red_satin_doll | "School Hard" / "Chosen"

Entry tags:

"School Hard" / "Chosen"

Like Mother, Like Daughter original artwork a gift to me from comlodge, an amazing artist and generous friend. Check out the original on her journal.

Apparently, Buffy isn't the only Summers woman who is going to be "a fireman [sic] when the floods roll back."

ETA:

beer_good_foamy reminded me that Joyce's threat to Spike, "You get the HELL away from my daughter!" (Rock on, Joyce!) could be seen as applicable to Buffy's actions in Chosen, if we consider the new Slayers as her metaphorical "offspring". (What's the plural for "childe"?)

Or, Kendra was her "daughter", Faith her "granddaughter", then Buffy and Faith got together and now the new Slayers have two mommies - which. ok, is kind of
incest-y, but no worse than the Fanged Four, right?

And Willow is their midwife. Something like that.

.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I guess it's the "everyone loves Giles" factor?

I've found fandom relies on the metaphor and kind of forgets the actuality of the characters. Giles is the father figure, Willow the quirky sister, Xander the loyal brother, etc. They tend to forget a lot of the crap they pull. And it goes the opposite way too. Cordy gets a lot of crap for being the cruel bully and her better qualities are ignored. I liked Helpless as an episode, but I do think it was a pretty big dropped ball. I guess it's the "everyone loves S3" factor. :P

But if you want to lead the way on that discussion I'll gladly follow! One of the reasons I love the episode "Him" is the way it once again subverts romantic tropes, comedically rather than tragically - or in this case, Buffy's romances, in a way that I think also subtly pokes fun at fandom taking the tropes seriously - Dawn spouting "it would be true, forever" and "it's real!", while under the spell - the Bangel and Spuffy catchphrases - just makes me grin like a mad thing.

Yeeeees. TGIQ is kind of like that. It's actually kind of sad because a lot of the jokes were lost on fandom. At the time I didn't care for mocking fans, but I guess I've become more mean over the years. Both Spike and Angel arguing over who gets credit for helping save the world in S2 is hilarious, especially if you've read some of those SvA debates. They're arguing over who's better...she's moved on--her story is beyond them and isn't directly tired to them.

They tend to forget a lot of the crap they pull. And it goes the opposite way too. Cordy gets a lot of crap for being the cruel bully and her better qualities are ignored

You're right it works both ways. I admit - mea culpa, I didn't appreciate Cordy until - well, actually until she was impaled, then lying in the hospital bed and told Xander to go away. That was the first time I really appreciated CC's performance. Now when I go back and rewatch I enjoy her more. (the scene where Buffy asks if Cordy would drive her home and Cordy's "of course", no questions asked, is beautifully underplayed; or Cordy's offer to Giles "What can we do to help?" in Ted. I've overlooked a lot of those moments myself, which is why rewatches are so rewarding.

OTOH - thanks to ITW / AYW I have a hard time remembering why I liked Riley in the beginning. (Then again rewatching Doomed I thought "Buffy, girlfriend, just walk the other way from someone who patronizes you like that.") I have to make myself remember that yes, he had some good qualities and yes I liked him once upon a time.

In terms of "overreliance on the metaphor" - maybe it depends on which metaphor or lens someone relies on? A lot of what I write or post here is a reaction to fandom's (starting with a year ago on the AV Club) focus on one metaphor with disregard for another possible reading or for the text/story itself. (ie Ted is ALL about Buffy misusing her Slayer powers against a human and that's the only subject of interest, while the story of a girl whose divorced mom brings home a creepy and dangerous boyfriend is ignored. And that makes no sense to me; S1-3 was still also about exploring tropes and themes of horror films, high school films, as well as RL issues that young people face. It's all in the mix.)

But one of my primary lens for thinking of the show is "dysfunctional family dynamics as an expression of the theme of power (the misuse of it) on a micro scale; the Initiative and the WC are the macro level, but same dynamic. If that's not someone else's lens, then I can't dictate what lens they should see it through, but I can say "this is how I see it". (That said, there's still things I am very reluctant to talk about. "let's see, how can I talk about the show, about how the early and late seasons and Buffy's journey all connect and come together without ever mentioning Spike because, you know, badness." That's a tricksy one. *le sigh*)

I liked Helpless as an episode, but I do think it was a pretty big dropped ball.

How so, and who did the ball-dropping?

I guess it's the "everyone loves S3" factor.

Not everybody (hence the quote marks, amiright?) The other day I looked at some of the ways in which people describe S4 - which supposedly isn't as well-loved, and you can use nearly all the same phrases to describe S3 as people generally do S4, honestly. I actually find S4 more interesting, in hindsight at least, because it marks a shift in the show to a more psychological, inward journey for Buffy. But that's just me.

