entitled Casey at the Bat.) Or you may know what it feels like when your favorite tv series or books serial or say comic serial or just a story flitting across the mediums does something sooo offensive to you, pushes your buttons so badly, that you want to well send hate mail to writer who did it or burn everything you bought? Or you may know what if feels likes when that band you loved to death, gets drunk and lip-synch's the lyrics at a live performance, sucks sooo bad, and you spent your entire paycheck to hear them. That they aren't who you thought. Disappointment is a bitch when you are emotionally invested, when you are a fan. It feels a bit like someone has pulled off a layer of skin.
2. The Rorschach Picture Test
I've been reading Buffy issue 34 reviews - okay, scanning them. Including, unfortunately some of the writers and artist's comments which pushed my buttons. (see item #1 above). I won't tell what they said or link you to them. Seriously, do you care? I thought not. As I was reading them - two comments to rather snarky previous posts I'd made on the subject of the comics, comments that I did not necessarily agree with - stuck in my head. Why is it that it is always the comments you don't agree with - that stick with you? (or maybe that's just me). At any rate one mentioned "The Rorsache Picture Test" and the other mentioned "Pattern analysis" or rather how they liked to pick up the patterns in things and did not really get emotionally involved in the story, per se. They appeared to assume that no one else saw patterns in things or was into that sort of thing. And I felt myself bristle, thinking, you idiot, have you been reading my blog? All I do is pattern analysis. But..during a rather lengthy chat on the phone last night, it occurred to me - we all see patterns in things, it's not the fact that we don't see patterns, that's human nature, no what is the distinguishing factor here is well how we each interpret the patterns that we see.
Rorschach Picture Test involves an inkblot. That's all it is an inkblot. Randomly stamped on a piece of paper. In tv shows from M*A*S*H to House, writers have used the Rorsach inkblot test. Often a psychiatrist will show the inkblot to the patient and ask what do you see. The character/patient often states nothing, or an inkblot, or something else - when pushed. It's a test that permeates our literature and pop landscape. To the point in which you may well groan or roll your eyes when it appears.
As a sort of nonsecuitor aside: Rorasch was also the name of superhero viglante in Alan Moore's groundbreaking Watchmen mini-series - well it was groundbreaking in the 1980s, not so much now. The character wore a Rorasch mask much as the character of Twilight does in the current Buffy comics. It took several issues to see his face. I only bringing this up to point out that Rorasch also has been used in comics - as a metaphor for - it is open to interpretation.
Look at the picture below, and tell me what you see?
Do you see butterflies mating? Do you see hearts? Do you see a man's face? Or do you just see an inkblot on white paper? When social psychologists experimented with the test - they found that with a group of 30 people, people split into factions - one group insisted that it was butterflies, one insisted it was a man's face. When each group was told what it was - they'd hunt for it. They'd see that image. If they weren't...well anything goes. It's like lying on your back and staring at the noonday sky, with the clouds passing by, one person will state they see turtles, another birds, another cupids, another a face, and someone will just see clouds.
When Leonardo Di Vinici did his infamous portrait of the Mona Lisa - people interpreted her smile differently. Some believed it was a smirk. Other's flirtatious. Others smug. Many believed it was merely egnimatic.
If you thought there were disagreements over the Mona Lisa, just try the works of Jackson Pollack. While visiting MOMA - the modern art museum in NYC with a diverse group of people, I had two conversations. One guy, explained why he adored the Campbell's Soup Can picture done Andy Warhole - but hated Pollack, which he found pointless. Another explained why he loved Jackson Pollack but hated Warhol, which he found derivative.
Pollack's paintings often resembled a Rorasch Inkblot.
What do you see in that painting? It always makes me think of a group of hip muscians at a jazz club with wild partiers swinging to the tune in a 1920s speakeasy for some reason.
