The Mirror Cracked: "Dopplegangers" on BtVS (1/?): Xander, mostly

[red_satin_doll]

mcjulie challenged me to write a meta about dopplegangers on BtVS in the convo thread of her wonderful meta "Where Did I Go? A Farewell to the Buffybot".  The jist of her meta is that the Buffybot represents the "I'm Fine" mask that Buffy puts on to cover her grief and depression, starting with her mother's death in mid S5, and continuing through S6. (She also pointed out to me that Buffy is the only character on the show who gets two dopplegangers: the Buffybot and The First.)



First things first: a doppleganger ("double walker") is simply an exact "double or look-alike" of any person.  The double cannot be explained away by an optical illusion or reflection in the mirror, they are not an identical twin, and generally seems to have a physical presence and is glimpsed by the person themselves or someone who knows them. In other words, not a double seen only in a dream or hallucination, but seeming to have a real physical presence. (Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper is a relatively well-known literary example.)  In old folklore, the sight of a doppleganger was taken as a sign of imminent death or misfortune to the person so copied. Nowadays, the use of a doppleganger can be comic, tragic; they can be an antagonist or a means of self-awareness.

On BtVS, the dopplegangers that the Scoobies encounter serve a bit of all of these functions, but most specifically they represent the efforts of Buffy, Willow and Xander to grapple with personal identity, with selfhood, and especially with the difficult transition from childhood to adulthood.  In each case the dopplegangers serve slightly different functions. Willow's transformation into her own shadow self, into the darker, wilder self  (her rage, her sexuality, her desire for power and control) that she tried in early season to hide and deny - from Vamp Willow to Dark Willow - is well known enough that I hardly need mention it; instead I'll link to  norwie2010's meta "Giles and the Wild Woman";  and local_max has posted some superb in-depth analysis of Willow's personality here and here, as well as a look at how the finales of S2 and S6 mirror one another in terms of Willow, Xander, and Buffy's arcs.  

Interestingly enough, Willow has only one doppleganger: Vamp Willow.  VW becomes a doppleganger when she enters the world of the "real" Sunnydale in "Dopplegangerland".  Whereas her counterpart, Vamp Xander (NB in an unfairly underrated performance), is not technically considered a doppleganger because he never is similarly transported to the other side, merely an AU version of Xander, a "what if?" variation. Xander's literal doppleganger is the second self he sees in The Replacement: he has been split by the ray from a Toth demon and divided into two halves, the goofy, nerdish class clown familiar from the early seasons, and a successful, confident adult who dresses well, earns a promotion, and signs a lease on the mortgage: in other words, the more mature or "adult" side of Xander.

But there's a complication here: if a doppleganger is a double glimpsed by the person or someone who knows them, and if from a Doylian standpoint, the viewers function as residents of Sunnydale and friends to the Scoobies, even though as spectators rather than participants; or, going a bit further, the various characters represent "us" through our identification with them and so we as audience members are actually "in" the story as participants, then for us the AU versions of the characters are also "dopplegangers", even if the Scoobies themselves are not aware of them. And so Xander can be said to have two dopplegangers: Vamp Xander and Mature Xander ( or MX; I'll call him that for convenience sake).

VX, like VW, obviously represents Xander's darker sides at that point in the series.  As a fannish aside, NB is wonderful in The Wish: dark, sexy, dangerous; the scene in which VX and VW kill Cordelia together and VX cups his mate's head in his hand, as the camera circles around them is one of the most chilling AND erotic moments in the series. (Yeah, I said it.)  He never makes the transition to the "real" Sunnydale, and Xander never becomes aware of his existence.  But it isn't necessary on a story level because I think that Xander's less pleasant traits are much closer to the surface than are Willow's, and in fact they are not even hidden: sexual urges, slut-shaming (first Cordelia, later Anya and Buffy), jealousy (initially of Angel, later Spike), lying (Xander's lie in Becoming contributes to the trauma of S2's finale for Buffy and is not addressed until S7, Selfless), having an "affair" (if it can be called that) with Willow behind his best male friend's (Oz) back, and so forth.  

This is not to bash the character, and I don't mean to be overly-hard on him, because these qualities are interlaced with his loyalty, humor, courage, supportiveness, friendship, generosity and kindness. He is, in other words, a real and complex character and it's the combination that makes him so. And in some ways, the fact that these qualities are not particularly hidden may be healthier in the long run than Willow's attempts to quash her shadow selves, which ends up backfiring spectacularly and tragically in S6.  

The Self that Xander has a difficult time coming to terms with is his literal doppleganger, Mature Xander. Since S4 in particular, Xander has been experiencing a crisis of confidence, trying to find his way in the world.  After Graduation Day (S3) Xander, like many young people who had no particular focus or plans, has been set adrift after high school.  While Buffy and Willow seem safely occupied with college, Xander struggles to find a job, to remain part of Buffy and Willow's world; in addition, he grapples with his new relationship with Anya, and to define himself in relation to his parents, to extricate himself from their house and the abusive, dysfunctional family dynamic. (Portrayed vividly in his nightmares in "Restless".)

 But as with Willow's transformation into Dark Willow, a crisis arise when he tries to become MX.  Throughout S5 and S6 he goes through the motions of being a proper, functioning, mature adult, doing all that proper, functioning, mature adults are "supposed" to do in our society: the job, the girlfriend etc.  To that end he proposes to Anya at the end of S5, in part because the world is going to end, in part because he genuinely loves her (I saw nothing on the show to suggest his love wasn't genuine).  He has obviously been thinking about it - the proposal seems spur of the moment but he has a ring in his pocket to present her with, so it's something he's been thinking about - even if only for an hour beforehand.  

But there's another motivation I think, and that is, he is proposing to her because that is what one does, that is what a man does.  The apartment, the job, a marriage: they all fall together in our society's vision like dominos, one naturally following the other.  And certainly he wants to be the man, the husband, that his father never was. He is also acting from "the heart" rather than from the brain. (Remember, in "Primeval" Xander was the "Heart" in the spell to call the First Slayer.) He loves Anya, the world might end, therefore it seems right to propose.  But acting from the heart without the brain can lead to rash decision-making; once the threat of imminent doom is over, he acts again from the heart - in this case, through fear - rather than logic or reason, and rather Anya to reveal the engagement. Later in Hell's Bell's he again acts from fear, observing the demon's visions and his father's behavior and leaves Anya at the altar; then in S7 he runs to rescue her ("Selfless") but throughout the season is unable to articulate his feelings, to fully reunite or release her.

I don't know that he can be fully faulted even though  I don't condone his actions on many occasions and it's unpleasant to watch.  All the more so because some of the key moments in his arc feel somewhat "shoved" into the narrative, especially in Hell's Bells; this I consider a failure of the writers to craft his arc as carefully, or with as much attention, as they did to Buffy and Willow's (whatever the flaws of their arcs might be.)  Within the story, however, Xander has no strong male father figure or role model to look up to.  This is a major theme within BtVS: the lack of caring, nuturing parental figures, and the absence of functional, healthy relationships that would provide models to the Scoobies.  They have to grapple their way to adulthood surrounded by adults who are, on some level or another, abusive, neglectful, dysfunctional, etc.