At the time I didn't care for mocking fans, but I guess I've become more mean over the years

Heck I've become more mean - or jaded, whatever - just in the past year. At the same time, there's a line that can be drawn, but it's a fine distinction or maybe none at all, "laughing with" vs "laughing at". And then how you achieve that makes a difference too. (Tearing down beloved characters to make your point - you know what I'm talking about, right? - still seems unnecessarily mean-spirited.

Both Spike and Angel arguing over who gets credit for helping save the world in S2 is hilarious, especially if you've read some of those SvA debates. They're arguing over who's better...she's moved on--her story is beyond them and isn't directly tired to them.

The more I've thought about it - or rather read descriptions of that ep - I can see the point being made. But again, just a few months in this fandom and reading a lot of fanfic and conversations etc in which it's "all about the boys" and Buffy's just a footnote, helps to that end, whereas I couldn't see it just coming fresh from Chosen.

In terms of "overreliance on the metaphor" - maybe it depends on which metaphor or lens someone relies on?

I think that was a bad choice of words on my part. Maybe overreliance on the archetype would be a better way to say it.

How so, and who did the ball-dropping?

I just don't like how it's never mentioned again. At all. Arguably, it's the biggest betrayal on the whole show and yet there are no long term repercussions to it, at least not explicitly stated ones anyway.

which supposedly isn't as well-loved, and you can use nearly all the same phrases to describe S3 as people generally do S4, honestly. I actually find S4 more interesting, in hindsight at least, because it marks a shift in the show to a more psychological, inward journey for Buffy. But that's just me.

Heh, I'd definitely agree. I don't really like to rank seasons because I don't think any one season, with the possible exception of S4, is a standalone season. 1-3, 4, 5-7 is how I tend to look at them. I just have seen so much 'S3 is the pinnacle of the series' when pretty much all the critiques I've seen leveled at the later ones, and even the early ones, apply to S3, if not moreso.

Heck I've become more mean - or jaded, whatever - just in the past year. At the same time, there's a line that can be drawn, but it's a fine distinction or maybe none at all, "laughing with" vs "laughing at". And then how you achieve that makes a difference too. (Tearing down beloved characters to make your point - you know what I'm talking about, right? - still seems unnecessarily mean-spirited.

Oh, I'm never for tearing down any character to prove a point. I mean, I pretty much loathed Angel while the shows were running, but I've come to defend the guy thanks to the comics. TGIQ doesn't really mock fans directly, just fanwanks, really. Thing about doing that is, some people take it as confirmation of their beliefs. You'll see Spike fans take him claiming S2 as his when it's pretty clear that he's in the same boat as Angel; just posturing. After all, all you need to do is watch the DVD to see Spike shrug his shoulders and leave when it looks like Angelus has her down for the count.

But again, just a few months in this fandom and reading a lot of fanfic and conversations etc in which it's "all about the boys" and Buffy's just a footnote, helps to that end, whereas I couldn't see it just coming fresh from Chosen.

Yeah. :( Sort of related, I read a post on tumblr of all places wondering if, looking at the fandom in which it is all about the boys, Buffy was at all successful at what it was attempting to do--give the girl a story rather than be a footnote in the male-driven narrative.

Maybe overreliance on the archetype would be a better way to say it.

GOTCHA. That's exactly right.

I just don't like how it's never mentioned again. At all. Arguably, it's the biggest betrayal on the whole show and yet there are no long term repercussions to it, at least not explicitly stated ones anyway.

Agree to disagree? I can see what you're saying. I think that it does have ripple-effect repercussions even if they're never stated outright that are in the mix all the way to S7. They love each other but IMO Giles is never able to fully commit to either either being Watcher or Father. Like Buffy he imagines the two halves as separate but he can't completely chose between or integrate them as Buffy must (she's the Hero after all.) Unlike Buffy he has the luxury & the ability to stay or to go; so he very nearly leaves in S4 & S5 until Buffy says she needs him as a Watcher. But when she needs a parent more in S6 he leaves (which sometimes happens to people with depression in RL) only to come back in full-on Watcher mode at in TTG/Grave, as well as S7. He rationalizes his actions every time, but his emotions are still compromised.

Also, just from my own personal experience, kids will forgive a LOT & because they have no choice until they get older, because all you've got is each other, you are bonded by secrets, & your understanding of parental love involves (abuse, neglect abandonment, etc) That's the child's normal life. Buffy needs a father, Giles is the only one there, which doesn't negate genuine love; in fact it makes it more difficult to stand up for oneself or change things. Change the dynamic, you risk losing the love. I think a person has to be strong enough in themselves or have sufficient outside resources/support to do that. That's S7 in a nutshell.

