August 2002 Archives - Page 14
Existential Much? The search for the authentic self (Season 6 spoilers) -- Slain, 08:45:12 08/26/02 Mon
It's been a while, I know, and this has been a while in the making, although the actual writing didn't take all that long. Pretty version is on my website, at http://www.daydreamnation.co.uk/buffy/existentialmuch.html. Literary references have been avoided, by if anyone's interested I can make the parallels later. Anyway, enough with the preamble!
------------------------------------
Existential Much: Buffy, Spike, Willow and Xander and the Search for the Authentic Self
Buffy Season Six has been the season when the group dynamic finally broke down. In Season Four it became fractured, as Buffy moved away from her friends and towards the Initiative and Riley, Willow for the first time had a significant relationship outside of the Scooby Gang, and Xander felt like his status as non-super guy was becoming beyond a joke. But while in Season Four the breakages it were quickly healed, by Season Six it was completely different. Buffy began to feel no one understood her, Xander was unable to commit to Anya or tell her how he felt, Willow had been drawn into dark magic and couldn't even confide in Tara, and Giles was up and leaving. The Season was about individuals, about the difficulties of adulthood and responsibility, and about the pressures of living in the world with others. Existential much?
Existentialism is virtually impossible to define completely, partly because it's so deliberately vague and complex (possibly so academics have something to talk about). However it's possible to broadly sum it up as a way of viewing the word in which the focus is always on the individual, on a personal morality, and on a desire to search for an authentic self not bound by the constraints of society, and only defined by the individual. For existentialists, there is no great meaning in world which can be defined by religion or philosophy, or if there is, then it's impossible to grasp. Existence comes before essence; that is, we exist before we have anything determined in us, in the way of values or morals. Therefore because we aren't born with an essence or a moral complex, it's up to us to make up own minds about how we want to live our lives. Conventional philosophies and religions try to formulate systems of belief which would apply to anyone; existentialism says there is no one true belief, and that all meaning there is in the world can only be understood through individual experience. Freedom is vital, and ethically so is protecting the freedom of others, and anything which limits individual choice limits free will.
Existentialistim always denies any certainties of religion or philosphy, so that first this might seem to contradict with the Buffyverse, which has a clear mythology; there is an afterlife, and there is a soul. In existentialism, existence precedes essence, and no one is born good or evil. A new human is blank canvas, and it's up to that person to determine the essence of their being. Yet in the Buffyverse, the presence of a soul seems to determine whether someone is good or evil. In fact, however, this is not the case. A soul isn't an essence, a soul is simply the thing which makes someone a conscious human, as opposed to a walking sack of meat. No human is born good or evil. But, on the other hand, the soul clearly does give a kind of empathic feeling for other humans; Angel and Darla both feel guilt only when their souls are restored. But the soul is still a blank canvas; plenty of humans can be good or evil, and fate and predetermination and not as important as phrases like 'the Chosen One' or 'you can't love without a soul' would make them seem.
DEATH IS HER GIFT
For many existentialists, death is a choice; no matter what, you can always choose death, and it represents the only certainty in life. No one can take your death away from you, so it represents an ultimate freedom. An existentialist might well make the choice to accept death, if it were to protect the freedom others. Buffy does this in 'The Gift', and while she says that death is not a gift, it becomes one; she is given the opportunity to save the world and save her sister too, by sacrificing herself. She does so not knowing if there is an afterlife, or if there is only oblivion; while the Buffyverse mythology seems to have a clear structure with forces of good and evil, in reality little is clear. There is no obvious God, or Gods, and neither Buffy nor her friends believe in a structured religion. So when Buffy accepts death, she does so not because she knows there is an afterlife, but because she has chosen it through her individual choice.
Buffy is not as simple as other Slayers; while she was born to her calling, with little choice whether to accept it or not, later on these was given that choice. Her own death at the hands of the Master (Season One) represented an opportunity for her to escape from fate, bring on two new Slayers who could have taken her place; but, both times, she chose to remain the one true Slayer. Buffy does not fight the forces of darkness because she has to, she fights them because she chooses to. In this way she is an existential heroine; and rather than following the morality of the Watcher's Council, she has made her own, in which demons and humans are not so black and white, and family and friends are always to be protected, even when it would seem more prudent to sacrifice them. With this security, Buffy is able to sacrifice her life.
However, Buffy's gift of death is taken away from her. The one apparent certainty, that life can be lost, is lost itself. 'The Gift' represented the completion of the life of a hero, and the afterlife an affirmation that her life hadn't been wasted. Buffy had found her authentic self, the Slayer, her essence, and had achieved what is the goal of all existentialists: to make some sense of the world through individual choices. But Buffy had this certainty torn from her. In the afterlife, she achieved a state of bliss, in which she no longer had to care about her place in the world, and about the point of existence. Being brought back, the certainty which had allowed to live and die as the Slayer was destroyed, and, behold, Big Existential Crisis.
I was always brave and kind of righteous.
Now I find I'm wavering.
Crawl out of your grave,
You'll find this fight just
Doesn't mean a thing.
(Buffy, 'Once More With Feeling')
Through resurrection, Buffy had lost the ultimate freedom, to die, and she had also lost the clarity of the afterlife. Instead of living in the world again with the knowledge that there was something after death, and that there was some meaning to life, Buffy felt that life was suffocating her. Other people, and the pressure of having to exist in the world, was weighing down on her. She felt that the certainty of being the Slayer, that she would live a short life and die saving the world from demons, was stripped from her Added to his were new pressures; for the first time on a day-to-day level, she was forced to cope without a mother, and later without a surrogate father. The morals that she had decided upon herself seemed to be no longer relevant. Living in the world becomes a torture, existential angst. Hell is other people; a meaningless job, an interfering social worker, friends who don't and can't understand Buffy's individual feelings.
One character who does seem to understand is Spike. In many ways, Spike could be seen having followed an existential way of life. While other vampires have been tied to an established mythology in which humans are there to be destroyed, and have been easily controlled by figures like the Master or Adam, Spike is an individual. He seems to make a his own morality, and not be concerned with society, even if that society means the rules of other demons. For Buffy, Spike represents an escape. Spike believes in creating his own meaning in life; he calls it darkness or evil, but by this he means anything which is against Buffy's worldview, the morals she has lived by.
Buffy no longer feels that the authenticity and certainty she thought she had found has any value; so, instead, she falls into Spike's world. From an existential point of view, nothing Buffy is doing is 'wrong'. She turns her back on her own morality, in which humanity and having a soul are the same thing, and no longer feels constrained by society's rules. However, existentialist believes no one can help you through your own life, so Spike can't help Buffy. She doesn't achieve greater meaning in her life, she is only escaping from her responsibilities, and an escape from coming to terms with the loss of her old self-assurance. Family and friends had become distractions to her. It's her almost-death which brings her back. Buffy assumes control of her life again, and becomes the Slayer, no longer going through the motions. The events of the end of the season confirm her place in the world, and also confirm the importance of her family and friends. From an existential point of view, she regains the authentic self that she had found before her death and resurrection.
THE AUTHENTIC EVIL EXISTENCE
Spike, meanwhile, finds that his own Existential Crisis is brewing. With Buffy, Spike finds himself questioning what he views as his basic essence; that he is evil. Spike has always believed that he is a rebel, an individual who makes his own way in life, rejecting the clichés other vampires live by. But, in fact, he has never questioned that he is incontrovertibly evil, and has never considered that he should feel remorse or guilt. Loving Buffy makes him question these things.
I died so many years ago.
You can make me feel like it isn't so.
(Spike, 'Once More With Feeling')
He hates his love of Buffy for making him feel human, and for making him question the authenticity of his own evil existence. His song, 'Rest In Peace', represents his desire to return to the simplicity of his old life. Yet in this crisis, it could be said Spike is not following an existential path. Instead, he's exchanging one external morality, a life as an evil vampire, for another: Buffy's hero-morality. Spike feels weighed down by the pressure to conform to Buffy's old morality, and that his true essence lies in his old life as an evil vampire. He feels that Buffy is responsible for this crisis; and in an act of hate he attempts to rape her.
His reaction, when he realises what he's done, is guilt, though not true human remorse. Spike feels that this guilt is artificial, however, and decides that he is the victim, that he has tried too hard to mould himself to fit Buffy's worldview. He feel his true authentic self was his time as a mass-murdering vampire, free from any kind of guilt and living by his own personal morality. Is this the essence of Spike? Vampires are different to conventional existential characters, in that while the newly-unborn vampire has no essence, they also have the memories of the human. For vampires, existence doesn't necessarily come before essence, as every vampire enters its human host and takes on the ghost of their personality. I would argue that this is what is happening with Spike; there is a split between his new, vampire self, and his old human self (William). William was a gentle man, and essence stills lives own; this is contrasted with Spike, whose true essence is evil, a vampire, who has chosen to become a killer not simply from the necessity to survive, but also because he likes it. Spike feels that his Initiative chip is responsible, and that its removal will remove all feelings of guilt. In fact, the chip was only a catalyst for something already there; the essence of William, and his human feelings. So it's no wonder that when Spike asks to be restored to how he once was, it is his soul that is restored.
ESSENCE OF WILLOW
Willow has often been a character unsure of herself, worried about her place in the world and constrained by the expectations others. However, by Season 4, she was gaining confidence outside of the Scooby Gang, coming to terms with both her sexuality and her magical powers. However, her dream in 'Restless' was a foreshadowing of events in Season Six. In her dream, the self which she had built up was suddenly stripped away, revealing the nerdy, Season One self underneath. While Willow was apparently in control of herself and her power, in reality she was not, not entirely. The self she showed to the world was not authentic, creating a tension.
While Buffy used Spike as an escape from coming to terms with her life, Willow used magic. For most existential characters, an authentic self and knowledge of the world is virtually impossible to achieve, and for some their own death is the only genuine moment in their existence. Because Buffy is in its own fictional world, it is possible for character to find a cosmic purpose, and a kind of authenticity; Buffy is the Slayer, Angel is a Champion, and Willow is a Witch who has dedicated her life to helping Buffy save the world. For Buffy, crisis comes when she loses her conviction that being the Slayer is what she is meant to be, and that the world is worth saving; Willow's crisis comes because she tries to hide from herself by creating a wall between her confident, wicca-witching self and her 'old self'; or at least that she believes that she has.
In 'Restless', the clothes of her new personality are stripped away, to reveal the Willow beneath. This is Willow's fear, that her perceived inauthenticity will be revealed to her friends and loves; Xander, Oz, Tara and Anya all seem to be conspiring again her. Willow has always been concerned with what people think of her, and from an existential point of view, this is her problem; because she doesn't want to drop the facade of the leader of the group in Buffy's absence, and of someone capable of controlling powerful magic, she denies herself the opportunity to be herself. Magic becomes an escape, because it frees her of the pressures of living in the world. It gives her the illusion of having control of a world any existentialist would tell you is completely uncontrollable.