In Xander's case, his father is abusive (verbally at the very least; and we can see where Xander gets his slut-shaming tendencies from in Hell's Bells); Giles never fully warms to Xander, and never seems to really particularly like him; and Angel and Spike are both rivals for Buffy's time and affection. The only males Xander really connects to are Oz, who is the most laid-back, non-threatening male on the show - except for those three days a month; and Riley.

Riley is almost a "special case" in that, as a soldier, he is on some level Xander's alter ego - remember that Xander transforms into a soldier in S2's "Halloween" - and while he is also Buffy's lover, Xander doesn't seem to regard him as a rival in quite the same way, probably because he isn't a vampire.  No, Riley is human, a sort of "improved" Xander, and if Xander identifies with him (as well as likes him) the way viewers identify with favored characters, then it makes sense that Xander pushes Buffy towards Riley in ITW.  (And I have no wish to get into in-depth discussions of that episode for obvious reasons, ie, I go all ragey and stabby at the thought of it.  Enough said.) And he may perceive Riley as being "more together" than he himself is, although the events of S5 prove otherwise.

So Xander has no males to really connect to, or that he is able to connect to, especially ones older than himself who could "show him the way" to manhood.  One of the unfortunate aspects of this is that IMO, he and Spike have chemistry - and I don't mean in the 'shippy way, although there's that as well - and actually seem like they could be genuine friends once they got over their differences.  Think of the way they work together in "Him" to solve the problem of the love spell that plagues the women on the show, for instance.  Or the comedy gold of Spike in Xander's basement apartment in S4 - which is repeated for dramatic rather than comic effect when Xander takes him into his apartment again in S7.  It may be at Buffy's insistence, but it's a reminder of Xander's capacity for loyalty (Buffy) and kindness (Spike).  I think there may actually be a streak of genuine brotherly liking or affection between the two; and like brothers - or like Spike and Angel - it's hidden in most cases behind snark and insults.  (Xander possesses the warm humanity and the friendly, nonsexual connection to Buffy that the man in Spike craves; Spike has is her confidant in ways he used to be but isn't after Bargaining, as well as the sexual connection to her he wanted so badly. And so it goes.)

So the task of Xander's arc in the end of S6 and throughout S7 is to come full circle, to truly become a man, to fully inhabit "himself": goofy Xander, Vamp Xander (wonderfully called back at the end of S7 when chloroforms Dawn) and Mature Xander.  This includes reconnecting with Anya, the woman whose heart he ripped out carelessly, not out of deliberate cruelty, in  HB.  
There's a lot of talk in fandom - and in the show itself - about Buffy's inability to love, about her inability to articulate or say the word "love" or her struggle to define it. In this way her struggle mirror's Xander's own: both Buffy and Xander, in rejecting and then accepting their demon partners, even if in flawed and imperfect ways, are learning to come to peace with their own inner demons.

Of course, it always comes back to Buffy in my head...and I have many thoughts about Buffy's dopplegangers that I'll save for another post.

Comments

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Great post, and I agree with your assessment of where Xander stands w.r.t. both his other selves, and the other men in the show. I do think that much of the preparation for the wedding was Xander on autopilot, trying to get all the things that one is supposed to do, and I do think that it's the same for Anya, whose extreme materialism is representative of her need to collect and achieve in order to fill a gap that's missing inside; I think we can see this as reflecting something in Xander, who (like everyone) needs external things to help him find internal security, but does so through non-supernatural trappings. I do think he loves Anya, but marriage is kind of a big deal for a 21-year-old, and Xander has not actually been able to process what that would actually mean, or whether he even wants that, I think. That his full commitment to Anya is bookended by Riley episodes (he commits more fully at the end of ITW and leaves her the episode after AYW) suggests the extent to which he is going through the motions of a ritualistic thing in order to define his self-worth (Riley is the show's big symbol of issues related to authenticity, "following orders," traditional generally-well-meaning-but-still-kind-of-a-jerk patriarchy, IMHO). I also agree that Xander's flaws being closer to the surface actually works in his favour in some ways, since he doesn't repress them to the same degree.

Egregious self-(&company) pimp, though: Doppelgangland, which is maybe my favourite thing I've written. (It's the only set of notes in which I took lead, hence why I take most of the credit for it, though there is wonderful material from Maggie and Strudel also.) Is there interest in more Willow meta / some Dark Willow meta when/if I fully de-hiatus?

[mcjulie.livejournal.com]

Riley is the show's big symbol of issues related to authenticity, "following orders," traditional generally-well-meaning-but-still-kind-of-a-jerk patriarchy

Very true!

I have always thought it was quite telling that Buffy's Restless dream puts Riley and Adam on the same side, and it's not her side.

(Willow's subconscious casting him as Cowboy Guy is possibly the funniest moment in the entire series.)

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Yeah, def. I even like Riley, overall, but I think that he is someone who ultimately tries to, but doesn't, break out of the patriarchal system that nurtured and created him. That doesn't make him a villain; as a soldier, post-ITW, he's presumably not doing any more experiments on demons, and he seems to have an equitable relationship with his wife. But he's not really able to handle Buffy and an environment that lacks the structure he craves, and that structure is not Buffy's structure.

While the fact that Willow's dream is about her fears that she's pretending gets all the press (as it should), the fact that she seems to think nearly everyone else in the world is in costume, playing roles, too, suggests that subconsciously she doesn't think anyone's fully authentic, even Buffy. (Well, her present/former lovers, Xander, Oz and Tara aren't involved in the production, so.) Though as a flapper, Buffy is still way closer to the modern era than "cowboy" and "milkmaid" are.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

(Well, her present/former lovers, Xander, Oz and Tara aren't involved in the production, so.)

Fascinating - I'll have to think on that.

Though as a flapper, Buffy is still way closer to the modern era than "cowboy" and "milkmaid" are.

Hmm, norwie called Buffy a "flapper" in his meta (as opposed to a true "wild woman"); I wonder if that was conscious or subconscious on his part? More to the point, is it conscious or subconscious on the part of the writers? (the "flapper" being a female who seems to break all the rules and reject traditional authority and boundaries on her sexuality but doesn't really transgress the patriarchy or attempt to break free of it entirely.) Or maybe I'm reading too much into all of it...

[local-max.livejournal.com]

I think that Willow assumes greater authenticity in her lovers than she has herself. Though with Tara, she also knows that she somewhat writes on / about her and imbues her with meaning. But it's complicated, because Tara is also someone who Willow sees as mysterious and far above her and who intimidates her.