I was more bothered by the fact that Joyce's actions in Gingerbread aren't addressed at all; yes she's under a spell - just another day in Buffy's world (see above), but Joyce's actions here (& Ted, DMP, etc) are pretty profound betrayals IMO. The spell or drugs allow her to express frustration and resentments that she wouldn't otherwise. What I dislike is how her being kidnapped in Helpless can be read as closure for Gingerbread because a) Joyce is "punished" for her sins, &/or b) that she & Buffy are able to move forward because Buffy saves her. I don't recall if it's explicit in the text but it does seem to be implied whether the writers intended it or not. It's not a far-out reading by any means.

I don't really like to rank seasons because I don't think any one season, with the possible exception of S4, is a standalone season. 1-3, 4, 5-7 is how I tend to look at them.

TOTAL AGREEMENT. For me 4 is the "bridge" season between childhood & adulthood. In part because that reflects my own experience of college: moving out of my mom's house for the first time, pursing subjects I was interested in, carving an identity, etc. I thought I was adult but wasn't aware of how much support/structure college provideduntil I had to drop out for health & financial reasons, work two jobs etc. The structure disappeared & I failed to make the relatively smooth transition to career, family etc that other people did. Which reinforces my identification with late-seasons Buffy!

but I've come to defend the guy thanks to the comics.

I mostly just enjoy poking fun of him, or letting BGF do it for me. & WORD on fanwank parodies in the comics; the "shag or die (save the universe)" trope has been mocked much better in other fanfics without the vulgarity or the juvenile mean-spiritedness.

You'll see Spike fans take him claiming S2 as his when it's pretty clear that he's in the same boat as Angel; just posturing. After all, all you need to do is watch the DVD to see Spike shrug his shoulders and leave when it looks like Angelus has her down for the count.

Agree on the second sentence, but 'splainy on the first one, pretty please?

I read a post on tumblr of all places wondering if, looking at the fandom in which it is all about the boys, Buffy was at all successful at what it was attempting to do--give the girl a story rather than be a footnote in the male-driven narrative.

Yeah, this - gives me pause. And I don't think it's the fault of the show itself, it's the culture that it's in. Our cultural paradigm really has not changed, not that we could expect it to in 10-15 years time. One tv show does not a revolution make, esp when the show itself is more liberal or progressive rather than transgressive. But - I can see why Joss would parody Twilight in the comics, even if the way he went about it was too "clever" (and not smart enough) by half. But it's a sobering reality.

I do think that it's easier to find tv series today centered around female characters than when I was growing up - but then again there's also a lot more channels to fill than when we had the Big Three, PBS, and where I lived CBC from Ontario. Also we have Netflix so I have instant access to decades worth of series including British tv. (but not Nurse Jackie, damnit.)

Movies however are still a different thing, but I think the presumption is still that "women control the remote but they don't go to the movies."

Sort of related, something else that I became aware of watching the show last year was that the depiction of Willow and Tara's relationship should have opened up the floodgates for more lesbian characters on tv - and I'm setting aside the bad old tropes raised by SR for a moment because whatever issues I have with it don't negate all that was good about that relationship or the depiction of it. But what do we have more than a decade later? the occasional side character (and still usually gay male not lesbian); two characters in Ringer who fit stereotypes that date back to 1860's France or 1960's dime novels (dark haired sophisticated European "lesbian" seductress and blond-haired unstable bisexual who falls under her spell, and is also mentally ill and a psycho killer etc etc - bad Sarah, no biscuit!) Or the "lesbian Robin doppleganger" on HIMYM (short hair, cowboy boots, flannel shirt and baseball glove is still shorthand for "lesbian"? What the creeping blue FUCK? It's still a pretty piss-poor picture.

Definitely the culture we live in, I agree. It's driven me to almost anti-shipperism.

Ringer was a let-down. So many interesting possibilities in the pilot. I don't know if it got CWified or what, but I didn't care for the obvious plotlines.

What the creeping blue FUCK? It's still a pretty piss-poor picture.

Perhaps it's due to a lack of lesbian showrunners? Straight people who don't really know how to write them, so they go back to tropes. Most US TV writers and showrunners are as disconnected from society as our politicians are. Most grew up in Hollywood, 2nd or 3rd generation screenwriters. Of course, so did Joss, so I don't know.