I've told this story on my blog before...but it fits now, ages ago, I wrote a story for a Creative Writing course in Undergrad or College- it was one of many stories. We had to write one a week. Churning them out like clockwork, or so it felt like. Sickness? Not an excuse. At any rate - the story was a day in the life of an art student. I wrote it from his pov. And used his language. I like to call it my version of Catcher in the Rye - the lead character was my cynical and lonely brother. The class read it. The result was akin to showing them the Rorasch Ink Blot. My writing teacher was furious - because he interpreted the story the wrong way - he thought it was about a kid who had survived the apocalypse and was writing from his bunker, dying of radioation. Which actually was a possible interpretation. The teacher told me that you cannot write a story like a Rorasch Test. The reader has to have a map. They have to know how to interpret it. After the class, a friend, who admired and adored the teacher - ranted for fifteen minutes about how idiotic that statement was - she adored Samuel Beckett, and had become rather obsessed with the writer. Beckett wrote plays that could be and were meant to be interpreted in a variety of ways. He was of a generation of writers, mostly Irish, who delved into stream of consciousness writing - and saw the story, much the same way, Pollack saw the canvas - it was a way to interact with the reader, not tell the reader something, but rather let the reader find whatever they pleased inside of it. James Joyce, another of this illustrious group - which drove writers like Ernest Hemingway bonkers, told interviewers that he had no idea what his intent was and preferred they figure that out on their own.
I was reminded of this while reading the reviews of Buffy Issue 34 - a controversial issue that in many ways reminds me of The Rorasche Picture Test. It even references the test, in much the same way Alan Moore did in The Watchmen. Actually Buffy Issue 34 - owes a lot to Moore. As does the series in general. Alan Moore is a British comic book writer, who has written numerous books, notably The Watchmen, Swamp Thing, V for Vendetta,The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and most recently the notorious and somewhat scandalous The Lost Girls. Moore broke into mainstream bookstores. You will often find his books upon the shelves, listed as literature. Buffy the Vampire Slayer - even referenced Moore's Promethea in Season 4 - Primeval - where Buffy literally takes on the look of Alan Moore's superheroine. Buffy S8 also references Promethea - who has world-changing sex, that heightens her powers, with an old man. It is actually more graphic in some respects than Buffy Issue 34 is. Promethea - like Buffy is a story about a mythological female heroine - who passes the torch of her power to new heroine's when she retires or dies. Each new heroine inherits her memories. And the story is about her movement up the philosophical ladder of enlightment - blending Buddhism with Christianity. The writers in the commentary to S4, refer to Moore's Promethea - stating the stole the whole heart, hands, spirt, head - bit from that comic.
But Promethea is not alone in it's graphic sexuality, actually all of Moore's books are fairly graphic with sex or at least most of them. And the art is not always the prettiest. He often pictures or shows old men screwing young girls.
The Lost Girls a group of comics involving the sexual and erotic exploits of Wendy from Peter Pan, Alice from Alice in Wonderland, and Dorothy Gale from Wizard of OZ. They basically meet in 1913 and proceed to share their erotic adventures with each other. These books aren't easy to find in the US - unless you are willing to fork over $60-100 bucks, and I'm sorry no - not unless I know I'll like them. With Moore - I can never tell - I am either repulsed and offended, or intrigued. He either comes across as a lecherous male chauvinist pig or a rather fascinating anarchist. He's also notoriously reclusive, hates fans, and hates Hollywood. Moore's take on The Lost Girls bugs me in much the same way as Michael Swinick's take on female sexuality did in The Iron Dragon's Daughter, and now Meltzer/Whedon/Jeanty's in Buffy. It's bit annoying when a man decides to talk about female sexuality and once again makes it into his fantasy, not necessarily her's. My issue with this - has more to do with the history of female sexuality and the lack of a strong feminine voice in comics and literature to express our pov - the best we got was Anais Nin and possibly Anne Rice. Which may explain - the vast amount of erotic fanfiction written by women. Women have sunk to the fringes, the underground, to express ourselves, while they do it for money and in public.
Sorry for that tangent. There was a reason for it - everyone interpret Moore differently. My interpretation certainly is not the same as someone else's.
By now, everyone and their mother, or rather in one notable case, their father, has reviewed Buffy issue 34. And much like a group of students debating the Rorasch ink-blot, they've split into factions. If like me, you've read any of these, I do not need to waste your time telling you what the factions are. One group saw beautiful butterflies mating in a really hot way, one saw twisted hearts and two bodies fornicating on the bodies of millions, millions they'd killed, and another saw a face, and another an inkblot.