I don't think that's reading into it. I do think that, and this is weird/partial, but I do think that Willow is, by the end of the series, more transgressive than Buffy, in both positive and negative ways -- Buffy is the person I'd term as the better person, but Willow the more dangerous and POSSIBLY the greater symbol of hope; Buffy accepts power that's hers, Willow takes power that isn't initially hers and makes it part of her. I think seeing Buffy as being somewhere in the (relatively, compared to Riley and Harmony) recent past w.r.t. female power, subconsciously, makes sense. Of course, Buffy does have the power over Willow (to strip her bare) in the dream.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

I think that Willow assumes greater authenticity in her lovers than she has herself. Though with Tara, she also knows that she somewhat writes on / about her and imbues her with meaning.

Oooh, I love how your brain works. That's lovely and intriguing, I'll have to think that over. (You're of course referencing the body-painting scene in Restless, itself an homage to the movie "The Pillow Book", and one of my favorite images in the entire show.) If I'm understanding your meaning correctly, you're saying that Willow thinks her lovers are more "themselves", more "real"/ authentic and perhaps less complicated and thus more easily "known" (she assumes) than she herself is?

But it's complicated, because Tara is also someone who Willow sees as mysterious and far above her and who intimidates her.

I had to read that twice because the show would seem to imply the opposite - Tara is intimidated by Willow. (Although I think their argument in Tough Love was another "we need this for the plot" moment, because I didn't know where Tara's accusation that Willow was scaring her with her power came from. We don't really see that happening in S5 up to then.)

But there's an aspect to Tara that intrigues me; mainly, the way she actually connects with Buffy on an emotional/spiritual level from Who Are You? (she's the only person to know that Faith isn't Buffy and yet she's never met Buffy, another instance of Buffy's friends failing to "see" her - think the Buffybot in Intervention, and S6 before the reveal in OMWF), through Restless, Joyce's death, Dead Things/OAFA. And clearly that is something Willow is actually jealous of, in Tough Love - just as she was initally jealous of Buffy's relationship with Faith in S3. Willow hates being "out of the loop"; she wants to think herself an "authority". She's also unnerved by Buffy being able to hear Oz's thoughts in Earshot - she's jealous that Buffy has knowledge that she herself doesn't have. And Willow is very much about "knowledge" (knowledge is power), but without maturity or reason to use it wisely. I think there's also an aspect of Willow that's as possessive as Xander when it comes to Buffy.

but I do think that Willow is, by the end of the series, more transgressive than Buffy, in both positive and negative ways -- Buffy is the person I'd term as the better person, but Willow the more dangerous and POSSIBLY the greater symbol of hope; Buffy accepts power that's hers, Willow takes power that isn't initially hers and makes it part of her.

Hmmm. I can see where you're coming from with that - Certainly Willow is the one who says at the end of Chosen "Slayers are awakening, all over", and she seems thrilled by it, by becoming part of something greater than herself. It's what I suppose she has wanted, in a sense, has envied in Buffy and tried to match with magic, and it makes sense that Willow is all about power while Buffy's goal was simply to "get the job done". (The rousing speech in Chosen aside, I doubt it's a course of action Buffy would have taken if it wasn't necessary in her mind. It's certainly not something she sought to do prior to this. And part of it was very personal: "You'll die alone".)

I think seeing Buffy as being somewhere in the (relatively, compared to Riley and Harmony) recent past w.r.t. female power, subconsciously, makes sense.

Not sure I understand, could you elaborate a bit? and btw what is "w.r.t."?

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Buffy as the Flapper is also interesting as its a role constructed in reaction to traditional feminine values. In terms of women's history, this is the first era of sexual freedom in reaction to the Victorian traditionalism of the 19th century. JAZZ AND SEX. Buffy's all improv and wearing black and she stakes men in their sales quotas.

Funny also how Buffy's monologue captures the theme of the title -- "death of a salesman" -- in an extremely literal way. So her role makes sense to Willow, Buffy's there for a reason, whereas what is a Riley Cowboy Guy or a Harmony Milkmaid for?

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

this is the first era of sexual freedom in reaction to the Victorian traditionalism of the 19th century

And Buffy being the first Slayer (that we know of) who has taken on a vampire lover, and two at that - you would think the WC would be doing everything in it's power to put a stop to that sort of thing. (Of course in my twisted little mind, there has to have been at least ONE other Slayer before Buffy to take on a demon lover/mate in thousands of years - and surely the WC would have had the girl killed and all mention of her wiped from their records.)

I know they don't become "real" on the show until S3, but still...She's the de facto Slayer with Faith in prison. And as they represent "the patriarchy" on the show, I'm surprised they didn't think to go in that direction. I think it might have added an interesting layer to the power struggles already there. but the WC don't seem to have been really well thought-out.

I can also imagine them going to war against Buffy for her plan to open the Slayer line, had they not been blown up and the Slayer spell kept until the last ep. (Now my mind is spinning with a rewrite of S7 : Buffy comes up with the idea to open the Slayer line much earlier, and has to battle not only the First (the Shadow-Self, psychological demons) but the WC (the patriarchy, institutionalization. forces of culture).

Back to the Flapper, as I mentioned upthread, she seems trangressive but really isn't. It's notable that the flappers enjoyed the fruits of the freedoms won by their mothers and older sisters - the right to vote, for instance; and greater sexual freedom and openness had actually begun in the late 19th century and especially in the Edwardian era in reaction to Queen Victoria's death, culminating in the post-war blow-out of the Jazz Age; but flappers weren't activists themselves (and I know I'm painting with a broad brush); and there was something childlike in the portrayal of them in film and magazines, etc. They seem somewhat regressed, bodies depicted as slender, boyish, with little or not breasts and hips. Like an adolescent, the flapper just wants to "party", have fun. Which definitely describes Buffy in S1 but not by S7, even if she isn't a truly transgressive character.

Buffy's there for a reason, whereas what is a Riley Cowboy Guy or a Harmony Milkmaid for?

Maybe local_max has the answer to that one? I haven't read any good analysis on that point yet. I know JW said that the Cheese Guy was the only thing on Restless that didn't mean anything (if I've read correctly), but I can't help seeing Riley and Harmony in Willow's dream as - just funny? I can't imagine the symbolism of "milkmaid" (other than the old stereotype of the milkmaid as a hapless and helpless wench, someone without family or dowry, someone to be taken or viewed sexually.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

I have always thought it was quite telling that Buffy's Restless dream puts Riley and Adam on the same side, and it's not her side.

Very good point. That episode is probably Marc Blucas' best performance in the series - not just the Cowboy Guy bit, but the table with Adam and that small, telling moment "Ok, killer" to Buffy.

In the end he stays with "the organization" even if it's "Less evil" than before. And Buffy never has the benefit that an organization can offer -a steady paycheck, health benefits, access to therapists, etc (I assume he has access to similar resources as my brother who was in the Navy for 30 years.) And those are resources Buffy is in desperate need of, IMO. What she manages to do without all of that is amazing.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

(Willow's subconscious casting him as Cowboy Guy is possibly the funniest moment in the entire series.)