Almost? You're more patient than I am. I think the emphasis on "ships" (as much as I heart Buffy and Spike in S7) has challenged me to think and write about other aspects of the show and other characters. Which is good thing, but trying to write about Buffy's story and BtVS as a whole without mentioning Spike - or S6 - or anything that could possibly, ever ever offend or upset anyone? MAJOR challenge.

Maybe that's also why I've started to read B/A/S fics, like Elisi's. I agree with her - shipping the three of them at once eliminates lots of headaches.

Ringer was a let-down. So many interesting possibilities in the pilot.

Weirdly enough the very end of the season was when my interest perked up again (evil/crazy lesbians to the contrary) because there was a shift in the narrative; originally Siobhan was a 2-dimensional villainess and Bridget the warm loveable protagonist, but then the story started to give Siobhan more depth and delved into their backstory more - by which point I realized that Bridget was really in deep in her own rationalizations and fantasies despite the shiny new moral compass provided by NA. I mean - basically doing to her sister's husband what Faith did to Riley in AYW. And that's actually what got me watching it was an interview with Sarah where she talked about the moral ambiguities, and hey, I'm always up for that. Which is to say I agree with you - a lot of wasted promise and not even trashy enough to be a true guilty pleasure.

Perhaps it's due to a lack of lesbian showrunners? Straight people who don't really know how to write them, so they go back to tropes.

You may be right (aren't there more power lesbians by now, or is there no trickle-down effect from Ellen and Melissa and etc?) OTOH it's not just the tropes, it's the fact that lesbian characters still don't even exist. Period. There were more lesbians "under cover" back in the 1960's, disguised as librarians and teachers and working girls and nosy neighbors, it feels like. And don't forget Roseanne in the 1980's.

I think our culture and our media, or those who run our media, aren't interested in women to begin with; but doubly-so with lesbians - no men in our beds, ergo no interest from those who "run the show". IMO

Most US TV writers and showrunners are as disconnected from society as our politicians are. Most grew up in Hollywood, 2nd or 3rd generation screenwriters.

But lesbians aren't a weird, exotic species of bird in Madagascar that they've only seen in picture-books. (ok, I just make myself giggle.)

Which is good thing, but trying to write about Buffy's story and BtVS as a whole without mentioning Spike - or S6 - or anything that could possibly, ever ever offend or upset anyone? MAJOR challenge.

I used to be like that. Then I quit caring about offending people. :P Eventually you just get tired of the same old arguments, usually with the same old people. I say almost because it's unfair to hate a character or ship because of parts of their fanbase. I was really starting to dislike Spike for awhile because of some fans, but the fans were the problem, not the character. I just couldn't (and still can't) get my head around what some think the show was actually trying to say.*

I could never get into B/S/A because I just don't ever see Angel or Spike settling for something like that, nor do I really see Buffy settling either.

*This goes back to my one post about writers interacting with fans. Truth is, I don't think we get the AR without that S5-S6 writer/fan sniping. Writers were saying one thing, fans were arguing another. The writers swung the sledgehammer to prove their point. I know the official explanation is they needed it to happen for the soul quest, but I just don't buy it. You don't go that far for something like that.

Then I quit caring about offending people. :P Eventually you just get tired of the same old arguments, usually with the same old people.

I was re-reading two of my first posts here the other day (about Buffy, Spike and Riley) and realized I was a little more fearless then (last September). I think I'm getting back there but I'm trying to focus mostly on underexplored subjects or characters of the show rather than get into the same old arguments. but I can see some of those arguments as unavoidable. Maybe all the arguments? There are some things that I won't get into at this point (maybe later) because right now it's not worth it to me, I haven't figured out how to say things in a way that others haven't already, or someone else has pretty much "claimed" the character for themselves. So, whatever.

I say almost because it's unfair to hate a character or ship because of parts of their fanbase.

Very true. I don't find myself hating a character because of fans - more often, I get defensive on behalf of a character or because of interpretations that seem off or incomplete TO ME (which is what motivated my Ted meta, honestly). I don't presume to have the OTI (One True Interpretation). Except when I do (such as "Angel and Buffy have a forever love"? Um, no.)

I could never get into B/S/A

Neither could I until recently - and it's not something I see happening in canon (outside of fantasy) but I've found a couple of fanfics that write the threesome charmingly, so I can enjoy those for what they are. (I rarely read "Spangel"; if there isn't at least one woman involved in a ship, I'm usually not interested. Even from an erotic fantasy standpoint. And I don't love two male characters enough to want to seem them together to the exclusion of any and all women. YMMV)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"School Hard" / "Chosen"

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I knew I forgot to say something last time!

Re: I knew I forgot to say something last time!

Re: I knew I forgot to say something last time!

Re: I knew I forgot to say something last time!

Re: I knew I forgot to say something last time!