Theories as to what was happening inside the comic were as varied as the theories to my short story about the art school student. One group thinks the entire season is a dream that Buffy is having - that she's still stuck inside her nightmare. I admit to rather liking that theory, but it doesn't quite work for me on a certain level - and I think if it were a dream, I'd be rather upset. Another, postulates that there's something else unseen at work here. While other's state what we see is more or less what is happening, and it's just really badly drawn and written. And still others see it as the wonderful reunion of two lovers who will save the world, and all the evil crap is not their fault or Angel's fault - but rather a hoax or a huge mislead.
What is clear - is that the story much like Rorasch's inkblot and to a degree the TV Show LOST with its two simulatenous universes - is juxtaposing things that don't connect. We have the Buffy and Angel sex, this glorious, hearts and flowers, universe changing, orgasmic experience that seems to be right out of one of Buffy's sex fantasies - next to girls being tortured and murdered. It's like two movies that have nothing to do with one another being pushed into the same frame. On top of this we have characters who are acting strangely - The Scoobies are working with Amy/Warren and Zolle - who did horrible things to them. Things that sort of defy description. The art is weirdly inconsistent - almost as if more than one person is drawing.
And there's Rorasch blots all over the place. Add to this a pattern of sex related dreams that involve monsters and violence - spattered throughout. We have The Long Way Home - where Ethan Raine dressed as either Angel or Spike, yet using Spike Pet Names - breaks into Buffy's nightmare, and then immediately invades her sexual fantasy. Before he breaks into that fantasy, she has declared herself to Xander, Xander's lost his head, and she's dragged out the window into the dark abyss with Xander stating and Buffy echoing - I'm dark, I'm the dark. She's woken up by true love's kiss - but it's not Xander, as she may have hoped, but Satsu - a girl. Later,
in another nightmare, Always Darkest... she dreams of Angel and Spike making out, while she
is being married to Warren, with every demon she's ever fought in attendance, rooting her on, while Tara stands as her maid of honor, glaring. This dream she wakes from to a cartoonish Xander - asking her if she's still having bad dreams. But reality and dream are beginning to blur. To the point that it is no longer clear which is which, and the audience feels like they are in effect interpreting a Rorasch Drawing - the mask on Twilight's face.
This is not by any means a new tactic in comics. And, I'm beginning to wonder if not only S8, but rather the entire Buffy series is but a dream inside Buffy's head. Each character representing a different psychological fruedian trope. Angel and Spike, are almost interchangable in the series - as metaphors go. The writer tells us as much in the dream sequence - Always Darkest - where Angel asks if she can even tell the difference between them.
They are Yin to her Yang, each representing a different version of her own issues with her parents. Angel - her absentee father, domineering, yet never there - always leaving for her own good. Spike - devoted to her mother, alcoholic, nuturing, yet absent, manipulative, and sacrificial. They are both versions of her father, yet not. Then there's Giles, Willow, Xander, Dawn....the reason she fights. Continues to fight. What hold her to the cause. Brain, Spirt, Heart, and Soul/Child.
I won't bore you with my own difficulties regarding this story, there are too many to count, and I've already posted on most of them at length anyhow. I will state - that from an objective stance, that the comics feel like a psychological exploration of one character. That we are literally residing inside Buffy Summers head. Her love for Angel is more illusion than reality, a psychological archetype brought to life. Which may be way it is such a turn on - for it is in many ways a universal archetype. If you think about it - Angel is in every romantic tale. Or at least most of them. The dark swashbuckling hero, who sweeps in. He is Boyd in Dollhouse.
And Mal in Firefly. He is Woody in Toy Story. He is Batman and Superman and Iron Man and Captain America. He is Hercules, and he is King David of the Old Testament, King Arthur with his son Mordred. He's Stefan in the Vampire Diaries, and Edward in Twilight, and well, the list goes on ad nasuem. For Buffy, Angel isn't a person, so much as an ideal. The guy every girl dreams about when she is 15. Lusts after. The first love. Romanticized. Until you pull off the mask...and discover, that he does not exist except inside your dreams. In reality, Hitler or
Attila, or Henry the Eithth or Blackbeard stands in his place.
Whedon is first and foremost a horror writer - delving into the nightmares that reside inside our heads, in this case as he imagines it - the female head. While at the same time exploring broader themes such as celebrity and power. Fame. Narcissim. Ego. The story is a nightmare.