I had another thought on this - I mention downthread somewhere that I initially thought that they might pair Riley with Willow when she and Buffy first meet him; Willow seemed to have more interest in him and I think AH and MB actually had a fair bit of chemistry. Your remark about Cowboy Guy also reminded me that some of MB's best moments in S4 are interacting with Willow, which tend to be comedic: asking what Buffy likes, the "a vague disclaimer is nobody's friend" scene; and also in Restless in Buffy's dream, him and (human) Adam at the conference table, acting like politicians, talking and behaving illogically with synchronized precision. (Whereas with Buffy it's a lot of angst and drama that I'm not sure MB had the chops for, at least at the time.)

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

Oh welcome back! And thank you for the compliment and reply. I was going to send you a message and ask if you'd have a glance at this, so I'm delighted to see you back in action. And yes, egregious pimpage is always allowed here, esp when it leads to the good stuff.

I think of you as the "authority" on Willow, or her #1 fan - you certainly have examined her character more thoroughly than anyone I know of. (You wrote in one of your metas that you think you "woobify" her, I don't see that myself at all. Being sympathetic towards a character is not the same as rendering them somewhat pathetic, which you don't do at all. Anything you wish to write about Willow/Dark Willow is always welcome - I need to take time and return the favor with your metas, actually.

As to your post, 100% agreement. At the time I was first watching I couldn't see why Xander left Anya at the altar in HB (other than the plot device), but I was watching the show at a very fast clip so it's taken me a while to parse it out. (I think I am trying to understand the boy better and be a bit more compassionate towards him, as he's the character I connect with the least.) I'm not sure in hindsight if it was my failure to really notice what was going on, or the writers not handling as well as might have been.

I do think that it's the same for Anya, whose extreme materialism is representative of her need to collect and achieve in order to fill a gap that's missing inside;

Very much so. norwie2010's meta on Giles and the Wild Woman actually has prompted some thoughts about Anya, and how she fits into his thoughts ( he barely mentions her). I didn't add it here, but I think, following norwie's line of thinking re: Giles as tamer of Willow and Buffy, that Xander tries to do the same - not consciously, and not because he doesn't love her, but because she's not well socialized, she "owns" her sexual desires to an embarrassing degree, and because Giles is the closest thing he has to a positive male role model. So when Xander walks away from her in HB (as Giles left Buffy at the worst possible time, from her POV) it's particularly painful for me to watch, not only because she was so happy to be getting married, but because, like Buffy trying to be the Slayer, Anya had pretty much been "tamed" or "domesticated" - she had certainly been trying her best to fit in, and was going to get married, was part owner of a shop, etc. She was also doing all the "proper adult" things, following Xander's lead. And yet she's "punished" for it - damned either way - and unmoored from family/friends, from the extra income he provides, from home/apartment.

That his full commitment to Anya is bookended by Riley episodes (he commits more fully at the end of ITW and leaves her the episode after AYW) suggests the extent to which he is going through the motions of a ritualistic thing in order to define his self-worth

Good call! I remembered his speech to her in ITW (and his speech to Buffy before that being a "warm up act" that, like his lie to her in Becoming, has devastating consequences for her emotionally IMO). I hadn't even noticed the relationship of AYW and HB. Its interesting that Riley and Sam were giving Xander and Anya a "pep talk" about marriage; which might have been nice - finally a positive role model for marriage - except that Riley and Sam were depicted as almost impossibly perfect: Gary and Mary Stu.

Riley is the show's big symbol of issues related to authenticity, "following orders," traditional generally-well-meaning-but-still-kind-of-a-jerk patriarchy, IMHO

*Nods* The perfect summation of his character. I may have to quote this sometime if that's ok?

I also agree that Xander's flaws being closer to the surface actually works in his favour in some ways

Of the core four, the male characters don't undergo the same "psychotic break" that Willow and Buffy do in S6, although Xander comes closest in Hell's Bells. His is more of an extreme panic/anxiety attack, but it's pretty much what Buffy did at the end of Bargaining, leaving town. xander doesn't seem to have been criticized for it within the story in the way Buffy was, though - she and Willow accept him back with open arms- I'm not sure about fandom opinion.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Re: Willow, I just don't want to get boxed in too much; over the hiatus (which is still mostly going on -- I just have some more time some days than others) that I feel a bit anxious when I am put in too rigid a self-definition, and I feel a bit like there's a lot about Willow's arc I haven't actually decided on/figured out, and so, I dunno. I don't want to be the expert, except when I do, so, it's a complicated thing.

I owe huge amounts to gabrielleabelle, stormwreath (who doesn't post often, but whose old Willow posts inspired a lot of thinky-thoughts), beer-good-foamy, Maggie (though she's not a fan of Willow's per se, she does have a lot of insight in some areas), and ceciliaj re: Willow, so I also just want to make sure that no one thinks I'm doing this alone.

Annnnnnnyway.

When I can, I try to give the show/writers as much credit as possible, mostly for selfish reasons -- which is that I just enjoy things more that way. I do think that some of the jolt in Hell's Bells is intentional. There's a poster named One Bit Shy (not on LJ, on a newsgroup; elisi linked to him years ago and I found him through her old links) who has a magnificent take on HB, and one of the major points he makes is that had Stuart Burns not showed up and not showed Xander that horrible vision of the future, Xander *would* have gone through with the wedding. That vision was horrible because it rang totally true for Xander, but it was also something he had repressed/not thought about at all.

I do think that there is some taming going on with Xander and Anya, and that is part of the problem with their relationship. It's a problem on two levels: 1) that Xander doesn't quite respect Anya, and 2) that Anya doesn't entirely deserve respect -- i.e. deep down she still is unashamed of being a murderer, and is mostly clinging to Xander as a liferaft. She does love him, and he does love her, but they are also kind of using each other as a way to define themselves, so somewhat out of fear. And that means they are eventually going to turn on each other, unless they come to each other with a bit less of that fear. I think that there is enough setup for that, and there are big hints that Xander is increasingly despondent and depressed in s6 (not just the blindness to his friends' woes, but also the commented-on-in-text sudden weight gain, which may have been more about the actor but still plays well in-story) and Anya increasingly anxious.

Anya's murderous past is something that I think the gang deliberately blind themselves to, partly, I think, because there is a slightly feminist bent to the characters, and punishing bad men in the past is something that they don't take quite as seriously a charge as murdering young women (as Angel and Spike are wont to brag about). But Stuart Burns, philanderer or no, didn't deserve to go be tortured forever, nor did women deserve to have their words twisted into something that would eventually kill them (as happens with Cordy and nearly happens with that woman in Selfless whom Willow saves from the spider). I guess the question is, when you don't think murdering people for infidelity is bad thing, do you need 'taming'? Is Anyanka a feminist character?

