"Welcome to the Hellmouth" / "Bring on The Night"

[red_satin_doll]

"You're standing at the mouth of Hell. And it's about to open up." *

***
"I'm beyond tired. I'm beyond scared.
I'm standing on the mouth of Hell and it's going to swallow me whole. And it'll choke on me." **

* Joss Whedon
** Marti Noxon & Douglas Petrie

Comments

Re: sorry, I had to edit my reply 'cause I forgot something

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

So I can't really blame the writers for being baffled that fans were "siding" with Spike at that time, but still, you can't insult your fanbase.

Oh exactly - and you know my opinion on the comics re: my sense that Joss is somehow satirizing fandom (or rather fanwankery and fanfiction tropes like "Buffy saves the universe through her vagina"? Actually his explanation regarding Tara's death and his reaction to the fans was pretty damn dismissive, so It's not like I expect maturity from the man.) Even if Fury thought it why in the hell would he say it?

What colors it for me is his reaction of why didn't he think of doing anything while she was unconscious (and the subsequent cut scene from Smashed with the tazor). Just adds another layer of ick to it.

God yes - and I think you're the only person who has mentioned the cut scene from Smashed back to me? I'm usually the only one whose mentioning it and linking to it to other people. I've seen discussions of Smashed from even a couple of years ago and "what did Spike intend?" (and some pretty bizarre interpretations - he never meant to hurt her! Her never intended to have sex with her! Um, excuse me? Have we forgotten Crush and FFL and the way love, sex and death are intwined.) I'm really shocked it's so rarely mentioned; I don't know how old Buffyworld is but the script is RIGHT there. (But then again nobody mentions the deleted ending of Smashed either, I stumbled on it randomly on YouTube; I would think people would be all over it. *shrugs* But maybe because it's clearly that Buffy is in a dominant position, a "top" so to speak? And women aren't supposed to be? IDK.)

Weeeell, my opinions on that are kind of controversial. Mostly 'cause I think there are a lot of those people are full of it. Some interpretations are just bizarre to me, particularly about S6 and the Spuffy therein. Sort of like the tendency for people to say "Now, I would NEVER try to blame the victim..." then, you know, go on to do exactly that.

I'm beginning to think we share the same brain. *points to my previous comments* And we both know that there are people who do that on behalf of every character. I think that understanding doesn't mean condoning - although I wonder if the line between that and blaming is thinner than I'd like to believe?

BTW and totally OT - I referred to you as a good source for the declining sales figures for the comics to frellingtalk and I wrote "they(she?), 'cause I tend to assume "she" unless I know otherwise (although when I don't know I try to use the neutral pronoun as recommended in "The Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing" and frelling replied that you're a he which - you Do NOT have to confirm either way but if true? It blew my mind a little, and is also very cool. Why are some of the most truly feminist people in the fandom (or at least on my flist), the most aware of their privilege and least likely to victimize or objectify the female characters men? i.e. what does that say about my gender as a whole? IDGI

Re: sorry, I had to edit my reply 'cause I forgot something

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

Even if Fury thought it why in the hell would he say it?

Fury doesn't seem to have much of an internal censor. He's said some pretty snide (or honest, mileages vary depending on if you agree or not) about other things over the years, even his work on Lost.

I don't know how old Buffyworld is but the script is RIGHT there.

For Smashed, I think there's a lot of "not on screen = not canon" which I wouldn't necessarily argue with. But still the intent is stated in the script for that and I think that goes a little further than a scene that was cut. That's where you get into the murky waters of whether the author is alive or not. I think when it comes to an active part of the story (like a motivation or character stance), the author is alive.

But yeah, some are just in denial, if you want my honest opinion on that. Like people argue that Spike wouldn't have hurt that woman in the alley. No, the chip went off and as Spike himself said, it only goes off with the intent to harm. Thing is, the authors allowed it until it came to a head. I think they were too afraid of losing Buffy (perhaps it's an insight into their own flawed views of heroes?) to their own narrative.

Oh, I'm a dude. I don't know if I'm feminist or not; I just ask myself questions about the reactions I have to things and try to be aware of my own projections. I think in a lot of ways that's why I feel betrayed by Joss and his comics, because I know he knows better and is doing it anyway. Whether he's satirizing fandom or giving in to his own kinks and fetishes, it makes no difference because the result the same.

I'm not really a source for declining sales figures. I get them from comichron.

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2013/2013-04.html

They continue to drop about 500 for Buffy and 100-200 for A&F each month.

Re: sorry, I had to edit my reply 'cause I forgot something

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

For Smashed, I think there's a lot of "not on screen = not canon" which I wouldn't necessarily argue with. But still the intent is stated in the script for that and I think that goes a little further than a scene that was cut.

Whether you think Spike wanted to make love to her or hurt her doesn't matter because it's been in the text not just in that season or that episode but pretty consistently since S5 esp FFL when he talks about Killing Slayers and then how he's in love with Buffy almost in the same breath. "It's the same damn thing to you vampires" and she's not wrong about that.