Not a continuation. It's not telling us more about the characters, so much as more about ourselves and the writer as we attempt to interpret the Rorasch Inkblot of a tale that lies within.
[For myself, I have no idea if I'll continue to read or not at this point. I'm guessing most likely not, but I could change my mind. The last issue admittedly pushed several of my buttons. And from what I've read, I'm willing to bet it is going to get worse.
The writer is not providing me with a story that I want or need to read. I wanted a continuation, a resolution of various subplots, as well as a progression of character, revisiting themes that moved me and comforted me, and that is not what these comics are about.
It is not the story the writer is interested in telling. And therein lies the disconnect.
For me, the Rorasch Ink Blot being provided feels more like a scribbled nightmare, than the rainbows with butterflies that I currently crave.]
[I seriously hope that made sense - off to watch Glee! Lost will have to wait! I want to laugh.]
1. Have you ever been a fan? Been so emotionally invested in something that you actually bought season tickets to every game, stood line for hours, dressed up in the colors, and skipped work for the ticker-taper parade when they won? Or have fallen so deeply in love with a tv show that you taped every single episode, rescheduled your life around it, and even read heaven forbid a fanmagazine? Or followed a band across the country, no matter where they went, and collected every single version of their song? If you have -- do you know what it feels like when that team loses, not just loses, but loses sooo badly, that you want to throw rotten tomatoes at the coach? (I think they wrote a poem about this entitled Casey at the Bat.) Or you may know what it feels like when your favorite tv series or books serial or say comic serial or just a story flitting across the mediums does something sooo offensive to you, pushes your buttons so badly, that you want to well send hate mail to writer who did it or burn everything you bought? Or you may know what if feels likes when that band you loved to death, gets drunk and lip-synch's the lyrics at a live performance, sucks sooo bad, and you spent your entire paycheck to hear them. That they aren't who you thought. Disappointment is a bitch when you are emotionally invested, when you are a fan. It feels a bit like someone has pulled off a layer of skin.
2. The Rorschach Picture Test
I've been reading Buffy issue 34 reviews - okay, scanning them. Including, unfortunately some of the writers and artist's comments which pushed my buttons. (see item #1 above). I won't tell what they said or link you to them. Seriously, do you care? I thought not. As I was reading them - two comments to rather snarky previous posts I'd made on the subject of the comics, comments that I did not necessarily agree with - stuck in my head. Why is it that it is always the comments you don't agree with - that stick with you? (or maybe that's just me). At any rate one mentioned "The Rorsache Picture Test" and the other mentioned "Pattern analysis" or rather how they liked to pick up the patterns in things and did not really get emotionally involved in the story, per se. They appeared to assume that no one else saw patterns in things or was into that sort of thing. And I felt myself bristle, thinking, you idiot, have you been reading my blog? All I do is pattern analysis. But..during a rather lengthy chat on the phone last night, it occurred to me - we all see patterns in things, it's not the fact that we don't see patterns, that's human nature, no what is the distinguishing factor here is well how we each interpret the patterns that we see.
Rorschach Picture Test involves an inkblot. That's all it is an inkblot. Randomly stamped on a piece of paper. In tv shows from M*A*S*H to House, writers have used the Rorsach inkblot test. Often a psychiatrist will show the inkblot to the patient and ask what do you see. The character/patient often states nothing, or an inkblot, or something else - when pushed. It's a test that permeates our literature and pop landscape. To the point in which you may well groan or roll your eyes when it appears.
As a sort of nonsecuitor aside: Rorasch was also the name of superhero viglante in Alan Moore's groundbreaking Watchmen mini-series - well it was groundbreaking in the 1980s, not so much now. The character wore a Rorasch mask much as the character of Twilight does in the current Buffy comics. It took several issues to see his face. I only bringing this up to point out that Rorasch also has been used in comics - as a metaphor for - it is open to interpretation.
Look at the picture below, and tell me what you see?
Do you see butterflies mating? Do you see hearts? Do you see a man's face? Or do you just see an inkblot on white paper? When social psychologists experimented with the test - they found that with a group of 30 people, people split into factions - one group insisted that it was butterflies, one insisted it was a man's face. When each group was told what it was - they'd hunt for it. They'd see that image. If they weren't...well anything goes. It's like lying on your back and staring at the noonday sky, with the clouds passing by, one person will state they see turtles, another birds, another cupids, another a face, and someone will just see clouds.