Poor Anya, though -- though there is an instance there of something very common in Whedonland, which is that characters do everything "right" except that deep down they are doing it for the wrong reasons, and the text "punishes" them (though really it's not a punishment, I think, so much as a storytelling device) in order to reveal shadings that weren't there. Anya spends the next episode she is in after Hell's Bells trying to get Xander's friends to wish him dead so she can kill him. She still hasn't come to terms with her past as a vengeance demon -- and she needs to be apart from Xander in order to do that, because as long as the only reason she's not returning to vengeance is because she has Xander there to stop her, well, it's a problem I think.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to embarrass you, dear - and I should have typed "an authority" on Willow rather than "the". But otherwise I'm quite comfortable with that statement, although I certainly wouldn't expect you to box yourself in that regard!

I feel a bit like there's a lot about Willow's arc I haven't actually decided on/figured out, and so, I dunno

Well this meta was me working out Xander's arc in ways I hadn't before, so I'm all for working things out and evolving in our opinions. One of the things I love about BtVS is that in just a few short months my thoughts and feelings have evolved and deepened in unexpected ways - there's always something new to explore - so I now "get" why we're still writing about it ten years on. And like you, reading other peoples thoughts, ideas, comments challenge me immensely to think in new directions or articulate my own thoughts more clearly.

And to your list of inspirations I would add the_royal_anna, angearia (Emmie), elisi, and lostboy_lj, among others. And fanfic can be as thought-provoking as metas.

Anyhoo....

Your thoughts on Xander and Anya are giving me a LOT to think about. I read your responses to ever_neutral's S7 love from two years ago, and you mentioned that Xander was right to leave Anya, if not in that way, and I wanted you to explain further, so you've done a wonderful job here. I really haven't parsed out her arc yet, nor her joint arc with Xander. Part of that, I think, is the fact that for most of the series she is comic relief; sort of a replacement for Cordy in terms of honesty and frankness and lack of embarrassment. (And Emma Caulfield is of course superb.) The show tends to handwave away awful acts when played for laughs; even in the WIsh, she's dangerous, frightening, etc - and yet at the end, the joke is on her and she becomes a comic figure and remains so for the majority of the run.

But then in the S6 finale she's on Buffy and Giles' side trying to stop Willow and save the world, so the show itself really isn't dealing with her as a demon at that point either, even though she has become one. Ironic, in that context, that Willow could have just gone to Anya and wished vengeance on the Trio, but naturally at that point in the story it doesn't even occur to her. "Vengeance is mine" might be her motto at that point - it's a very emotional thing, whereas for Anya it's a job; she's a bit like Buffy in S1 - slaying is just a job rather than part of her self image, something she's detached from.

So S7 is the first attempt to really deal with her past and bring some closure to her arc. And it's telling perhaps that with 1000's of years of history as a demon, she gets less attention in that regard than Angel or Spike. I was taken aback by "Selfless" because it's the first time a lot of this information has been made explicit, rather than alluded to: that she not only hurt but actually murdered human beings; but also that she has no sense of 'self' outside of Xander. Her song in that episode where she is dressed as a 1950's housewife and sings lyrics one might expect from a woman of that era, took me by surprise because I never realized she was lacking a sense of self; her interest in money, in capitalism, in running the store, seemed entirely her own and wasn't really encouraged by others (she was the only one who payed any attention to finances. Buffy certainly could have benefitted by taking some of Anya's advice!)

But again, that may have been my own blindness to her character, that perhaps her role as comic relief encouraged me, if you will, from not looking beyond the surface?

And I admit feeling a very strong emotional reaction to HB, such that I haven't viewed most of it a second time, and am reluctant to. Her joy at the beginning - "I'm marrying my best friend and we'll be together forever" - is unusual for her, and it's what everyone wants, right? To marry their best friend? Of course, "forever" is as much a lie and an illusion as it was for Buffy and Angel. And then watching her walk down the aisle, alone and in tears - that broke my heart and it was hard to get past, although I've "forgiven" the boy for that, I think.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Aw, well thank you with "an authority." Basically this is an insecurity thing, insofar as the moment someone says I'm good at something is the moment I stop being able to do it because then there is a possibility I will say something for that label to be retracted.

I think that Anya's arc is actually not entirely easy to parse, but a lot of this goes with something that I've thought about a lot, and taken some inspiration from Maggie and beer-good-foamy and lostboy-lj about (among others), which is that the show very deliberately plays with tone. Anya is a comic figure because she's a background character, for the most part, and that is because Xander is a comic figure because by s4 he's mostly on the periphery of Buffy's life emotionally. Spike, in s4, while he's totally chipped and powerless to do anything evil (except in The Yoko Factor/Primeval), is generally treated with the same kind of light touch. The main reason she is treated as a joke is because she has no power, and so the gang don't have to deal with her past. This is weird, but I think that it's part of the show's strategy: the tone reflects how characters perceive her, especially Buffy, and Buffy sees Anya as a bit of a fly buzzing around the outside of her life.

I think that the reason that Anya sides with Buffy & Giles at the end of s6 is not because the writers were ignoring Anya's demonness, but because they were actually *demonstrating* that Anya's allegiances have changed. There is a strong case to be made for Anya having one of the cleanest, clearest arcs within the season finales (or, more precisely, the season-ending conflicts) --

s3: GD1: Anya asks Xander to leave with her rather than die in the apocalypse; Xander stays, Anya leaves him and says she hopes he dies.
s4: Primeval: Anya tells Xander she loves him for the first time, reassures him.
s5: The Gift: "Usually when there's an Apocalypse I just skedaddle! But now I love you so much I'm having inappropriately timed sex and thinking of ways to fight a God."
s6: from Villains: "I'll help, but I'm helping Willow." She is on the side of the good guys WITHOUT requiring a commitment to Xander in order to be helping with the world; her personal connections to the gang and Willow & Giles in particular drive her involvement.
s7: Chosen: she stays and fights, because, as she says in End of Days, "When it matters, they fight. ... So I guess I'll keep fighting too."

The reason Anya has to be a vengeance demon in the s6 finale is that we need to see her commitment to goodness actually transcending her tribal connections; as she says in "Selfless," accurately I think, "My whole life, I just clung to whatever came along." She first was actually evil (The Wish), then wanted to be evil (Doppelgangland), then through the finales she went from indifference to fighting for Xander to fighting for her friends, while officially on Team Evil, to finally fighting for the abstract good in Chosen. <3 Anyway!

I do agree that Anya's interest in money was her own and not encouraged by the others, but this is also a form of "self-lessness" -- her capitalistic furor runs in parallel to her total adoption of the vengeance demon code of ethics. She loses her independent values and takes on the dominant values of the culture, and then neglects anything she thinks is irrelevant to those. The money thing originated with learning that money was the goal in the Game of Life (from Xander!) in "Real Me." She takes on entire systems wholesale, rather than being able to deal with nuance, at least early on. And I think that Anya's hypercapitalism actually ties in with her huge excitement at the impending marriage, some of which does not really have to do with Xander at all IMHO but with just having all the things a person has to have (see her in The Replacement, demanding an apartment and a puppy because SHE'S GOING TO DIE SOMEDAY).