Like Buffy, Willow cuts herself off from her friends, and from Tara. Willow originally began to use magic to help others, to protect the freedom central to existential ethics. But magic is an external force, in the same way that Spike's morality was external to Buffy; it does not help her gain knowledge of herself, but only control of other people. Like Buffy, it takes an extreme moment (the car crash in 'Wrecked') for Willow to realise that she is hiding from her true self. Willow attempts to return to some authenticity; she helps Buffy again, makes up with Tara. This is quickly shattered, however, by Tara's death.
Tara's death has no meaning or purpose, unlike Buffy's two deaths; it is an absurd event, it simply happens. This causes Willow to believe there is no longer any point living in the world, or in following any of the rules and ethics that she has lived by. Willow gives herself up to a consuming external force: dark magic. It could be said that she is then free; she is free, after all, of worrying about other people. But in fact this is not the case; through the magic, she becomes aware of all the other humans on the planet, like Buffy in 'Earshot'. This is an existentialist's nightmare; to be completely subsumed in other people's pain, and to have your own consciousness and free will buried in other people's lives. Hell becomes other people.
Willow decides to take the final step; the end of all of human suffering, death for everyone and an end to the meaningless absurdity of the world. But it's Xander who brings her back through absurdity itself: Willie E Coyote jokes during the apocalypse. He reminds her of her old self, crayon-breaky Willow, and of the fact that the world is nonsensical, and that meaning in life or in death is not always there to be found, even through magic.
EXISTENTIALLY EXTRANEOUS
Xander has always felt like he's somehow extraneous, that he has no real value. Because the Buffyverse is supernatural rather than realist, it's possible for characters to make more sense of the world, and of their place in it, than in other existential texts. So for Xander his general lack of direction is show in stark relief compared with Buffy chosen calling, for example. As a result, Xander is always looking a meaning to his life. In his love for Anya, and in his work, Xander initially feels that he has found some authenticity; somewhere that he fits, and something that he's good at.
However Xander is always indecisive, and fears commitment or, as he sees it, entrapment. For an existential character, institutions of society such as marriage and the family can sometimes be seen as taking away free will from the individual. Xander feels that he doesn't sufficiently know himself yet, and that marriage to Anya will somehow stop him from finding authenticity; he will be constrained, and forced into becoming his father. Is he correct? Probably not. But it's his fear which drives him, the fear of having his choices in life limited; and, perhaps just as important, the fear of limiting Anya's own choices, and her personal freedom.
Other characters seem to find some resolution at the end of the season, and does Xander? His place in the world is never exactly clear and, perhaps because he is the least supernatural of the Scoobies, this makes him more like other existential characters. Buffy finds her essence is to be the Slayer, but the best thing Xander does is be a friend to Willow. The difference between Xander and many other characters is that society doesn't frustrate his desire to find a purpose, he does.
LIKE, EXISTENTIAL MUCH?
So is Buffy, strictly speaking, an existential show? Not really. Its focus is always on the group dynamic, not on the individual. Existence, however, does generally precede essence, with humans and demons both often living by their own moral codes, rather than those of their respective societies; and Buffy and her friends fight evil because they have chosen to, often going against the grain and doing what they feel is right, rather than what institutions such as the Watcher's Council do. Season Six, and previous episodes such as 'Restless', were existential. Season Six showed the split of the Scooby Gang into its component parts, becoming a group of individuals trying to understand with their lives. The morality of good and evil was different in this season, and less black and white than ever; instead the emphasis was on personal morality, and on what individuals viewed as right and wrong. The season has been a personal journey for the main characters; no one was able to help them through this, it was up to themselves, sacrificing relationships, to do so. Existential? Totally.
[> Excellent -- Rahael, 09:09:37 08/26/02 Mon
Thanks!!
Thanks for posting this here. Much to think about.
The short response - really well argued and with great clarity too.
[> oooh... an essay to link to from my site! Cool! -- Masq, 09:12:29 08/26/02 Mon
[> Brain a-whirring, but for now just wanted to say that was great! -- ponygirl, 09:19:51 08/26/02 Mon
[> Existentialism in "Bargaining" -- cjl, 09:42:29 08/26/02 Mon
Excellent S6 review through the existential lens...
And if I may say, the ME brain trust obviously had this season set up as an exploration of existentialism from the beginning ("Bargaining"). When Willow gears up to bring Buffy back from the dead, everyone--and I do mean everyone--tells her this is a BAD idea, it's against the will of the Gods or the powers that be. Willow bulldozes ahead anyway, and just as she reaches the apex of her spell, Razor and his boys roar into town and smash everything to pieces.
Translation: Willow, in an act of hubris, defies the gods (in fact, substitutes her own will for that of the Gods) and effectively breaks the unspoken link between the Scoobies and the PTB they had in Seasons 1-5. The calm, placid facade of Sunnydale, Calif. immediately shatters into pieces. Abandoned by the Gods, the Buffyverse is immediately rendered Absurd in the classic existentialist sense, leaving the main characters to fend for themselves in the resulting chaos.
The events of Bargaining are a symbolic representation of the remainder of the season.
[> [> Re: Existentialism in "Bargaining" -- Slain, 11:59:38 08/26/02 Mon
That's true - I remember people talking about how Season 6, possibly because of Buffy's resurrection, was cut off from the PTB, fate, and usual sphere of Big Bad fighting. You could even say it was transferred over to Angel to an extent. Events no longer seemed to happen for a reason.
I'll add something more about Willow and the idea of her following her own path - that is, the way that, existentially speaking, her ignoring Giles and others could be seen as a good thing; making her own personal choices.
[> [> [> Minus 365, and still absurdly counting... -- KdS, 04:36:44 08/28/02 Wed
I think there's (albeit tenuous) evidence in the show to suggest that Buffy personally, not the season as a whole, is in the existential state after "Bargaining". In the dream sequence in "GD2", immediately before the first ever "Miss Muffet" reference (the image of) Faith announces "Miles to go". This echoes the Robert Frost poem quoted shortly before in "The Prom" in which "Miles to go before we sleep" is often interpreted as a reference to the temptations of death and the moral need to continue one's life to its preordained end. Given the juxtaposition to the first "730" reference, I think it's being hinted that Buffy's preordained destiny was to sacrifice herself for Dawn, and that Willow's very human decision to bring her back means that she is now an existential figure in a thoroughly predetermined world.
Hence her S6 jitters derive at the deepest level from the fact that, to reverse usual existential dogma, her existence has outlasted her essence.
Of course, this does potentially creat a horrible intellectual mess as to whether Willow's decision to resurrect her was predestined or not, but it's a thought-provoking idea.
[> [> [> [> Of course it was predestined. Joss signed this huge contract with UPN, remember? -- cjl, 09:07:02 08/28/02 Wed
[> Great essay Slain! -- shadowkat, 08:27:17 08/27/02 Tue
Possibly the best I've read in long time. You do a good job of explaining existentialism, an topic I'm embarrassed to say I never really understood until I read your essay.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on Willow. Am a little on the fence about whether the writers intend what you think they do on Spike, I hope you're right. But will have to see to be sure. I am still afraid that we are reading too much into the rape scene and it really was just a way of showing us why Buffy could never be with Spike. I keep hoping they were going for something more interesting than the bad boy cliche by ensouling him, but remain unconvinced. LEt's pray
Season 7 proves you right.
But on the whole? Including the Spike part? I loved this essay.
[> Re: Existential Much? The search for the authentic self(Season 6 spoilers) -- Sofdog, 09:24:44 08/27/02 Tue
I like your essay. I disagree with two points: [i]There is no obvious God, or Gods, and neither Buffy nor her friends believe in a structured religion. So when Buffy accepts death, she does so not because she knows there is an afterlife, but because she has chosen it through her individual choice.[/i]
Religious practice has been largely downplayed on the seires. However, Buffy has celebrated Christmas (Amends) and Willow has staunchly promoted her own Judaism at Christmastime. This, I think, implies that at least one of them adheres, however loosely, to an organized religion.
As for Buffy having no knowledge of an afterlife (not stated so much in the above quote as in the passage it's excerpted from), well Season 5 alone contradicts that. Buffy has previously invoked the spirits/powers of all Slayers past. She has also encountered the First Slayers spirit (Restless). And Angel's existence proves there is an afterlife. Otherwise, how could his soul have ever been restored in the first place.
The nature of the afterlife is an uncertainty. Buffy couldn't know if she was going on to rest, reward or a new form of service. But I think she clearly knew there was something beyond this life when she made that leap.
Just some thoughts that popped out at me.
[> [> Personal Saviours -- Rahael, 09:40:59 08/27/02 Tue
BtVS has a highly complex attitude toward organized religion - it just side steps it altogether. I would not want to say with any certainty that Buffy is a 'Christian' and I think the show dances around this. What exemplifies it to me are these lines from the "Freshman":
Girl: Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?
Buffy: Uh, you know I meant to and then I just got really busy.
(Quotes courtesy of Psyche.)
The irony of this exchange in the Freshman is that Buffy is feeling all alone - she wants to be rescued, whether it's from the Vamps or social insecurity by Willow or Oz or Xander or Giles. But in the end, she saves herself. She is her own personal Saviour. She's too busy to wait for JC or for Judgement Day. Because in Sunnydale, it's her job to STOP the apocalypses, not eagerly await them as a sign that the second coming was nigh.
Season Four continues this ambiguous questioning of Organised religion in a variety of ways. Riley, associated with Authority is also the regular Church Goer. Adam shows the Vamps that the Cross has no special power against them, nor a Church. He tells the Vamps that though they are immortal, that just makes them even more afraid of death (so they are stuck, unchanging, in a painful state of lifelessness, deathlessness). That church is the arena for a fight between two lost souls (lost from their bodies), Buffy and Faith
The Cross is both a symbol of death and life, and BtVS plays on this. But I don't regard Buffy as Christian.
[> [> [> Playing with symbols -- redcat, 10:09:27 08/27/02 Tue
"The Cross is both a symbol of death and life, and BtVS plays on this."
I would go a bit further and argue that the show plays across a fairly wide range of meanings for most or even all of the religioius symbols it employs. While there are no direct or specific connections or references made in the show (that I can remember at any rate, please correct me if I'm wrong here) to the ancient, pre-Christian meanings of the cross, the show IS rife with the active existence of ancient meanings, ancient ties, links to notion of "the ancient" itself. The First Slayer, The First Evil, the PTB, the worlds of prophecy and myth, all suggest the ever-present probability of multiple frames of reference for "sacred" images and symbols, whether those originate in organized religious traditions or more eclectic ones, i.e., Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic), Buddhism and Judaism, as well as Wicca, all of which have been referenced, often quite powerfully at the visual level in the show.