When Leonardo Di Vinici did his infamous portrait of the Mona Lisa - people interpreted her smile differently. Some believed it was a smirk. Other's flirtatious. Others smug. Many believed it was merely egnimatic.
If you thought there were disagreements over the Mona Lisa, just try the works of Jackson Pollack. While visiting MOMA - the modern art museum in NYC with a diverse group of people, I had two conversations. One guy, explained why he adored the Campbell's Soup Can picture done Andy Warhole - but hated Pollack, which he found pointless. Another explained why he loved Jackson Pollack but hated Warhol, which he found derivative.
Pollack's paintings often resembled a Rorasch Inkblot.
What do you see in that painting? It always makes me think of a group of hip muscians at a jazz club with wild partiers swinging to the tune in a 1920s speakeasy for some reason.
I've told this story on my blog before...but it fits now, ages ago, I wrote a story for a Creative Writing course in Undergrad or College- it was one of many stories. We had to write one a week. Churning them out like clockwork, or so it felt like. Sickness? Not an excuse. At any rate - the story was a day in the life of an art student. I wrote it from his pov. And used his language. I like to call it my version of Catcher in the Rye - the lead character was my cynical and lonely brother. The class read it. The result was akin to showing them the Rorasch Ink Blot. My writing teacher was furious - because he interpreted the story the wrong way - he thought it was about a kid who had survived the apocalypse and was writing from his bunker, dying of radioation. Which actually was a possible interpretation. The teacher told me that you cannot write a story like a Rorasch Test. The reader has to have a map. They have to know how to interpret it. After the class, a friend, who admired and adored the teacher - ranted for fifteen minutes about how idiotic that statement was - she adored Samuel Beckett, and had become rather obsessed with the writer. Beckett wrote plays that could be and were meant to be interpreted in a variety of ways. He was of a generation of writers, mostly Irish, who delved into stream of consciousness writing - and saw the story, much the same way, Pollack saw the canvas - it was a way to interact with the reader, not tell the reader something, but rather let the reader find whatever they pleased inside of it. James Joyce, another of this illustrious group - which drove writers like Ernest Hemingway bonkers, told interviewers that he had no idea what his intent was and preferred they figure that out on their own.
I was reminded of this while reading the reviews of Buffy Issue 34 - a controversial issue that in many ways reminds me of The Rorasche Picture Test. It even references the test, in much the same way Alan Moore did in The Watchmen. Actually Buffy Issue 34 - owes a lot to Moore. As does the series in general. Alan Moore is a British comic book writer, who has written numerous books, notably The Watchmen, Swamp Thing, V for Vendetta,The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and most recently the notorious and somewhat scandalous The Lost Girls. Moore broke into mainstream bookstores. You will often find his books upon the shelves, listed as literature. Buffy the Vampire Slayer - even referenced Moore's Promethea in Season 4 - Primeval - where Buffy literally takes on the look of Alan Moore's superheroine. Buffy S8 also references Promethea - who has world-changing sex, that heightens her powers, with an old man. It is actually more graphic in some respects than Buffy Issue 34 is. Promethea - like Buffy is a story about a mythological female heroine - who passes the torch of her power to new heroine's when she retires or dies. Each new heroine inherits her memories. And the story is about her movement up the philosophical ladder of enlightment - blending Buddhism with Christianity. The writers in the commentary to S4, refer to Moore's Promethea - stating the stole the whole heart, hands, spirt, head - bit from that comic.
But Promethea is not alone in it's graphic sexuality, actually all of Moore's books are fairly graphic with sex or at least most of them. And the art is not always the prettiest. He often pictures or shows old men screwing young girls.