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

Anya spends the next episode she is in after Hell's Bells trying to get Xander's friends to wish him dead so she can kill him. She still hasn't come to terms with her past as a vengeance demon -- and she needs to be apart from Xander in order to do that,

A very good point. I think what Anya really wants is support, moreso than vengeance (she stops Spike from making a wish to hurt Xander in Entropy) Particularly from the other women; Tara is the only one who gives her a hug when she sees her again for the first time after the wedding (just as Anya was the one to embrace a distraught Anya in Bargaining.) Being left at the altar, IMO, is a bit like what happens in most instances of RL divorce: usually (statistically speaking) the woman's income goes down while the man's goes up.

Being left at the altar has huge consequences for Anya - the shared income is no longer there, the home, the friends and family all taken away (Willow and Buffy's first loyalty is to Xander, and of course it is; he received very little flack from them when he comes back to town. It's Spike who gives Xander the real dressing down in Normal Again; part of that is Spike's natural, if often twisted, sense of chivalry; a little bit of it may be jealously that Xander rejected an option utterly unavailable to Spike as a demon.

Sorry to go on about Anya like that rather than Xander, I'll definitely think on your observations further - I suppose we've just done a bit of a joint meta in that regard?

[local-max.livejournal.com]

I agree that Anya wants support most, deep down. That said, Plan A was to do vengeance on Xander himself by wishing it on him herself. Or rather: she first hoped Xander would want to get married again in the teaser to Entropy, and then when Xander reveals that he doesn't want to get married, she wishes he were never born, which would presumably lead to (xyz) including the Master rising since Xander wasn't there to CPR Buffy back to life in PG. She may have been looking for support after that, but Step One was still performing vengeance herself, and she did that before she went to get help from anyone else. I emphasize this only because I find it frustrating that Xander is often framed as the only person in the Xander-Anya breakdown at the end of s6 who does anything wrong, and Anya, had she gotten her way, would have *killed* him, or rather erased his whole existence, before she even talked to the rest of the Scoobies. BUT -- she didn't do it, and I'm sure that she would have regretted it had she done so, and some of Anya's thrashing about IS that she doesn't get the sympathy she deserves (though part of THAT is because she asks for it from the gang in the wrong way -- demanding that Dawn wish that Xander have his guts fall out or whatever).

I do agree that only Spike really lets Xander have it. It's tough, though, because I'm not sure what Buffy and Willow should do in this case. What's complicated is that Xander really does hate himself way more than anyone else could add to, but he also doesn't fully get exactly how much he hurt Anya, and in situations like that it's really hard to know.

No problem going on about Anya! I love Anya. Yay joint meta!

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Feel free to quote me re: Riley. :) I actually ahve a lot of thoughts about him, and many of them positive -- I actually think that if there were a new, more feminist structure in place, I think Riley would do very well with it; he strikes me as someone who needs structure really, really badly though. To be fair to Riley in season five, I think that some of his flameout is precipitated by an actually very traumatic season four -- his best friend and mentor died and he lost his physical strength and his mission, and Buffy is basically all he has left. It'd be as if Buffy lost Willow and Giles and her slayer strength and her calling in one year, and had only Riley -- though what happens in season five to Buffy is pretty terrible, and she doesn't have a military to fall back on. Ironically, his desire to be a Good Boyfriend is part of what precipitates his doucheyness, since if he were less in need of some way to organize his life and were more willing to just take it easy for a few weeks, he would have not spiralled and not hurt Buffy so.

I think that Giles' psychotic break was back in the Eyghon days, and so offscreen in that sense. I also think that the reason Xander's low is not as low as Buffy or Willow's is partly because he doesn't have the power to do much at all -- part of s6 is about the danger of having power, which is not so much an anti-power message so much as a recognition that you have to be aware of the negative influences of power (s7 focuses, ultimately, on the positive side I think).

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

100% agreement with your assessment with Riley (or very nearly so); I have gone back and forth on my feelings about him. I remember liking him during the run of the S4 well enough - I wanted Buffy to have someone nice and normal after Angel, although of course this being the Buffyverse, the fantasy gets upended. But his speech in Doomed to Buffy was a bit of a red flag for me in that he, like pretty much every other male on the show, assumes he has the right to define Buffy's feelings for her, that she doesn't know her own mind, etc, even if she is unreasonable for not talking things out with him. (When was Buffy ever good at articulating her feelings?) And calling her "stupid" in that scene for not seeing what a great guy he is is irksome on a lot of levels; name-calling is verbal abuse (something Xander/Cordy and Buffy/Spike engage in a lot, and I'd say those are two pretty toxic relationships; likewise Xander's slut-shaming throughout the series.)

In my own experience, people (esp males) who insist that they are "nice" people are oftentimes not very nice at all. Or they are fundamentally nice but have an extremely poor self-image that they need to bolster. (People who are comfortable with themselves don't have to tell other people how nice they are; they simply live it and model it unconsciously.) So that scene in the graveyard in Doomed basically sums up a lot about the eventual trajectory of their relationship. Whatever his insecurities - and I do recognize them and feel for him in that regard; like Anya in S6 or Buffy in S5 he's had everything ripped away; but going to vamp whores behind Buffy's back is not "nice" on any level.

And again it's ironic because he's clearly not afraid of strong women - hence marrying Sam, who is fundamentally his equal (if not in terms of rank, then in every other way) - so I agree with the structure still in place he and Buffy might have enjoyed a very different relationship; that same adherence to structure would probably have come between them as well, but at the very least they might have very least been able to part as friends, because there was a lot of mutual respect and affection there. So it's unfortunate in a sense that Riley became yet another in the series of men who disrespect, abuse, and abandon Buffy and are jealous of her relationships with other men and attempt to define her or mold her in their own image.

OT, am I the only person who initially thought that they were going to pair Willow and Riley when the girls first met him? Willow seemed more interested in engaging with him (intellectually, at least) than Buffy; or maybe AH and MB had more genuine chemistry. The conversations they have that season are wonderful. "If you hurt Buffy I'll beat you to death with a shovel. A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend - have fun!"

[local-max.livejournal.com]

I actually am pretty pro-Xander/Cordy in a way, but I do think it's toxic -- it's, I think, really important for both of them at that time, though, because I think that they both have huge unresolved issues with their parents and in-fighting and actually need to have a space where they just let loose, briefly. That is, I think, something they need to get past eventually and I am not advocating entering into mutually verbally abusive relationships IRL, but, like s6 Buffy/Spike, it can be a positive thing for them in the long run even if it's also not good.