ME's consistent linking of ancient beings, meanings, powers, etc., with the notion of The Primal (and often a feminized, pre-verbal one at that) may be problematic in it's own rights, but that's a different discussion...
[> [> [> [> Re: Playing with symbols -- Rahael, 10:25:06 08/27/02 Tue
Food for thought. Thanks for enlarging. I agree with you about the First Slayer/primal-ness, but must think on that some more.
[> [> [> Buffy is Christian -- Cleanthes, 14:08:28 08/27/02 Tue
I would not want to say with any certainty that Buffy is a 'Christian' and I think the show dances around this.
Because it fits well in this thread, I will weigh in and opine that Buffy IS Christian, albeit, she's an austere, existential Christian, one unwilling to place demands on the Deity and one fully following Matthew 13 and the requirement that one realize that the kingdom of heaven can only be understood through parable. (hey, she knows from direct experience!)
She considered joining a nunnery, for example, only worrying about the "abjuring men" part - NOT about the religious angle... (and, judging from her longterm relationships with Angel & Spike, I think she abjures men, as opposed to vampires, pretty well)
More than a few existentialists have been Christian - Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky, for example. Sartre claimed atheism, but he worshipped Stalinism until even he had to see the stupidity of that. All the time, though, you could tell he walked past Notre Dame with awe.
Among Christians, opinion differs regarding the freedom that people have. To existentialist Christians, any demands on God amount to inauthentic belief. This is kind of an anti-Pelagianist way of looking at things that Buffy fully embraced when she took the mystical words of "god" in the form of the first slayer to mean that Buffy could choose whose death was the gift.
All of which is my way of saying that Buffy did not commit suicide when she jumped, in any Christian meaning of the word "suicide". She jumped to save Dawn and ... AND to prove her own freedom.
That God would provide - well, she expected that, just as she "expected" the snow in Amends.
Even though she had no right to expect it; indeed it was illogical to do so.
Buffy's treatment of organized religions tracks with her treatment of the organized watcher's council, the organized Initiative, the organized child-care services, the organized fast-food industry, etc., etc., etc.
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy is Christian -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:16:48 08/27/02 Tue
However, Buffy asked her "Do you have to be super religious (to be a nun)?" She was wondering if she could be a nun without having to be all faithful and worshippy.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy is Christian -- Cleanthes, 14:45:10 08/27/02 Tue
However, Buffy asked her "Do you have to be super religious (to be a nun)?" She was wondering if she could be a nun without having to be all faithful and worshippy.
True, and I should give this point some thought.
There's "super" religious and there's religious. I submit Buffy's far more Christian than many a church-goer, because Buffy doesn't play games with the supernatural.
For many, being "super" religious is a sham way of pretending to know God. Buffy could never do that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Doesn't Christianity Demand Monotheism? -- Sergio, 16:30:49 08/27/02 Tue
Which means she either did not believe Glory was a God, or believes that more than one God exists (which I think is her belief). Does that by definition eliminate Christianity as her religion? It certainly makes Willow a woman who was born Jewish, but is no longer Jewish.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Doesn't Christianity Demand Monotheism? -- Cleanthes, 06:11:15 08/28/02 Wed
It's long been a charge by both Jews and Muslims that Christianity is way too tolerant of polytheistic ways of looking at the world, from "Maryidolatry" to the way that many of the "saints" are just pagan dieties Christianified. (all the classical gods, for instance, show up in Milton)
Glory can be a "god" and still fit in Christian thought because "God" is, in St. Anselm & Boethius's formulation: id quo maius cogitare nequit "something than which nothing greater can be conceived". Glory was not any such thing, was she?
Ooh, my little website offers a further explanation of how Christians can believe in other gods while remaining monotheistic in existential certainty -- indeed, the belief in Kokopilesobeh, "the one god", is, I submit *necessary* to be truly Christian, rather than being a marked-for-hellfire fundamentalist like, say, Jerry Falwell. (cf. Matthew 13:42,43 for what happens to fundamentalists and Pharisees, kingdom come)
[> [> [> [> Buffy is Christian? -- Arethusa, 15:20:06 08/27/02 Tue
Wouldn't "existential Christian" be a contradiction in terms, like creation science? I didn't see any indication that Buffy thought of the First Slayer as anything but the First Slayer. Could you elaborate? She expected Angel to die in "Amends"-she kept begging him to go inside.
Buffy fired the Watcher's Council, and fought the Initiative. Both were patriarchial secret societies that demanded unquestioning obedience, had their own belief systems, and treated her like a small, dispensable cog in a very large machine. It is very debatable that Buffy would accept organized religion. (Fast food restaurants would qualify too, actually.)
Joss is not Christian, and has gone to great legnths to not identify Buffy as one-or Joyce, for that matter. In fact, the some of the basic tenets of Christianity-only God can take a life, turn the other cheek, judge not lest ye be judged-it seems Buffy violates these all the time. I think the nun comments were a joking response to men troubles, another issue to look at-Buffy has said premarital sex is her own business, and did not seem to consider a religious approach to sex at all. Buffy and the Scoobies have discussed fate, heaven, hell, good, evil, right, and wrong many times without mentioning God or religion at all. The closest she's come to discussing it is saying that killing humans is wrong, which is a belief held by many non-Christians, as well as atheists. The fact that she accepts the idea of multiple heavens and hells shows she accepts ideas antithetical to Christianity.
I can't say for she isn't Christian. She could believe deeply in Christianity, without actually practicing it. But her actions are not necessarily those of a Christian, and certainly not those of a devout one.
Arethusa, who because of her ignorance debates religion with fear and trembling.
[> [> [> [> [> I agree, Arethusa -- Sophist, 15:55:36 08/27/02 Tue
I think Cleanthes has assumed that certain common cultural norms imply particular religious beliefs. They don't. For example, I know of Jewish and atheist households which put up Christmas trees and exchange gifts. They have no trouble separating the cultural practice from any religious beliefs.
If we were to draw conclusions about religious beliefs from the show, I'd expect there to be some fairly direct evidence in the canon. I don't recall any now.
I personally think it would detract from Buffy's universal appeal to ascribe particular religious beliefs to her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> On Christianity In North America -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:32:45 08/27/02 Tue
Ask the average North American what religion they are, and 87% will say Christian. However, in my experiance, people often either lie to this question or don't give it proper thought. There are a number of people who, while they may be very familiar with and respect the Christian faith, only pay lip service to it without actually having faith and many times not practicising. My guess is that Buffy is this kind of "Christian".
Another option is that Buffy having seen the real supernatural, is unlikely to believe in supernatural things like Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva that contradict her experiences with greater powers.
[> [> [> [> [> As a practicing Christian, I agree. -- HonorH, 16:43:30 08/27/02 Tue
She may identify with the "Christian" culture and value some Christian beliefs, but I've never seen her do anything that would indicate she's a part of any organized religion at all. I realize this is a hot button, but really can't understand why. I'm not being judgmental here; it's just that I could protest all day I'm a Hindu, but as I don't practice the Hindu religion as evidenced by my life, you'd be right to be skeptical. I don't see Buffy as being a Christian by the way she lives her life. And you know what? That's between her and God.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Or between her and Joss (which I suppose is the same thing!) -- Slain, 17:29:10 08/27/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> Joyce's funeral -- leslie, 11:42:16 08/28/02 Wed
I'd just point out that Joyce had a Christian funeral service, with a minister reading from the Bible and everything. Also, in their Something Blue madness, Spike specifically ruled out a church wedding from Buffy's list of things to do, implying that she was assuming that a church wedding was an option. On the other hand, there is no indication that Buffy or anyone in her family is a regular church-goer. I would take from this that they are technically Christian but non-practicing, the kind of people who go to church for baptisms, weddings, and funerals, and little else. What their personal spiritual beliefs are is another matter.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joyce's funeral -- monsieurxander, 12:59:06 08/28/02 Wed
Also, in the episode where Joyce is in the hospital, Joyce asks if Buffy would rather spend time with Riley, and Buffy replies: [paraphrased, not quoted] "Nah, he'll probably come over later, looking for a little..." [look from Joyce], "Er... Bible Study!" Joyce: "Well I'm glad you two are spending time... with the Lord."
This is evidence that the Summers' are Christians, but slack off on the actual worshipping. Buffy tries to substitute something perceived as extremely good (Bible study), with something seen as somewhat shameful (sex), if only to her mother.
Also, in one of the Season 4 Faith episodes, it is revealed that Giles is a regular church goer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Giles a churchgoer? -- Vickie, 16:03:15 08/28/02 Wed
What episode was this? I just checked the transcripts on Psyche's site for This Year's Girl and Who Are You?, and there is no mention of this.
Those are the only Faith episodes in S4.
Did you mean season 3? Or, perhaps, Riley and not Giles? Or have I simply overlooked something, as usual?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles a churchgoer? -- monsieurxander, 20:33:28 08/28/02 Wed
Hmm. I looked over the transcript as well, and couldn't find it. It's been quite a long time since I've seen this ep, so my mind is probably playing tricks on me. I guess I was wrong. Sorry.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Riley -- monsieurxander, 20:43:48 08/28/02 Wed
Twas Riley I was thinking of, not Giles. Blasphemy to some, to confuse the two, but I apologize.
[> [> [> [> Cleanthes, you just crack me up.......;) -- Rufus, 00:08:55 08/28/02 Wed
She considered joining a nunnery, for example, only worrying about the "abjuring men" part - NOT about the religious angle... (and, judging from her longterm relationships with Angel & Spike, I think she abjures men, as opposed to vampires, pretty well)
So, you trying to say that Buffy is a selective slut??? Having a giggle fit here.....and I should be painting....bad Cleanthes...;)
[> [> [> [> [> Register with the Selective Sluts -- Cleanthes, 06:35:21 08/28/02 Wed
You have me giggling with "selective slut" - anyone here remember General Hershey? They used to have mobile army whorehouses in the French and Italian armies, so I'm picturing what might have happened back in the day if only General Hershey had had to draft for the American version.
Well, that's off-topic, I guess.
Buffy does not abjure concupiscence. This puts her at odds with Catholic orthodoxy. On the other hand, the whole of her relationship with Spike this last season (and all threads lead to Spike) has involved her lust for him which opposed her rational and free decision making. Existentially, she was in bad-faith with regard to Spike.
But to say that, one takes a ground of individual responsibility toward even one's lusts. So, the fact that she felt bad about what she was doing with Spike means something, I'm not sure what, but I'd say she wants to be, ahem, ''' selective '''.
This whole red herring of Spike's soul, could, I'm thinking and maybe hoping, just work as a means to allow Buffy to make choices.