Spike's "philosophy" actually reminds me of fin de sicle "decadence" (Fleurs du Mal, Symbolist art, Edvard Munch, Montmarte, etc); or as a visiting Scottish professor put it when talking about the period, "sexy death".

He said it in a joking tone and I honestly don't find it very funny, because "women" (the fantasy versions) were depicted as the source of both and dark, terrifying, fascinating creatures - femme fatale, vagina dentata, and so forth. And this was occuring (1900) along the same time as the first wave of feminism - more women seeking higher education, the right to vote and so forth, which I don't think is an accident. (That's the sort of thing Joss is referring to as "reactionary blowback" in his letter "explaining" S8 - hah - but he got it terribly wrong anyway.)

Like people argue that Spike wouldn't have hurt that woman in the alley. No, the chip went off and as Spike himself said, it only goes off with the intent to harm.

If we had to list every such example we'd be here all day. Possibly an entire weekend. Spike would never hurt anyone? Never raped anyone? HUH? *SMH*

Thing is, the authors allowed it until it came to a head. I think they were too afraid of losing Buffy (perhaps it's an insight into their own flawed views of heroes?) to their own narrative.

Buffy the show or Buffy the character?

Oh, I'm a dude. I don't know if I'm feminist or not; I just ask myself questions about the reactions I have to things and try to be aware of my own projections.

Oh I'd definitely say you are. "The radical notion that women are people too" - that's the simplest version. It doesn't mean anti-male, and for me there's no fancy theoretical framework to it. It's intuitive. And it's amazing how few people are aware of their projections. That's really admirable that you try, so kudos.

I think in a lot of ways that's why I feel betrayed by Joss and his comics, because I know he knows better and is doing it anyway. Whether he's satirizing fandom or giving in to his own kinks and fetishes, it makes no difference because the result the same.

PREACH

I had no idea about comichron, so thanks for the link!

Re: sorry, I had to edit my reply 'cause I forgot something

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I don't mean just that, but regarding why fans rarely talk about the incidents you mentioned--what happened after the floor gave way in Smashed, the crypt scene. They're not talked about because they weren't in the show? Just guessing. There are dailies of the extended ending of Smashed, btw.

"It's the same damn thing to you vampires" and she's not wrong about that.

Oh, totally. His fantasies, "the slayer likes it rough" and so on. While I think the AR was poorly done, I've always rolled by eyes at the suggestion that it was OOC. The whole season is rife with the guy not taking no for an answer. Like you (and Buffy) said, love and pain and sex and death, it's all the same damned thing.

But we live in a fandom where threats of death are seen as shippery.

but he got it terribly wrong anyway

Yup. Not least of which because the story itself basically says that the "blowback" is justified and natural. It's one thing to portray something, but he reinforces it.

Buffy the show or Buffy the character?

I think Buffy the character. Or maybe they just cut it for time; I don't know, but I just don't think they'd have felt the need for the AR if they'd have left the Smashed scene in. I just wonder if they felt they might be making a misstep to have Buffy have sex with a guy who had such intentions.

"The radical notion that women are people too" - that's the simplest version.

That's how I try to think. Just seems to me that labeling something feminist because it aligns with a specific person's ideal is doing the same thing. Too many people think freedom should be limited to people agreeing with them.

Re: sorry, I had to edit my reply 'cause I forgot something

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

That's how I try to think. Just seems to me that labeling something feminist because it aligns with a specific person's ideal is doing the same thing. Too many people think freedom should be limited to people agreeing with them.

Hmm. If I'm reading you correctly, I'm sorry if I've given off the impression that I demand agreement; that is certainly not the case. (What I do demand is a modicum of civility on my LJ and I've been pretty firm about that. And being respectful and mindful of the fact that at the other side of one's computer is another human being.)

There are a lot of people who call themselves feminists and I certainly don't agree with everything they have to say; or they find my "feminism" wanting. That doesn't make the general ideas any less important to me. And I wasn't attempting to limit you in any way. Perhaps simply saying "Wow, you certainly show a lot of awareness about issues that are important to me and I really enjoy our conversations" will satisfy?

Re: sorry, I had to edit my reply 'cause I forgot something

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

Oh, certainly not. I meant in the case of what freedom is, some people seem to think it extends only so far as they're own views of it. So you see a lot of people being labeled "not really feminist" because their views don't align with a standard measure. The idea that someone would of their own free will choose to be different never occurs to them.

Re: sorry, I had to edit my reply 'cause I forgot something

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

Ah, gotcha.

I remember a copy of Ms Magazine while I was - in college, I think? With Gloria Steinem, bell hooks, Urvashi Vaid, and maybe one other women on the cover, and they cover tag "Feminists Don't Agree about everything - who says they have to?"

And I wondered, who said they did to begin with? (Then I started analyzing the relative position of each of the women on the cover to one another and what that MEANT. Remember, college student.)

As my friend Kendra said to me one time "Everyone has their own politics." Our opinions rarely mesh 100% with any given "party line" (and I tend to be suspicious of those who do, it implies to me a lack of free thinking.)