The Lost Girls a group of comics involving the sexual and erotic exploits of Wendy from Peter Pan, Alice from Alice in Wonderland, and Dorothy Gale from Wizard of OZ. They basically meet in 1913 and proceed to share their erotic adventures with each other. These books aren't easy to find in the US - unless you are willing to fork over $60-100 bucks, and I'm sorry no - not unless I know I'll like them. With Moore - I can never tell - I am either repulsed and offended, or intrigued. He either comes across as a lecherous male chauvinist pig or a rather fascinating anarchist. He's also notoriously reclusive, hates fans, and hates Hollywood. Moore's take on The Lost Girls bugs me in much the same way as Michael Swinick's take on female sexuality did in The Iron Dragon's Daughter, and now Meltzer/Whedon/Jeanty's in Buffy. It's bit annoying when a man decides to talk about female sexuality and once again makes it into his fantasy, not necessarily her's. My issue with this - has more to do with the history of female sexuality and the lack of a strong feminine voice in comics and literature to express our pov - the best we got was Anais Nin and possibly Anne Rice. Which may explain - the vast amount of erotic fanfiction written by women. Women have sunk to the fringes, the underground, to express ourselves, while they do it for money and in public.
Sorry for that tangent. There was a reason for it - everyone interpret Moore differently. My interpretation certainly is not the same as someone else's.
By now, everyone and their mother, or rather in one notable case, their father, has reviewed Buffy issue 34. And much like a group of students debating the Rorasch ink-blot, they've split into factions. If like me, you've read any of these, I do not need to waste your time telling you what the factions are. One group saw beautiful butterflies mating in a really hot way, one saw twisted hearts and two bodies fornicating on the bodies of millions, millions they'd killed, and another saw a face, and another an inkblot.
Theories as to what was happening inside the comic were as varied as the theories to my short story about the art school student. One group thinks the entire season is a dream that Buffy is having - that she's still stuck inside her nightmare. I admit to rather liking that theory, but it doesn't quite work for me on a certain level - and I think if it were a dream, I'd be rather upset. Another, postulates that there's something else unseen at work here. While other's state what we see is more or less what is happening, and it's just really badly drawn and written. And still others see it as the wonderful reunion of two lovers who will save the world, and all the evil crap is not their fault or Angel's fault - but rather a hoax or a huge mislead.
What is clear - is that the story much like Rorasch's inkblot and to a degree the TV Show LOST with its two simulatenous universes - is juxtaposing things that don't connect. We have the Buffy and Angel sex, this glorious, hearts and flowers, universe changing, orgasmic experience that seems to be right out of one of Buffy's sex fantasies - next to girls being tortured and murdered. It's like two movies that have nothing to do with one another being pushed into the same frame. On top of this we have characters who are acting strangely - The Scoobies are working with Amy/Warren and Zolle - who did horrible things to them. Things that sort of defy description. The art is weirdly inconsistent - almost as if more than one person is drawing.
And there's Rorasch blots all over the place. Add to this a pattern of sex related dreams that involve monsters and violence - spattered throughout. We have The Long Way Home - where Ethan Raine dressed as either Angel or Spike, yet using Spike Pet Names - breaks into Buffy's nightmare, and then immediately invades her sexual fantasy. Before he breaks into that fantasy, she has declared herself to Xander, Xander's lost his head, and she's dragged out the window into the dark abyss with Xander stating and Buffy echoing - I'm dark, I'm the dark. She's woken up by true love's kiss - but it's not Xander, as she may have hoped, but Satsu - a girl. Later,
in another nightmare, Always Darkest... she dreams of Angel and Spike making out, while she
is being married to Warren, with every demon she's ever fought in attendance, rooting her on, while Tara stands as her maid of honor, glaring. This dream she wakes from to a cartoonish Xander - asking her if she's still having bad dreams. But reality and dream are beginning to blur. To the point that it is no longer clear which is which, and the audience feels like they are in effect interpreting a Rorasch Drawing - the mask on Twilight's face.
This is not by any means a new tactic in comics. And, I'm beginning to wonder if not only S8, but rather the entire Buffy series is but a dream inside Buffy's head. Each character representing a different psychological fruedian trope. Angel and Spike, are almost interchangable in the series - as metaphors go. The writer tells us as much in the dream sequence - Always Darkest - where Angel asks if she can even tell the difference between them.
They are Yin to her Yang, each representing a different version of her own issues with her parents. Angel - her absentee father, domineering, yet never there - always leaving for her own good. Spike - devoted to her mother, alcoholic, nuturing, yet absent, manipulative, and sacrificial. They are both versions of her father, yet not. Then there's Giles, Willow, Xander, Dawn....the reason she fights. Continues to fight. What hold her to the cause. Brain, Spirt, Heart, and Soul/Child.