[> [> [> [> Buffy's Leap of Faith -- Rahael, 05:30:30 08/28/02 Wed
Interesting points, Cleanthes. I don't know if I don't agree with you - you'll notice that that I used words such as 'certainty' and that I talked about a critique of Organised Religion rather than Religion per se.
I think you choose a good example with the Gift. Buffy is at peace at that moment (not suicidal) because her leap is trusting.
I would not want to argue "Buffy is not a Christian because she does not behave in the way that 'Christians' should". In behaviour, I think Buffy is extremely 'christian'. I think she is self sacrificing, I think she forgives, I think she does turn the other cheek. She gave up everything for the world, even Angel. She is as meek as the Little Lamb, as ferocious as the Tyger. Controversially, I don't think Buffy is judgemental either. I think she is Just. And even when she was tested and tempted, she proved true every time (well, until Season 6, anyway).
I especially don't want to argue that Buffy is not a good Christian because she doesn't subscribe to the tenets espoused by the Church (with a capital C) because I've lost count of the times I've been told I'm not 'a good Christian'. Ranging from such reasons as 'not believeing every single word in the Bible is the literal truth' to 'not believing in Heaven'. I also don't think I'm on a one way trip to hell because I've told a lie or two (as I was assured I was, by someone).
I'd say that what consitutes a 'good Christian' is up for debate. For me, it pretty much adds up to a certain standard of ethical behaviour, which is easily found in other religions too. And this is why I say 'I cannot say with certainty'. And I think that ambiguity is absolutely purposeful. Firstly, I think using Christian themes and symbols are very effective in a culture which is absolutely saturated with them. It just works. All of us can recognise the Christ like pose on the Cross, whether we are Christians or not.
Secondly, I think ambiguity is the point. There is no certainty in the Buffyverse. That is enshrined in Sunnydale. Everything is a paradox - dead people who live. A girl whose entire past life wasn't real. And that's why I think BtVS is playful about using Christian themes. The 'Angel' who comes to help Buffy against the very demonic Master. The innocent child who leads Buffy-the-lamb into hell. The self-sacrificing Hero, who runs away to the desert, returns, wracked with doubt, and who dies at one with the universe. But who may very well just be a patient in a mental institution. And it's instructive that the girl who sings about once having duty and purpose, when she loses her memory swiftly aligns herself with the intensely religious Joan of Arc. Joan had a certainty, the fire, that Buffy felt the lack of in Season 6.
AtS plays around with this in much the same way. "God doesn't want you. But I still do!" proclaimed Darla. Darla who was fascinated by a picture in Rome, by an artist who was famous for painting Madonnas. Darla who had a miraculous pregnancy, and died for that child. Angel, when trying to 'save' Darla, is tortured in the ultimate Christ pose.
Rahael, still thinking more about this.
[> [> [> [> [> Minor correction! -- Rahael, 05:52:54 08/28/02 Wed
This paragraph should read:
"I'd say that what consitutes a 'good Christian' is up for debate. For me, it pretty much adds up to a certain standard of ethical behaviour, which is easily found in other religions, *and in those who do not have any faith.* And this is why I say 'I cannot say with certainty'. And I think that ambiguity is absolutely purposeful. Firstly, I think using Christian themes and symbols are very effective in a culture which is absolutely saturated with them. It just works. All of us can recognise the Christ like pose on the Cross, whether we are Christians or not. "
Okay, that's really a major correction!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ambivalence is key (no Dawn-like pun intended) -- Thomas the Skeptic, 08:02:21 08/28/02 Wed
In several interviews over the years, Joss has discussed the fact that yes, he is an atheist, but when you work in genres like Horror or Fantasy, christian imagery and themes are inescapeable. I get the feeling that he is still working out to his own satisfaction how much of the implied ethical system(s) of religious belief are relevant to a non-believer. This internal debate carries over in obvious ways in his work.
[> [> [> [> [> Organized Religion -- Cleanthes, 06:20:19 08/28/02 Wed
Before I get into too much trouble, let me say that I fully agree with Rahael's distinction between organized Christianity and what Buffy is. I doubt she could be a nun any more than she could be subserviant to the Watcher's Council!
(although, she *certainly* would appreciate St. Theresa of Avila, and the show has made pretty direct comparisons between Buffy and St. Theresa, as long-time readers of this board know)
Secondly, I think ambiguity is the point.
This thread is about existentialism. I opine for myself that Buffy is indeed an existentialist Christian, which is far, far from fitting in with the Southern Baptist Convention, but which is still recognizeably Christian in an ecumenical, ambiguous kind of way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Organized Religion -- Rahael, 06:45:06 08/28/02 Wed
Just a quick reply to say that I think I mangled what I was trying to say when I said:
"I don't know if I don't agree with you "
What I meant was "I think I agree with you! Somewhat!"
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Organized Religion -- Arethusa, 07:27:05 08/28/02 Wed
I think Rahael's right-the ambiguity is the point. What matters is what Buffy does, not what Buffy calls herself. Wedon said he deliberately created his own mythology, one open to interpretation. For me, pinning Buffy down as Christian, atheist, or anything else distracts me from the purpose of the show-examining our world and our place in it, through a different and highly engaging point of view.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Organized Religion -- Cleanthes, 07:52:47 08/28/02 Wed
For me, pinning Buffy down as Christian, atheist, or anything else distracts me from the purpose of the show-examining our world and our place in it, through a different and highly engaging point of view.
Even though I'm the one claiming Buffy is Christian, I pretty much agree with your point here as far as having a distaste for "pinning down".
In my defense, I'm making this claim in a thread about Existentialism! (and a fine essay Slain has done, sorry for not commenting directly about it!)
Buffy, in my view, has taken the leap of faith necessary to know Grace. That's what it takes to be an existentialist Christian, on my reading of Kierkegaard & Dostoyevsky, the two examples I have in mind. This is why I cited "Amends" where she knew something would happen even though she knew Angel would burn up. And why she jumped into the hole in the dimensions to save Dawn. And why she knew the first Slayer gave good advice.
She does not follow the strictures of any of the organized Christian religions, as far as I can see, and I'm glad Whedon has it this way, although it's a prudent choice, TV marketing being what it is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmmm. -- Sophist, 08:27:29 08/28/02 Wed
Buffy, in my view, has taken the leap of faith necessary to know Grace. That's what it takes to be an existentialist Christian, on my reading of Kierkegaard & Dostoyevsky, the two examples I have in mind.
Well, I don't know. This reminds of the struggle Christians always have with those who lived before the time of Jesus, or those who never heard "The Word". I've seen lots of intellectual gymnastics to label such people "natural" Christians (or some other such term) in order to avoid the theologically unpleasant consequences.
In my view, it's rather distasteful to claim someone as a heretofore unknown member of "your" group: all good people are, by definition, Christian. That's a bit too convenient.
I'm also a little skeptical of using the presence of certain Catholic imagery to assert that Buffy is Christian in a way that only a fairly esoteric form of Protestantism would recognize. Calvin and Luther certainly would not agree with the label, nor would any Pope.
I think we should give labels only to those people who claim them for themselves. Until Buffy herself makes such a claim, she's not Christian to me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Narratives -- Rahael, 09:19:02 08/28/02 Wed
I tend to regard Christianity as a major narrative that is used again and again in Western literature and art, and BtVS is no exception. In fact, BtVS and AtS is particularly fond of using all forms of religious narratives - the figure of Shiva dancing that used to stand on Giles' desk; the crosses; the Buddha sitting in the Magic Box.
I think it's better to be concious about the use of these narratives, than not. Most particularly when it comes to the discussion of souls, sinning and redemption. Though "redemption" seems to be used very sparingly by ME themselves.
Again and again, BtVS is a product of its cultural environment, and it tends to fall back on Western European narratives with a smattering of Eastern.
After all, look at its portrayal of the primitive, non verbal First Slayer. The one that's all about the Kill, as opposed to the modern day, European Buffy who's all about friendship and love?
I tend to view culture as something you interact with, rather than 'belong' to necessarily. I am culturally a mixture of Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and atheism, and I wouldn't be unhappy at being called any of those things. Which is why I think religious faith/culture/vocabulary/mentalite's are about more than belonging to a Church. It's possible to participate in a way of looking at the world without having time for Christ to be your personal saviour.
And I think BtVS and AtS participate in a culture and vocabulary which is laden with religious narratives and symbolism.
Or as Redcat once said, "I don't believe in Redemption, but I'm afraid that Joss Whedon does." (sorry if I've misquoted from memory!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Narratives -- Sophist, 09:30:15 08/28/02 Wed
I'm sure you'll be disappointed, but I agree with you. :)
Christian symbolism is integrally part of Western Culture. That was the point I was (obscurely) making in my original response agreeing with Arethusa. I just think that such symbols are being used on BtVS in their cultural sense, not to make a specifically religious point.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Narratives -- Rahael, 09:48:19 08/28/02 Wed
Crestfallen! ;)
I think it's when you look at eps like "Amends" with the miraculous Christmas snow, and the end of "Grave", and the whole debate about souls/redemption, that it becomes difficult to separate culture from ethics. From Values.
I mean, I realised with a slight shock during the debate about "forgiveness" that my value system, immersed as it is in Western European Christianity did in fact have some crucial differences.
So I'd say that when you rely strongly on one particular narrative, some of your conclusions get thrust upon you - though I take fully on board Thomas the Skeptic's point about what Joss is going to do.
Rahael
Obligatory poem below.
"AS kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies dráw fláme;
As tumbled over rim in roundy wells
Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell's
Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;
Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves‹goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying Whát I do is me: for that I came.
Í say móre: the just man justices;
Kéeps gráce: thát keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is‹
Chríst‹for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men's faces.
Gerard Manley Hopkins
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Narratives -- Sophist, 10:37:18 08/28/02 Wed
I think it's when you look at eps like "Amends" with the miraculous Christmas snow, and the end of "Grave", and the whole debate about souls/redemption, that it becomes difficult to separate culture from ethics. From Values.
Yes. But of course, shared ethical systems don't require shared religious beliefs.
I think ME does like to maintain the ambiguity. For example, Amends certainly has Christian associations, but AtS makes constant references to the PtB (ironically, a New Testament phrase) in contexts which have nothing to do with Christianity. Leaves us in doubt just who did send that snow.
Similarly, we can discuss the issue of rehabilitation of wrongdoers without necessarily importing Christian notions of redemption.