In my own experience, people (esp males) who insist that they are "nice" people are oftentimes not very nice at all. Or they are fundamentally nice but have an extremely poor self-image that they need to bolster. (People who are comfortable with themselves don't have to tell other people how nice they are; they simply live it and model it unconsciously.) So that scene in the graveyard in Doomed basically sums up a lot about the eventual trajectory of their relationship. Whatever his insecurities - and I do recognize them and feel for him in that regard; like Anya in S6 or Buffy in S5 he's had everything ripped away; but going to vamp whores behind Buffy's back is not "nice" on any level.

Though, does Riley insist that he's nice in season five? I mean, Riley does insist on himself as being good at things in The Initiative, and a lot of s4 has him identifying himself in positive ways. But I think by s5 those have dropped off. I am not remembering though.

But yes to the principle. Riley has a big lack of sense of self and he DEFINES HIMSELF according to externals really, really strongly.

Agreed on everything else here, especially AH and MB's genuine chemistry. Plus, as he said in Something Blue, Riley is a lesbian. :) No, I mean -- I think that MB and AH have genuine chemistry, and MB and SMG are people who seem like they should, but don't really have chemistry, which I think is very much the point (i.e. that Buffy and Riley seem like they should fit together, but don't quite, and never quite know why).

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

I think that Giles' psychotic break was back in the Eyghon days, and so offscreen in that sense.

VERY MUCH SO! I had that same idea in mind when I was writing this, and Giles will get his own meta no doubt (I have a lot of thoughts about him); but you're quite right. He has already been through the "finding myself" phase of early adulthood, sowing wild oats and dancing with demons that the Scoobies have to go through now. So he should be the best person in the world to guide them through similar waters, but unfortunately his choice was to disassociate almost entirely from his Shadow Self, rather than come to terms with it. He tries to deny it and identifies almost soley with his intellect and reason (Primeval and Restless comes to mind.) So that work is left to the Scoobies and once again, they have no role models in that regard.

Which is very much what Willow does until after the events of Grave; and it may be why Giles is blind to what's happening with her, because he's worked very hard to deny that part of himself, even though it breaks through at various points. (A New Man plays this for comedy.) Going after Angel to avenge Jenny's death is an obvious example; but in other instances he does so in secret, behind Buffy's back: killing Ben and siding with Robin Woods against Spike.) First Date is one of my favorite episodes, and I think the conversation between him and Buffy is one of the best moments of the season because it's filled with so much history; you can see the pain of the past on Giles' face but he cannot articulate that to Buffy, and she doesn't feel safe talking about her feelings, so she counters his logic with her own, trying to meet him on his own ground. Neither one can really talk honestly or deeply and the break between them is very clear here, so LMPTM really didn't require any stretch of the imagination for me.

part of s6 is about the danger of having power, which is not so much an anti-power message so much as a recognition that you have to be aware of the negative influences of power (s7 focuses, ultimately, on the positive side I think).

Absolutely. That is very much a theme of S4 as well; S4 & S6 play a lot with technology vs magic, and it's not about one being preferable to the other, but how they are used, the intention behind them. A gun (rocket launcher) can kill the Judge or kill Tara; Willow can destroy the world or change it. And I think you're right about S7, certainly; Buffy has to learn the right way to lead people, how to use her power as a leader and learn to reconnect - interpersonal power, if you will. Feminist theologian Starhawk wrote about a feminist paradigm of power: "power with, rather than power over", which is reflected in Chosen; but then there's those huge consent issues that JW failed to think about in the rush towards a big emotional finale.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Oh, hi. :)

I didn't write about Anya at the time because, somewhere in my brain, there's a half formed idea about writing more about her. Alas, it is only half formed ideas and my mind is occupied with other stuff at the moment.

In short: I think Anya is not so much a character in her own right (well, obviously in part she is, lovely played by Emma Caulfield who fills her with so much life) as a foil, sometimes a joke, sometimes a commentary about Xander, and war on women.

We laugh at her, sometimes with her and overall do not take her seriously. Which, in itself, is a commentary, too. I had a discussion with vampmogs about Anya in which i talk a lot about her role vis a vis redemption, etc: http://vamp-mogs.livejournal.com/3291.html#cutid1 and hopefully, i'll get to that meta that's sitting in my brain (or an adjacent area ;-)) sometime in the future.

On another, slightly related note: Whedon is clearly interested in the Working Class (see Buffy's journey from petty bourgeoisie to working class, Xander's working life, the episode "Anne", as well as some recent comments made in interviews) which also plays into Anya and Anya's past. Unfortunately, i don't think he "gets" the working class, and i think this makes an analysis of Anya more complicated, because it "breaks" a neat and tidy analysis - at least from where i stand, since Whedon (and, consequently his works) is confused about the subject.

And now my bed is calling - i hope i'll get back to you on this wonderful essay and this discussion tomorrow - or maybe the next day, or....

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

I think you're quite right about Anya - Cordy suffered the same fate; not a complete person; I didn't find her interesting until she broke from Xander, broken-hearted; I thought they would do more with her from that point on, but I've heard it's not until AtS that she became a really interesting character? (I haven't watched that series yet.)

I've bookmarked vamp-mogs metas, thanks for the rec! Not a lot has been written about Anya as far as I've seen. And no, we don't take her seriously for most of the show, which is why we don't take her "crimes" of misandry seriously. She talks about "vengeance" and hurting men, but not actually killing anyone, so it almost comes as a shock to see her actions in S7. I do love the way they build her character in S7 - Emma Caulfield certainly deserved the opportunity and had the skill to play Anya more in-depth. But at the same time, it was rather sudden on one level, and required really shifting my conception of the character. And I'm sorry that her arc with Xander, their relationship, wasn't resolved satisfactorily. (HIs comment "That's my girl, always doing the stupid thing" is intended to be affectionate - and is very much in-character for him - but at the same time is slightly dismissive and patronizing/possessive IMO "MY GIRL". Which is why I prefer Buffy's "He's in my heart".)

And I definitely look forward to any meta you have, so consider this encouragement.

as well as some recent comments made in interviews

Care to share?

I do find Buffy's downward mobility an interesting area of exploration, particularly in contrast to Xander's simultaneous upward mobility (which is very much gendered in both cases). Her situation fits with the plight of the middle-class - or working class - in America (few good-paying jobs, shutdown of factories, service sector jobs - like the ones Buffy takes - becoming the largest growing industry, etc.) I don't think they do a particularly good job of the matter; the treatment of her financial situation is pretty unrealistic and has huge holes (doesn't Hank pay child support for Dawn? etc. Never mind Buffy's nice wardrobe.) But it's hard to find realistic treatments of lower middle class and working class families in American TV. In the '70's you had All in The Family and Good Times, among others; but in the 1980's there wasn't much except "Roseanne" which was fairly groundbreaking at the time on several levels.

I don't know that it's possible to "get" the working class or the poor unless you've been there, any more than it's possible to "get" depression, or racial issues.