I won't bore you with my own difficulties regarding this story, there are too many to count, and I've already posted on most of them at length anyhow. I will state - that from an objective stance, that the comics feel like a psychological exploration of one character. That we are literally residing inside Buffy Summers head. Her love for Angel is more illusion than reality, a psychological archetype brought to life. Which may be way it is such a turn on - for it is in many ways a universal archetype. If you think about it - Angel is in every romantic tale. Or at least most of them. The dark swashbuckling hero, who sweeps in. He is Boyd in Dollhouse.
And Mal in Firefly. He is Woody in Toy Story. He is Batman and Superman and Iron Man and Captain America. He is Hercules, and he is King David of the Old Testament, King Arthur with his son Mordred. He's Stefan in the Vampire Diaries, and Edward in Twilight, and well, the list goes on ad nasuem. For Buffy, Angel isn't a person, so much as an ideal. The guy every girl dreams about when she is 15. Lusts after. The first love. Romanticized. Until you pull off the mask...and discover, that he does not exist except inside your dreams. In reality, Hitler or
Attila, or Henry the Eithth or Blackbeard stands in his place.
Whedon is first and foremost a horror writer - delving into the nightmares that reside inside our heads, in this case as he imagines it - the female head. While at the same time exploring broader themes such as celebrity and power. Fame. Narcissim. Ego. The story is a nightmare.
Not a continuation. It's not telling us more about the characters, so much as more about ourselves and the writer as we attempt to interpret the Rorasch Inkblot of a tale that lies within.
[For myself, I have no idea if I'll continue to read or not at this point. I'm guessing most likely not, but I could change my mind. The last issue admittedly pushed several of my buttons. And from what I've read, I'm willing to bet it is going to get worse.
The writer is not providing me with a story that I want or need to read. I wanted a continuation, a resolution of various subplots, as well as a progression of character, revisiting themes that moved me and comforted me, and that is not what these comics are about.
It is not the story the writer is interested in telling. And therein lies the disconnect.
For me, the Rorasch Ink Blot being provided feels more like a scribbled nightmare, than the rainbows with butterflies that I currently crave.]
[I seriously hope that made sense - off to watch Glee! Lost will have to wait! I want to laugh.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 02:48 am (UTC)Re: the art part of it. I'm tired and so I'll just fall back on the old cruch of "I don't know if it's good, I just know what I like."
Right now I'm not heavy on the like where the comics are concerned.
Anyway, really interesting essay.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 04:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 07:27 am (UTC)ETA: One group thinks the entire season is a dream that Buffy is having - that she's still stuck inside her nightmare. I admit to rather liking that theory, but it doesn't quite work for me on a certain level - and I think if it were a dream, I'd be rather upset.
I've got a theory! In 'Normal Again' we got an AU where all of BtVS was just Buffy's dreams/fantasies... If we take that interpretation and run with it, s8 could work rather well, if we assume that the doctors changed her medication. I'll go now.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-15 03:40 am (UTC)*cough* we fans have ALWAYS put more thought into it than the writers.
They are writing this for money and forget it when they go home. We on the other hand ponder it, rewatch it, and write oodles of stuff on it.
I seriously doubt half the stuff we've found ever occurred to them.
But that I suspect is true of all writing and all art. That's the point of interactive art - the audience brings their own subtext. The art doesn't exist without them. It is in other words little more than an inkblot on paper until we decide to see more.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 08:30 am (UTC)I've seen some people arguing that the verse could be Buffy dreaming in Prophecy Girl. So if this is a dream,nightmare,fairy tale maybe when Buffy wakes up she'll be able to see the soul mask ("a vampire with a soul? how lame is that"). The vampire with a soul was specifically introduced by Whedon (and there are only two in the entire vampire literature). Maybe he'll want to correct that also.
About the Rorschach image: from issue one we were told that Buffy "missed that sex". In #34 she was 'serviced' (service the girl) properly but destroyed the world (care what you wish for).
no subject
Date: 2010-04-15 05:30 am (UTC)When Buffy wakes up she'll be able to see the soul mask
This is reminiscent of Buffy pulling off Giles' mask to see the Master in "When She Was Bad," immediately after "Prophesy Girl."
from issue one we were told that Buffy "missed that sex".