As I said before, ME needs to preserve that ambiguity in order to maintain a universalist message. When it moves too far in one direction (and it did, IMHO, in Grave), it risks not just losing some of its audience, but offending it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Musing brought on by poetry about narratives... -- redcat, 10:59:32 08/28/02 Wed
Wonderful posts, Rah and Sophist! Rah's first post here is also a more elegant statement of what I
was trying to say in my post on JW's visualized "play" with religious symbols (above). I
absolutely agree that the basic underlying cultural narrative of the show derives from the
western, specifically Judeo-Christian, world-view, overlaid with broad washes of Eastern
philosophy (both Buddhist and Hindu, and especially as represented through Giles), along with
a sometimes-hazy-sometimes-precise set of references to pre-Christian European pagan
traditions. Further, the presence of the silent First Slayer supports the argument that the show
fundamentally grounds itself in a concept of historically linear "progress" from a "primitive" past
to an "enlightened" present, with the strongly implied possibility of some truly Edenic (post-
redemptive?) future. In effect, this reflects a type of "post-Christian" Enlightenment narrative,
one whose own historical influences came from both Judeo-Christianity and (newly re-
introduced into Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries as a by-product of late European
colonialist expansion) Eastern philosophies. Given the strong argument Slain makes for an
existentialist reading of the show, and what others have argued is an even stronger case for
this reading of S6, it would seem that either an overly-rigid Judeo-Christian or Enlightenment
narrative would be disrupted (although perhaps not completely subverted) by competing
existentialist narratives and questions.
This is, in fact, what I think we see happening when we consider the slayers as a group, and
especially remembering fresne's fabulous post of a few weeks ago, which noted that all the
slayers we have seen or been told about other than Buffy, have been silent women of color.
The First Slayer sets the template, but the Chinese Slayer of the Boxer Rebellion speaks in an
untranslated (on the screen) language that her killer does not understand; and we never hear
either the Korean slayer in Chicago in the 30s, or Nikki, the African-American New York slayer
in the 70s, speak directly. The sharp break between these previous Chosen Ones and Buffy
("I'm gonna to be a fireman when the floods roll back") argues for a consciousness within the
show's broader play of narratives of something other than the necessarily incremental
progress of the Enlightenment's linear notion of history, as well as something less dogmatic
than Christianity's fixed traditions of a pre-specified heaven and hell.
By remaining ambiguous about any one belief system, even as she claims for herself the
mandatory existentialist act of self-identification ("I'm Buffy. And you're history."), Buffy looks
back across that dark abyss and demands of God/the gods not to be lied to, because she will
not suffer herself to be silenced. However, does her sharp cracking of the code of silent, and
thus unreflective, unself-identified, slayers represent Joss's existentialist repudiation of the
very foundational epistemologies within which all western cultural narratives must engage,
because, as Rah notes, they "participate in a culture and vocabulary which is laden with
religious narratives and symbolism"? Or is that act of repudiation merely a subtle confirmation
of the indelibility of the underlying narrative-of-progress? By the very act of refusing the First
Slayer, and claiming instead her own power, her own values, her own name, does a Euro-
American Buffy wind up merely re-inscribing the west's putatively linear progress from Silent
Primitive to Rational Post-Modern?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Eden, lost and reclaimed -- cjl, 11:26:07 08/28/02 Wed
Love this sub-thread.
Joss seems to draw upon many religious archetypes and complementary and divergent religious viewpoints, but he always seems to be extending back to a commonn "ur"-narrative: the Eden myth. The creation of the first vampire seems to match up with the expulsion from Paradise, with the players in the Buffyverse continually trying to recapture the lost state of grace.
Of course, the competing existentialist narrative tells us that Grace or Damnation is what we make it, but I don't find the two mutually exclusive. Joss' mythology is so rich, it allows room for both interpretations...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Eden, lost and reclaimed -- rc, 11:34:25 08/28/02 Wed
...perhaps not mutually exclusive because the characters' each coming to their own existentialist understanding that Grace and Damnation are what they make of them is inherent in, rather than contradictory to, their progress toward an Eden reclaimed...?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Eden, lost and reclaimed -- Arethusa, 12:18:25 08/28/02 Wed
Or instad of making linear progress towards an Eden, they potentially progress to perfect self-awareness-a peaceful understanding and acceptance of who they are, and the context in which they live. We saw perfect self-awareness with Adam, but he did not project this to those outside his own consciousness. Sometimes I think truely accepting and understanding ourselves, and thereby others, is the closest we will ever get to union with God.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And what's more -- Rahael, 03:51:44 08/29/02 Thu
Joss' twisting of Genesis underlines redcat's point about a linear progression. The Biblical Genesis shows a world of grace that was lost by man, through his seeking of knowledge.
In Sunnydale, we know that the beginning was no paradise, but a hell. Man didn't fall from grace. He escaped from hell. So unlike many early modern Europeans, who regarded the past as a holy, more pure place (and let's include the Greek philosophers as an inspiration for the Renaissance), and who saw the drawing on of time as taking them *away* from paradise, Sunnydale is literally trying to move onward from hell.
And Buffy and the Scoobies move onward from the hellmouth of Sunnydale High, their version of the hellish garden of Eden, and end up in that symbolic version of the tree of knowledge, UC Sunnydale. Where they encounter a new enemy, which is both modern and ancient. Walsh talks about the primitive desires of mankind. We get constant reiterations of the idea of Eden (see Ete's excellent essay on this in the archives) and ideas of what constitutes self identity. This is where Buffy encounters and rejects the primitive past (the First) and the techno-modern, horrific future that Walsh offers.
But, Season 6 I think does undermine the linear progression of Scooby progress. The characters regress. And it's so interesting that it is tied to Buffy falling *down* (rather than up) to Heaven, and *rising* back to the world. This topsy turveyness fatally infects Sunnydale Season 6. The characters move backwards. They unlearn the lessons they learnt before.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And what's more -- redcat, 08:39:43 08/29/02 Thu
I think Rah has identified something here that might be quite important to this over-all
discussion. While I think the evidence is quite strong, incontrovertible even, for what cjl calls
the edenic "ur-narrative" as a foundational construct in the show, the above post reminds me
that it's just that -- "a" foundational construct, but perhaps not "the" only one. I think our
collective acknowledgment of the multiple religious, spiritual and philosophical traditions that
weave through and around the show's predominantly western-Judeo-Christian frame should
perhaps extend to looking at other ur-narratives within which Joss seems also to play. S6,
more than any other season so far, has elicited in me a sense of Joss' fascination with the
work of Joseph Campbell (go ahead and grit your teeth, Rah, you know what's coming...).
What I have argued elsewhere in this thread is a linear progressive thrust in the show overall,
after The Gift, seems to turn in on itself, "twisting," as Rah calls it, into a oddly "backward"
direction. Or perhaps it's really a circular one.
If Buffy is simultaneously moving forward toward her edenic just reward, while also circling the
"Hero's Journey," S6 begins to make a deeper kind of sense. (As always, I use the Inanna
myth cycle here as my primary model for understanding the Hero's Journey.) Using a
Campbellian interpretation, before the Hero can return to the World and bring to her people
and/or companions the "truths" learned in the Otherworld, she must generally fight out
of/past/through a set of gates/blockages/armies on the way back "up" to the "normal" world. If
Buffy's leap off the tower is read as the progressive result of her just life which thus leads her
into Paradise, *and simultaneously* is made to stand for that moment at the central point in
the Campbellian Hero's Journey at which she triumphs over the Otherworld's dark forces and
thus gains her freedom from them to begin her return to her own world, we might expect a
sometimes uncomfortable clash of ur-narratives. Rah points out that much is topsy-turvy in
S6's backwards circling. Perhaps it's taken a whole season to work out the ways in which
these two underlying mythic structures function together in the show's macro-mythology and
S6 is evidence of the difficulty of trying to do that.
Just a thought --- perhaps this struggle between ur-narratives can also be understood as a way
of thinking about some of the show's other internal philosophical struggles that we've been
discussing. Can we say that the Inanna-ian Hero's cycle reflects the existentialist experience,
being imbued with what Arethusa calls the search for "perfect self-awareness" (and, of course,
the concomitant non-"western" and pre-Christian influences active there-in), while the search
for Eden reflects the almost fatalistic linearity of the Enlightenment worldview against which the
existential hero struggles?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Progress -- Sophist, 13:18:13 08/28/02 Wed
the presence of the silent First Slayer supports the argument that the show fundamentally grounds itself in a concept of historically linear "progress" from "primitive" past to an "enlightened" present
This conclusion may be too quick. There is a big debate in anthropology about when humans (or hominids) acquired speech. I wouldn't doubt that the writers picked up on that and made the First silent (or at least with limited speech) without intending to send a message about progress by that fact alone. OTOH, Buffy's rejoinder to the First in Restless certainly supports your interpretation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Progress -- rc, 14:24:20 08/28/02 Wed
Agree about the ambiguity of the First Slayer's silence, especially as it's reflected in the differently-imagined silences of the other three (non-Buffy) slayers, and perhaps even more interestingly as it is subsumed within the Spirit Guide's use of the silent First's "voice." And the Guide's message certainly seems to suggest that Buffy is being invited to come to full self-awareness, as Arethusa speculates above. Whether even that scene, however, effectively subverts the ur-narrative's progressive, even evolutionary ("Love. Give. Forgive.") march toward Eden is debateable. I'm not saying I'm committed to that interpretation, I'd just want to see some real textual/visual evidence within the episodes that contest the point before I'd be willing to abandon it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Individual growth or social progress -- Sophist, 16:28:03 08/28/02 Wed
The reason I brought up the point is that I've always seen Buffy's interaction with the First as a vehicle for Buffy's personal growth. I understood you to refer to a larger, social sense of progress. I can see your view, but I prefer mine. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> silent women of color? -- Vickie, 16:43:30 08/28/02 Wed
You have a great point that we can learn a lot by considering the slayers who we have seen as a group. I don't, however, entirely follow your conclusions. The slayers we've seen are:
Buffy
Kendra
Faith
Nikki
the Chinese slayer (Boxer rebellion era)
the Korean slayer (Sorry, don't recognize this reference)
the Primitive (the First)
Leaving the Korean slayer out, because I'm ignorant on her topic, we have six slayers, four of whom have been active characters in the shows.
Nikki does not speak in her single scene. Spike speaks over the scene, and as this is his version of events, that's appropriate. My impression of Nikki is of a woman of strength and determination, who knows her job and how to do it. There's no indication I see that she is at all less conscious than Buffy, or less of an individual. I'm not claiming you are incorrect, I just don't see the evidence you are using for this point.
The Chinese slayer speaks in her own language, untranslated in the show and not understood by her killer, who is, again, Spike. Again, I find this appropriate. This is Spike's version of events. I don't see any evidence on the screen or in the script to indicate that this girl is unaware of herself or not individuated. Given her geographical and cultural location, and period in history, she is likely to be less obsessed with the individual than the typical Westerner--at least I think so. But again, I don't see the on-screen evidence.