Unfortunately, i don't think he "gets" the working class, and i think this makes an analysis of Anya more complicated, because it "breaks" a neat and tidy analysis - at least from where i stand, since Whedon (and, consequently his works) is confused about the subject.

I'll have to ponder this. Would you care to elaborate? (I don't have the theoretical background in class theory I'd like to.) Or is this material for your meta? In which case I'm more than happy to wait.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

Just a short reply:

“I tend to want to champion the working class because they are getting destroyed,” Whedon said, launching into an eloquent dissection of the economic state of America (at the 55-minute mark of this clip). (from http://news.yahoo.com/comic-con-2012-elysium-joss-whedon-represent-99-190922062.html)

Also:

Questioner: “I’m actually a union organizer by trade, and in a lot of your work you’ve portrayed sort of a corporate ‘big bad’ – that’s appeared in Angel, and Dollhouse. So, in 30 seconds or less, can you tell us what is your economic philosophy?”

Joss Whedon: “Um, y’know, I was raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the ’70s, by the people who thought John Reed and the young socialists of the ’20s were some of the most idealistic people, and that socialism as a model was such a beautiful concept. And now of course it’s become a buzzword for horns and a pitchfork.

And we’re watching capitalism destroy itself, right now. And ultimately all of these systems don’t work. I tend to want to champion the working class because they are getting destroyed. I write about helplessness — helplessness in the face of the giant corporations and the enormously rich people who are very often in power giving those people more power to get even more power.

We are turning into Czarist Russia. We are creating a nation of serfs. That leads to — oddly enough — revolution and socialism, which then leads to totalitarianism. Nobody wins.

It’s really really really important that we find a system that honors both our need to achieve, and doesn’t try to take things away from us, but at the same time honors everybody’s need to have a start, to have a goal, to have a life, to have an income, to have a chance.

The fact is, these things have been taken away from us, sometimes very gradually, sometimes not so gradually, since the beginning of the Reagan era, and it’s proved to be catastrophic for so much of America.

During the writers’ strike I was furious; I remain furious. I’m not always sure what to do about it, I don’t think most of us are.

But I do know that what’s happening right now in the political arena is that we have people who are trying to create structures or preserve structures that will help the working class and the middle class, and people who are calling them socialists.

And nobody has the perfect answer. But I honestly think we are now in a political debate that is no longer Republican versus Democrat or even conservative versus liberal. It’s about people who are trying to make it work because they still remember, they still have some connection to the idea of personal dignity — and people who have gone off the reservation and believe Jesus Christ is a true American.”

(from comic-con SDCC 2012)

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

I don't know that it's possible to "get" the working class or the poor unless you've been there, any more than it's possible to "get" depression, or racial issues.

I tend to think that there are two sides to this:

While on the one hand it is difficult to "get" certain issues when you're on the outside - there's also certain facets you're not getting while on the inside! In German sociology we call this "dark continents" (which might be a bit of a problematic phrase...), which means that it is not possible to watch one's own back, so to speak. That, while we're inside of the issue, all we can do is watch at the issue from the inside, we lack the perspective from the outside. Ultimately, it would be really helpful if people from the inside and people from the outside worked together to tackle issues, at least on a theoretical basis.

Then, there's empathy, of course. While certain issues might not be our own in a direct way, these issues are of course always our issues at least in an indirect way: Class, Race, Gender are universal issues and that means they are my issues, too! (I mean, without privilege and "white people" there would be no problem in the first place!)

So, of course everybody is influenced and touched by these issues. Insofar, i think everybody (who wants to help) should be welcome to give their input, even if not on the inside.

On Class structure:

To keep it short and simple, i'll go with the "main classes" and "lesser/sub classes" model:

In (industrialized) capitalism, the two main antagonistic classes are those of the capitalists, and the proletariat. The first ones have the capital, while the second one have the labor. Both need each other to produce things (as you need capital and labor to produce) , but the capitalists are the profiteers of this collaboration under capitalist rule.

Then, we have the "ancillary" classes: the "big landowners", "peasants", "agricultural laborers/day laborers" and the "petty bourgeoisie", as well as the the people who fall out of their class and cannot integrate themselves into another one: "lumpenproletariat".

As time goes by and society changes it's methods of production, classes become obsolete or diminished in their importance, eg. the class of "peasants". All of these classes are determined by their participation of the productive sector and their means to earn a living (which side of the surplus value are you on?).

What we see on TV plays mostly within the circles of the "petty bourgeoisie" (often called - inaccurately - "the middle class"): The self employed, the small business owners, servants of the state, artists and artisans, (university students). In short, people who are either not participating in the production of goods (like capitalists and proletariat, or agricultural laborers and big landowners) or are on both sides of the fence (self employment, small business owners).

cont'd

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

To get back to BtVS, Buffy comes clearly from a petty bourgeois background: her mother is a self employed small business owner. Willow comes from a petty bourgeois background, too: Her parents are part of the academic petty bourgeoisie/state servants. With Xander we don't know but presumably he comes from a working class background and Giles is a capitalist/seems to come from a capitalist background (he has enough surplus capital to invest this capital to earn a living, even tough he works as a librarian as a cover for his "real job" as a watcher).

While Buffy moves on to become proletariat, Xander moves on to become petty bourgeoisie/payed by the surplus value of the company he works for, hence alienating him from the proletariat which works under him (there are differing theories if this means Xander is merely "well paid proletariat", or "petty bourgeoisie" or even "capitalist", since he is payed out of the same budget - the surplus value - which pays the "true" capitalist's paycheck/luxury.).

Now Anya: She comes from a non-capitalist society where she's presumably part of the peasantry (one of the main classes under feudalism, while only an ancillary class under capitalism). Being a vengeance demon plays very importantly into her class background: Not only is she the patron saint of scorned women, she is revenge incarnated of the oppressed main class of her time: The peasantry. When time moves on and industrialization and capitalism become the dominant economical model within society, Anya moves with the times and sympathizes with the new oppressed main class: The proletariat.

The break in this comes when she becomes a human high school student: Suddenly, she becomes "capitalist" (more like petty bourgeoisie). And the question is: Why?

I have two rather unsatisfactory answers to that:

1. High school in BtVS is coded "petty bourgeois". While this of course is not true in real life, where many, many more people hail from a proletarian background, at least in Sunnydale High School the majority of the students seem to be members of petty bourgeoisie. Hence, Anya becomes petty bourgeoisie herself.

2. As i stated in my previous post, Whedon doesn't "get" the working class. He's unable to depict a believable working class member, nor does he seem to be able to reconcile the idea of "working class vs. capitalists" (the antagonism of the two main classes) with the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1990. Hence, he tries to "talk over" the antagonism of the main classes and denies it's importance to our daily life: The antagonism "vanishes" in his work, the only remnants which stay are certain "mind sets" and self imposed ideologies.

(Also, the majority of the audience self identifies as "middle class", or petty bourgeoisie.)

Which is not how it works. ;-)