I do think this is a reference more to Spike than to Angel--after all, "that sex" with Angel was only once, and "miss" suggests a longer-term thing. Definitely Buffy's missing sex is one of the key plot points setting up #34, but it's interesting that in #34 Buffy and Angel also get what they never had. (I think we can safely assume that their night together in "Surprise" was a little tamer than what #34 gives us.)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-15 01:04 pm (UTC)Or is just a parallel to Prophecy Girl? If she didn't go to the Master's Lair she wouldn't had freed him = she's the weapon of mass destruction but she doesn't know it
no subject
Date: 2010-04-15 02:04 pm (UTC)This is one of the first times since the beginning of the series that prophecy has come up for Buffy. Prophecies are more Angel's (and Angel's) department--because Buffy subverts things and Angel fails to do so. Probably more of that coming up?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 08:51 am (UTC)What continues to baffle me a bit is that, thought the comic itself allows for several interpretations, all the DH people and among them Meltzer, who wrote the thing) seem to be set on just one.
Could provide you with Lost girls if you want to? It's not uninteresting, though certainly not worth the price it is sold at.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 12:09 pm (UTC)Alas, I don't think the comics go in that direction.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 12:54 pm (UTC)One thought that came to me as I read this - one that pleases me as a Spuffy shipper to no end - is that the confusion about Spike/Angel in "Always Darkest" could be used to read the "yin to her yang" line as applying to both; Buffy loves both vampires differently but equally - which, if that reading was correct and would be given some evidence in later issues, could make the entire run of the series palatable to me. I don't need space f^$%ing to be a happy shipper. And the space f*%$&ing? Just a set up for a big fall.
I did enjoy your thoughts on Alan Moore, and may need to check out Lost Girls. I'll be reading Watchmen again in a literature class, and I think the point I want to make in the class is that Moore cannot be relied upon to know women's minds and women's sexuality - Silk Spectre is the least fleshed-out character in the novel, after all.
Thanks for this! (And it was probably a good idea to choose Glee to watch - this was dense stuff, and you needed something frothy and fun after this!)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 01:54 pm (UTC)The thing is, the visual portrayal of the two of them (Angel and Spike) in the comics seems to have a continuing theme of Spike as an afterthought. The first IIRC, in Buffy's threesome nursemaid dream has her in Angel's arms, and one arm kind of pulling Spike in as if she just remembered he was there, and in this last issue, in the frame about her "great loves" has Angel prominent in the forefront, and Spike pushed back in the frame. Perhaps that could be chalked up to artist's choice, but I'm thinking it's not...
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 10:57 pm (UTC)Yeah, well Jeanty lives to please his Bangel fangirls . . . didn't the guy admit to not even watching the last two seasons of Buffy until after he got the job illustrating the comics?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 11:26 pm (UTC)Heh--it's nice to know he's impartial :P
And he isn't well versed on the last two seasons? Now there's a shocker...
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 01:59 pm (UTC)I think it's possible/probable that it could end up being some type of dream/nightmare sequence. And while it's true that may seem to be the easy way out, well...let's just say I don't expect a satisfying resolution anyway, so being a dream would work in that respect. Not to mention the "it's not telling us more about the characters" part you mentioned. At least, not in a reality based way, but perhaps insight into someone's subconscious...
But honestly, I'm not sure. It could go either way.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 03:07 pm (UTC)For me, the Rorshach blot in this case is definitely just a meaningless splotch.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 06:46 pm (UTC)But regarding the Rorshach blot: I'll bet I'm the only one who saw an Audrey Beardsley drawing of two people in Georgian fancy dress kissing.....
I am too weird, I know.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-15 05:24 am (UTC)I don't think this will go the route of "it was all in Buffy's head," but I also agree that the comics (and show, as you point it out) are constructed as an exploration of her headspace, so that while the characters have their own agency etc. they also reflect on Buffy constantly. This is true of Angel as well.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-18 07:24 pm (UTC)When I first saw the preview of the Jo Chen Issue 34 cover, I was convinced that we were going to see a dreamscape or exploration of the psychological workings of Buffy and her attachment to Angel/Angelus from a "healing" treatment - boy was I wrong.
I still am keeping my faith that Joss Whedon is not going to throw away all the elements that were the most powerful and compelling in the TV era.
Regarding the inkblot image - I immediately saw that as the human pelvic region - one can also see two figures kissing, but I think the main image is the pelvis.