Kendra was by no means a silent woman. Though she certainly had been trained to a deference that we find startling, she had a backbone and her own points of view. She expressed them even in the face of Buffy's disagreement. Kendra is a non-silent slayer of color.
Finally, the Primitive. She is not silent. At first (in Restless) she speaks through Tara or Tara speaks for her. Eventually, Buffy insists she speak for herself, and she does.
This is Buffy's dream. Though the Primitive is in some sense objectively there, all of the images are being processed through Buffy's psyche. My initial reaction to this sequence is that the Primitive initially expresses herself through the Tara guide, in order to associate with a trusted advisor. Buffy's subconscious places this filter on the Primitive's words to send a message to the conscious mind: "Hey, listen up! This is important and true." Or the Primitive makes this association in order to gain credibility.
When Buffy insists on the return of her friends, the Primitive is clearly able to speak, albeit in a harsh voice. The two still do not agree, of course, but there's nothing in Buffy's dream that I can see to support the idea that the Primitive is not an individual. On the contrary, she insists on the individual aloneness of the slayer. "I am destruction. Absolute...alone.....No ... friends! Just the kill." Buffy is the one to insist on her existence within the group, and on her right to participate in the joining spell that has angered the Primitive.
The harshness of the Primitive's voice may be an indication that she doesn't use it much. This doesn't necessarily mean that she cannot. She speaks when she wishes. But if she walks alone most of the time, there's no one for her to talk to (unless she talks to herself, like me, but she's clearly not that crazy).
I don't think that the lack of speech in a particular situation indicates the clear lack of a voice and the ability to use it as desired.
So, redcat, please help me follow you to your conclusions. I'm clearly missing the evidence you have found compelling.
-V.
P.S. fresne's post doesn't appear to be in the archives, so I couldn't check into it for context. Sorry.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What race was the first slayer? -- Cleanthes, 18:48:43 08/28/02 Wed
The first slayer's skin color had more to do with her placement in time than with the modern-day politics of race, IMO.
In the 19th century supposedly scientific theories of racial origins purported to prove that the original "true" race was Caucasian; indeed, it's these now totally outdated theories that stick with us through the word "Caucasian". With the overthrow of racism as official science, people have actually looked at the evidence and found that ALL people, red and yellow, black & white, descend from a common African ancestor.
A Victorian racist could not possibly imagine that his forefathers were anything other than noble, long-skulled white men. To suggest that he had Africans in his family tree would irretrievably stain his escutcheon; unacceptable, unacceptable!
It is in opposition to THIS that the First Slayer's racial characteristics ought be considered, if they're considered at all. She isn't black rather than white, she's ALL.
As to why the Primitive doesn't speak at first, I attribute this to the language problem. Tara speaks for the Primitive, as you say Vickie, to give voice to her from a trusted advisor, and, IMO, to allow for English.
I think they changed this later both because Buffy now knew the First Slayer, and possibly, because of criticism. And they kinda suggested the First "spoke" to Buffy telepathically.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: silent women of color? -- redcat, 20:24:11 08/28/02 Wed
"Though the Primitive is in some sense objectively there, all of the images are being processed
through Buffy's psyche."
Aloha e Vickie,
These are great questions. If we add "and Joss' psyche" to the end of your sentence above, I
think your statement really dances around, and maybe even sashays straight through, the
heart of the ways I was thinking about the other-than-Buffy slayers when I framed them in my
post (above) as operating at the philosophical, metaphoric, meta-narrative and symbolic levels.
On those levels, I see them as representing multiple contact points in a complex set of
interlocking narratives, whose sometimes-bumpy weaving together allows Joss to question the
reality of existence and the authority of individual morality, which I see as among the critical
issues being played out by him through BtVS.
So you are absolutely right when you describe the Chinese and African-American slayers as
being silenced only because they don't tell their own stories, Spike does. And to support your
point further, the quote below shows us the reason we neither hear nor even see the Korean
slayer directly. We know about her only because she's described by Sid, the undead demon
hunter who's trapped in a wooden puppet's body, when he says to Buffy:
Sid: (surprised) "You?! You're the Slayer?" (Buffy nods) "Damn! I knew a Slayer in the
30's. Korean chick. Very hot. We're talking *muscle* tone. Man, we had some times."
(Quote from Psyche's transcripts, "The Puppet Show," S1, ep. 9. - thanks, Psyche!)
Like the other two, and like the First Slayer in Restless, she's a part of someone else's story
which is at least part of my point, as I think it was at least part of fresne's earlier IIRC (sorry, I
wasn't able to find the archive address for that post, either -- but it was great!). On the
symbolic, rather than plot or character-development, level, all four of these slayers can be
"read," using a specific kind of analytical lens, as representing the image-through-metaphor of
a type of pre-modern consciousness that Buffy's individuation seemingly breaks through.
On the strictly plot or character-development levels you're primarily speaking of, however, no
character can be said to "represent" anything. As you argue, the Chinese slayer herself, when
considered as a "real" person rather than a symbolic character, does not seem to be "unaware
of herself or not individuated."
Her symbolic place in the story, however, may allow a different reading, like the one I've
attempted above. In that type of reading, both her obvious ethnicity and her
silence-within-the-realm-of-the-story intersect with a set of questions about the relationships
between larger culturally-sanctioned narratives, those narratives' foundational assumptions
(about history, progress and white folks' place in same), and individual cultural productions like
BtVS. My thinking on this is probably also influenced by the work of Black feminist critics like
Toni Morrison, who in her (IMO stunning) collection of essays, Playing in the Dark, discusses
the consistent presence of the "absent African" in American literature and art, whose dark
silence, she argues, outlines in stark relief (and thus gives a specific type of meaning to) the
actions of modern (and so also post-modern) white characters.
But I absolutely agree with you that considerations of Kendra's space and roles within the
Buffyverse goes a long way to contest any simplistic schemata into which one would try to trap
the show's meta-narratives. I'm glad you brought her up, as I had not considered her before.
However, I'm still not convinced that Kendra's character completely subverts my argument
about the interplay between post-modern existentialist and "progressive" linear Enlightenment
narratives in the show. As I tried to say not too long ago in my review of academic critic Lynne
Edwards' argument that Kendra reflects the Tragic Mulatta trope, while I personally don't see
either "race" or that trope as the most effective lens through which to critique the show's use of
that specific character of color, I also cannot deny the consistency with which the show clothes
relatively minor characters who's metaphoric "job" in the show can be seen as representing a
fixed, rigid or even "primal" past, as people of color. Nor can I deny that, as Morrison would
argue, such racialized characterizations are consistent within Enlightenment narrative
traditions.
Kendra's growth as a character towards the kind of self-defined individuation that's central to
Buffy's characterization is cut short by (what is, IMO) her plot-driven (rather than trope-driven)
death. Whether she would have been able to develop as a fully engaged character into
someone who could make the types of difficult decisions we've seen Buffy be forced to do
within Joss' increasingly-morally-grey universe is something we will never know.
And in that sense, Kendra is not much different *symbolically* from the unnamed Chinese and
Korean slayers, Nikki the African-American slayer (whose name we know only from the
shooting script), or the First Slayer, who, as Tara's voice tells us for her, has "...no speech. No
name." "I live," says this Slayer's Buffy-dreamed voice, "in the action of death, the blood cry,
the penetrating wound." And when Buffy's psyche does finally force the First to speak in her
"own" harsh voice, she confirms herself as representative of something Buffy must refuse - the
"we" of undifferentiated, primal consciousness.
BUFFY: (firmly) Now give me back my friends.
(The First Slayer speaks in a very low, hoarse voice.)
FIRST SLAYER: No ... friends! Just the kill. (Shot of Buffy watching her.)
FIRST SLAYER: We ... are ... alone!
(The bald guy leans in between Buffy and the First Slayer, holding up two slices of
cheese. He grins and shakes the cheese at Buffy, then retreats offscreen.)
BUFFY: That's it. I'm waking up.
It is at this metaphoric level that I DO think the First, and perhaps the other slayers of color as
a group, can be seen, **in relationship to Buffy**, as representative of a "past" Buffy must
grow, and has grown, beyond. And it is at this symbolic, philosophical and metaphoric level
that their presence in the meta-narrative remains at least a teensy bit problematic for me.
Does any of this help answer your questions, or am I just confusing things even more? It's
wickedly interesting to me that in a sub-thread on philosophical ambiguity, it is the realist's
questions that have popped the bubble of inflated theorizing....
malama pono,
redcat, thanking Psyche for all quotes
PS -- fresne has also done some extraordinary posts on Faith as Buffy' symbolic "dark"
other-half/sister/lover --definitely worth searching the archives for!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: silent women of color? -- Vickie, 21:54:09 08/28/02 Wed
Greetings back at you, redcat.
Thanks for trying to pound your points into my thick skull. Your additions and explanations do help, though I'm still not all the way there. I hope you'll forgive/enjoy another round? (If not, just ignore me.)
I'm having trouble regarding some characters as symbolic in relation to other characters (who are considered as actual people). How do you determine which character is a symbol and which is a person for whom the symbol has significance?
Clearly, Buffy is a person. She's the protagonist. Therefore, whatever mythopoetic significance she has, she is also a character in the drama.
But I'm uncomfortable considering the slayers of color (Kendra, Nikki, the Chinese and Korean girls) symbolic because they are women of color, and then turning around and building a theory of their symbolic significance based on their color. That's circular, unless I've missed something serious in your discussion.
However, if we consider the symbolic significance of the women who are never truly actors in the drama, then I might be able to follow your critical lead. With this criterion, we have:
Nikki
The Chinese Slayer
The Korean Slayer
I maintain that the Primitive, while clearly having many resonances, cannot be considered purely symbolic. She is an actor in the drama. Otherwise, there is no outside threat in Restless, just the overactive workings of our main characters' stressed out psyches. I love your idea that the Primitive is in some way ALL slayers and all humankind. But again, I'm uncomfortable treating her as purely symbol or metaphor. She's real in some important sense.
What do these three women have in common? They are former slayers, two of whom Spike killed. None of them speaks in our drama, and one of them doesn't even act. Two of them fail. All three are "of color", and so, in a drama with Caucasion perspective can be seen as exotic, other, and possibly even images of the shadow. They are indeed "silent women of color" as you said in your original post.
What evidence do we have that these women are meant to represent "a fixed, rigid or even 'primal' past"?
The Chinese girl during the Boxer Rebellion almost certainly had a traditional upbringing, which would be fixed and rigid by our standards (dangerous assumption that we share standards, but I digress). She would have been taught to defer to all men, to older women in her family, and to anyone of a higher social status. Social mobility was pretty difficult and unusual in that culture. It's amazing to me to contemplate what she must have gone through, trying to develop the kind of initiative and confidence a slayer needs, in so contraty an environment. Maybe she didn't; maybe this is why a young and cocky Spike could kill her.
Definitely, the Chinese slayer could represent a fixed and rigid past.
Nikki, on the other hand, just doesn't work this way for me. She's a 1970s New Yorker for gosh sake. That's pretty recent past, and I'm working hard to think of ways that our society has gotten less rigid in the past thirty years.
Ok, women have made some incremental progress, particularly in the realms of reproductive rights and employment opportunties. We've made some advances on our race issues, too. (Certainly not far enough in either case, but that's not my point here.) So in that sense, Nikki also represents a more rigid past.
The Korean girl I cannot even attempt. We only have that one line of Sid's (thank you for reminding me). I remember thinking at the time "BS. He probably never met her, just knew who the slayer was at the time." But even if he's being straight, we know nothing about her except she was Korean in the 1930s. We don't even know where.
Certainly her lack of definition lends credibility to a symbolic interpretation. She's certainly not presented as a whole person. She also qualifies, in the general sense of being a person of her society and time.
What do these women represent to Buffy? Are they images of a more rigid and restrictive past? I prefer to think that they are images of women, of slayers transcending the societies and times and upbringing they were given, to become heroes in their own right. Each of these women was The Slayer in her time. Each of them fought the demons (yada yada, I'm not Giles). It is important to realize is that these are Buffy's sisters. Buffy, too, is working to transcend the limits of her own time and place, in order to fulfill her heroic duty and destiny.
It may be that I tend to see the more pleasant interpretations of these characters precisely because I am not sensitive to mistreatment of characters of color in these dramas. I'm pretty white bread, and I live in a very diverse community where most folks (at least, the ones I spend time with) consider it ill bred and indicative of ignorance to express racism, regardless of what one may think or feel. I've noticed that others on the board notice offensive treatment of people of color in the Jossverse long before I wake up to it. So maybe I'm just not equipped to grok the interpretation you prefer.
V.
P.S. Brilliant though she certainly is, fresne is not the only one to have discussed Faith as an image of Buffy's shadow self.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: symbolic versus literal interpretation -- aliera, 06:20:41 08/29/02 Thu
Thank you redcat and Vickie and others for intriguing sets of subthreads. Just a stray thought. We purposefully deconstruct the different elements of the show into limited pieces and examine them in isolation; but, I think our arguments tend to break down when we talk about how these pieces function *only* as one thing or another because the show is written multi-level. They generally function both as symbols and as ways to move the action/character growth forward and as individuals in their own right with their owns stories (some very brief at least to date). This crossed my mind in Sophist/redcat's discussion above and again here because I don't usually see the different views as mutually exclusive; but, rather I see the show as written specifically to allow for a richness of interpretations on different levels. I am very open to others ways of viewing this. I am probably to much in my own bias which is more geared to the forest rather than the trees. Thanks again for the interesting discussion. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: silent women of color? -- redcat, 11:40:26 08/29/02 Thu
Aloha e Vickie,
Thanks for continuing the discussion. However, I certainly don't mean you to feel that I'm
"trying to pound" anything into anyone's skull. Hope that was just a metaphor, Œcause I'm just
here having a conversation. And I'm sorry if you think I was purposely ignoring or dismissing
any posters' work on Faith other than fresne's. Obviously, several posters have done
wonderful work on the character and her symbolic role as Buffy's shadow, most notably of
course, shadowkat. My post-script was simply meant to point you toward the rest of fresne's
insightful work IF you had not already seen it.
As for the gist of your two posts here, I think both Rahael's and aliera's responses address
most of the major issues. However, there are several points you make that I'd like to respond
to directly.
1) Vickie: "I'm having trouble regarding some characters as symbolic in relation to other
characters (who are considered as actual people). How do you determine which
character is a symbol and which is a person for whom the symbol has significance?"
This is a great question, and I think it gets to the heart of what constitutes the practice of
literary/media/cultural analysis. All analysis is an act of interpretation and as such **always**
depends on the analyst's POV. If the person to whom the symbolic interpretation is significant
is the viewer/critic, as opposed to a particular character within the text, clearly the level at
which that analysis occurs begins from "off the page," i.e., from an objective position "above" --
and certainly omniscient to -- the fictional universe of the text. From that perspective, all the
characters, including Buffy, can be "read" as symbolic in some ways, e.g., Buffy as "the Hero,"
vampires as "arrested adolescence," Xander as "the heart of the gang," etc.
Meanwhile, within the text, while others may see Buffy, vampires and Xander in these ways on
occasion, as you note, "Clearly, Buffy is a person. She's the protagonist. Therefore,
whatever mythopoetic significance she has, she is also a character in the drama," -- as
are Spike, Xander, etc. We can all, I'm sure, think of times when, considering them only at the
level of character development or plot, they don't "fit" their symbolical associations at all. Buffy
acts non-heroically, Spike is much more than simply a metaphor for arrested emotions, and
Xander doesn't always love and trust deeply enough. But to suggest that *because* they are
fully-developed and developing characters we cannot also read them symbolically misses, I
think, the whole point of cultural analysis, which is to enrich, enlarge, expand and contribute to
our collective greater understanding of the text.
Further, there are clearly times WITHIN the text that some (usually minor) characters are
presented in or act in symbolic ways towards another (usually major) characters, and also
times during which major character recognize and address their own symbolic roles and
relationships to each other directly or indirectly. Tabula Rasa is, IMO, a fabulous exploration of
the show's conscious play with it's own mythopoetic intertexts. For example, many posters
have dismissed the "loan shark" of that ep as being too childish or crude a representation, but I
think perhaps that interpretation misses the subtlety of Joss' own sense of self-critique. I
thought it was a quite interesting way to graphically comment on the show's practice of
embodying-as-imagined-metaphor the "real" issues and problems of our/his world.
2) Vickie: "But I'm uncomfortable considering the slayers of color (Kendra, Nikki, the
Chinese and Korean girls) symbolic because they are women of color, and then turning
around and building a theory of their symbolic significance based on their color. That's
circular, unless I've missed something serious in your discussion."
You know, I might think that reading the slayers of color as symbolic of something linked to
their racialization would be a problem for my argument IF we had a plethora of non-women-of-
color slayers to talk about. But in fact, as you point out in your previous posts, out of the six
non-Buffy slayers in the whole show, we have five women of color, and one (dark-haired,
even) white slayer who is so obviously symbolic of blond Buffy's "darker," "shadow," "Other"
self that a number of posters have written brilliant critique about that subject. I think NOT
asking questions about the very fact of the overwhelming presence of slayers of color in the
show would be irresponsible IF one is working at the level of cultural criticism.
However, I don't think the answers to the questions one might pose from that level are
simplistic, determinative, or necessarily condemnatory of Joss. In fact, as I've made quite clear
a number of times now, I don't see a racial analysis as either the beginning or the end of any
discussion of BtVS, but I DO see it as an important part of any larger, collective practice (which
is what I understand us to be doing on this board in threads like this) of cultural critique and
analysis of the show.
As for your concern that my argument is teleological, I think you're misreading both my
intention and my actual analysis here. I didn't create the fact that five of the non-Buffy slayers
can be *extremely* easily read as women of color (in fact, it would be clearly incorrect to read
them as not-women-of-color) and the sixth as representing "the dark." I am neither stretching
the facts nor "building a theory" based on some specious claims or data. Again, I think it would
be irresponsible to engage in cultural critique that does NOT pay attention to this set of very
obvious characteristics in the representation of non-Buffy slayers. And I do think that an
assessment of the relationship between the visual presentation of these slayers' as persons of
color, and notions about the possible (and *always* multi-valent!) meanings about color as a
marker of difference in the broader culture may well be an effective tool to help us understand
WHY all the other slayers exhibit certain culturally, socially, psychologically and metaphorically
consistent markers of difference from Buffy herself. I think this is part of Rah's point that Buffy
breaks the pattern of silence when, in FFL, she neither seeks death from Spike nor allows him
to silence her. Instead, she has the final words "You're beneath me." She not only denies
him the power to define her, in some ways, she also can be seen as refuting his narrative
containment of the Spike-silenced Chinese slayer and Nikki.
3) Vickie: "I maintain that the Primitive, while clearly having many resonances, cannot be
considered purely symbolic."
I maintain the same. As I've repeatedly stated in my posts in this thread, I am NOT arguing
that assessing characters or representations in symbolic, metaphoric, philosophical or any
other exegetical way is or should be the ONLY, and certainly not some "pure," way to read the
show. Although you haven't said it directly, I keep getting the feeling that you're arguing that
I'm arguing for a closing down or limiting of interpretations, that I am promoting one way of
viewing the text over all others. Nothing could be further from the truth, and if you read me
carefully, I believe that I'm quite clear that I'm discussing only one particular way of thinking
about BtVS, not the "only" or even a "primary" way. I have consistently grounded my
discussions in my strong sense of the show's intriguing ambiguity, which is a huge part of what
makes the analysis interesting for me. Personally, the primary way I actually approach
watching Buffy is through my emotions. I initially ask of it only, "does it touch my feelings?"
But since my brain and my heart are closely connected and both work just fine, thanks, I also
don't shut off my strong sense of analytical assessment just because I'm emotionally or
narratively engaged in the characters and their drama.
As aliera notes, "We purposefully deconstruct the different elements of the show into limited
pieces and examine them in isolation; but, I think our arguments tend to break down when we
talk about how these pieces function *only* as one thing or another because the show is
written multi-level." I couldn't agree more, and I'm very sure that what I'm NOT doing is
promoting any one analytical framework that argues we can, should or even might be able to
contain the show within any one type of analysis. If you're still concerned about this, please
reread my statements copied below. What I see when I read them is a series of carefully
constructed qualifying statements that invite a dialogue between different ways of looking at
the show rather than an argument for only a "purely" symbolic analysis, to wit:
redcat: "On the symbolic, rather than plot or character-development, level, all four of these
slayers can be "read," using a specific kind of analytical lens, as representing the image-
through-metaphor of a type of pre-modern consciousness that Buffy''s individuation seemingly
breaks through." "Her symbolic place in the story, however, may allow a different reading, like
the one I''ve attempted above. In that type of reading...." "I absolutely agree with you that
considerations of Kendra''s space and roles within the Buffyverse goes a long way to contest
any simplistic schemata into which one would try to trap the show's meta-narratives." "It is at
this metaphoric level that I DO think the First, and perhaps the other slayers of color as a
group, can be seen, **in relationship to Buffy**, as representative of a "past" Buffy must grow,
and has grown, beyond."
If all those "may allow" and "can be read as" statements don't make my perspective on this
point clear, then I really should retire from at least this part of the discussion!
4) Vickie: "I prefer to think that they are images of women, of slayers transcending the
societies and times and upbringing they were given, to become heroes in their own
right."
You may, of course, prefer to think of them any way you like and I would certainly be the first
to encourage you to do so. Your vision is particularly appealing. However, I prefer to think in a
more multiple, complex, less limited and more ambiguous fashion. I seem to be able to
simultaneously hold in my head a number of putatively competing interpretations of the
characters, plot, metaphors, narrative, ur-narratives and the show in general. I very much
enjoy that jabbering multiplicity of perspectives in my brain and often find myself delighted
when they begin to connect in previously unthought-of ways, as they have done for me in this
thread. What seems to be your more pre-determined approach is probably a great deal more
comfortable, but I wouldn't give up the messy pleasures inherent in complex cultural criticism
for **any** single POV. Which is why, although there are surely some interpretations I find
stronger or more compelling than others, there is no one interpretation that I prefer over all
others, regardless of you characterization of me or my posts in this sub-thread (cf. the last
sentence in your post above).
Finally, IŒd like to leave you with an image from my life that helps me understand what it feels
like to actively engage in complex cultural critique. When riding a motorcycle down a long
stretch of big-chunk gravel road, you can't over-control the bike. You have to sit very lightly, if
at all, on the seat. Unlike normal riding on paved road, riding on gravel requires that you allow
the bike to find it's own perfect relationship between vertical balance and speed. You can
direct the bike with your hands and arms, and help steady the bike with your thighs, calves,
feet and even butt. But like a jockey riding "up above" his race horse mount, you really need
to lift yourself up off the bike enough so that it's not burdened by your weight or your attempts
to control it that will inevitably counter the bike's own necessary, constant and minute
corrections of speed and verticality. Learning to ride like this is VERY scary!! Giving up your
sense of fixed, uni-valent, dominant control over a machine whose crashing could potentially
severely injure or kill you requires a leap of faith, on two levels. You have to trust that your
bike was correctly made at the factory in the first place, and that its forks are still straight and
its tires balanced. You also have to have a leap of faith in yourself as its rider, that you will be
able to direct the bike and feel, well below the level of conscious control, how to integrate the
shifting of your weight and the pressure of your arms and hands on the handlebars with what
the bike needs in order for you both to make it across that long stretch of gravel alive and safe.
Reading "above the text" feels, to me, like a similar process. It requires a lightness of touch
linked to a clear sense of the direction one is heading toward and a deep respect for the
vehicle (the text) on which one rides. Too much literalism will crash an fruitful and insightful
analysis faster than chomping on the brakes before that perfect moment when you finally hit
the pavement.
malama pono,
redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: silent women of color? -- aliera, 13:53:19 08/29/02 Thu
"If all those "may allow" and "can be read as" statements don't make my perspective on this point clear, then I really should retire from at least this part of the discussion!
No retiring, of course not. I'm sure it was my reading not your writing redcat.
"Reading "above the text" feels, to me, like a similar process. It requires a lightness of touch linked to a clear sense of the direction one is heading toward and a deep respect for the vehicle (the text) on which one rides. Too much literalism will crash an fruitful and insightful
analysis faster than chomping on the brakes before that perfect moment when you finally hit the pavement."
Guess I'll end with a "Whoops" then and pay more attention to the trees! ;-)
Song of Myself 26
"I think I will do nothing for a long time but listen,
And accrue what I hear into myself...and let sounds contribute toward me.
I hear a bravura of birds...the bustle of growing wheat...the gossip of flames...clack of sticks cooking my meals.
I hear the sound of the human voice...a sound I love,
I hear all the sounds as they are tuned to their uses...
sounds of the city and sounds out of the city...
sounds of the day and night;
I hear the chorus...it is a grand opera...this indeed is music!
WW again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> aliera, sweetie, my comments weren't directed at you... -- redcat, 14:04:18 08/29/02 Thu
My post above is a direct response to Vickie's post. I'm not sure what do you want me to do here? Did you read my words as a response to you? Because they certainly weren't intended that way. Sorry if I was unclear.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No worries... -- aliera, 14:59:19 08/29/02 Thu
No worries...just wanted to recognize that you had a good point in your response...that you had made reference to symbolic and literal reading of the text which I didn't recognize in my post. Too much poetry, perhaps; better get back to my lite-science reading again. By the way, I am truly fascinated by the way these threads are developing off the original essay and wish we had a way to pull this together to essay form and retain it somewhere. A phenomenal group of sub-threads.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think I'm with Aliera -- Vickie, 17:28:55 08/29/02 Thu
And will sit and listen again, rather than trying to participate. I, too, thought we were having a conversation rather than arguing, but apparently my more vigorous prose style gives offense.
The "pounding" was meant to refer to the obduracy of the material being pounded, not your technique.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: -- aliera, 18:43:45 08/29/02 Thu
No you don't want to be fence sitting with aliera! If I ever put a clear post together I will frame it and send it to everyone I know as recognization of the divine intercession it probably was!
I really do need to stop posting poetry and take a writing class. Can't put a foot down without somehow getting it caught between my dental work (good to know that the orthedontal work was good for something). I was really directing it at myself because I've had a tendency too often skimming posts and need to take the time the posts deserve. It was meant to say that I should take the time to listen and to also recognize the beauty and the size of the discussions.
Totally OT and of interest to no one but myself is that I've been reflecting quite a bit lately on the subject of the board... how it has opened up in me a need to learn again and challenge myself and also be more in the moment in my non-virtual life, to explore why it is that the conversations have importance to me and to try to strike a better balance on a personal level. I don't think I have ever felt so challenged and at times at so much of a loss...all very odd and disconcerting and well, my head feels very full at times (but in a good way). I can't really express in words the depth of respect and affection I seem to feel for all of you in a way that would have meaning but I do feel this.
To me this attempt to create understanding is very difficult and yet at the heart of the board and very important and to be Hopkinslike, again, very difficult. Anom asked me back in June are the words I post a part of me or once posted a part of you also? I think they become both but sometimes they're not the part of me I most wish or intend to give.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ideas, words and understanding -- ponygirl, 07:34:49 08/30/02 Fri
It's interesting that with all the sub-threads swirling about on communication and silence that you give us a post on the difficulty of understanding and being understood! I agree totally with your feelings about the board, it's reawakened a desire in me to learn and express myself, but also made me wrestle with the difficulty in conveying deeper ideas in a coherent ways. And I'm supposed to be making my living in words...
I can only turn of course to Joss to express this fascination with communication, and the limitations of the ways we express ideas, not only to each other but to ourselves:
"It's about inspiration, not the idea but the moment before the idea when it's total, when it blossoms in your mind and connects to everything, before the coherent thought that gives it shape, that locks it in and cuts it off from the universal. When you can articulate it, it becomes smaller. It's about thoughts and experiences that we don't have a word for." (Hush shooting script, courtesy of Psyche of course)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lovely, this describe so well why I love this board as well -- Ete, 08:03:33 08/30/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: -- shadowkat, 09:46:49 08/30/02 Fri
First, so happy this baby got pulled back from archives so i could respond to this amazing post.
1."Can't put a foot down without somehow getting it caught between my dental work (good to know that the orthedontal work was good for something). I was really directing it at myself because I've had a tendency too often skimming posts and need to take the time the posts deserve. It was meant to say that I should take the time to listen and to also recognize the beauty and the size of the discussions. "
I feel as if you have pulled from my heart what I've been feeling the last few days. And it got me to thinking about how often I scan stuff on the board and react without thinking it through first, too busy responding emotionally to some point I caught in the post or just getting wrapped up in my own words. (I may be doing that now.) My essays are actually much better because I really do check things out on them and rewrite etc, careful not to quote or use words I don't know the meaning of, or be sloppy. (I really have looked up seemingly archaic words prior to using them in an essay. Some were incredibly hard to find and even harder to remember how to spell. Which is why I hate archaic academic words - I can never figure out how to spell them and they play havoc with my head.)
Anyways...I've been lurking mostly on this thread and in doing so...have found some truly lovely posts, this amongst them. Posts that have made me think about things. Sometimes saying nothing and letting things wash over you works best. Instead of skimming, reacting and putting my proverbial foot in my mouth. Something I've done quite a bit in my life.
Now to your second point which oh lord, aliera, you say so well and once again hit me to my core because it's what I wish I could grok to a few people.
"To me this attempt to create understanding is very difficult and yet at the heart of the board and very important and to be Hopkinslike, again, very difficult. Anom asked me back in June are the words I post a part of me or once posted a part of you also? I think they become both but sometimes they're not the part of me I most wish or intend to give."
"Sometimes they're not the part of me I most wish or intend to give."
yep. That's me last week. And off and on this year. Feeling like a clumsy ox, afraid to take a step forward without screwing up my life. I was terrified of posting the S&M essays I did recently. Afraid of the response. Afraid my words would be misread. (They weren't, well not by most people anyway.)
I'm not sure if this is what you meant...(so forgive me if I misinterpret, or go way off topic I can do that at times)..but I've experienced this lately in my life, both online and offline.
Where I've had people horribly misunderstand what I meant to say, and I was left stuttering helplessly wondering if
somewhere along the line I had stopped speaking English and had begun to speak Greek. Words are such fragile yet powerful things. My younger brother and I argue all the time, what we argue about interestingly enough is not the subject but the words. We argue about the meaning the semantics of the words we are using. And since we both inherited a type of dyslexia from our mother - we do have a tendency to mispronounce or mispell or switch the meanings of words.(Visual and Audio Coordination Ephasia (sp?)for me - according to the Menninger Clinic, I had it tested in law school when I finally hit the proverbial wall...apparently I'd found a way to compensate up until then, but it does crop up in the oddest ways - one example is my mind refuses to remember yin =female and yang= male, I keep flipping them, that's a teeny tiny example. It's the sounds of words that will often confuse me.) A frightening handicap for someone driven to write. So I work really hard to pick the right words and well often make mistakes. I mention dyslexia not to garner sympathy - over 10% of the population has it - but to show one of the many obstacles that get in the way of being understood. My dyslexia tended to be more auditory than visual in form, so it took me a long time to talk or make myself understood. It wasn't until I started acting in plays in grade school and high school that I overcame a lisp. And it wasn't until my school moved away from phonics that I was able to learn how to read. The reason I'm so driven to write - is I always found it an easier form to communicate in. Just for the reasons you mention above:
"Sometimes they're not the part of me I most wish or intend to give."
When we write - we can usually go back and correct the words, before they go out. Double check. Make sure the tone is right. When we speak - we can't take them back. We can't erase them. Except...with email and spontaneous posts and well chat rooms - written words have a tendency to become like speech but forever preserved electronically. I remember a friend once telling me that at least when you speak, no one has a copy of it to throw back at you at a later point. So in reality? Writing can be far more precarious than speaking. How ironic. I'm more comfortable writing because I feel I have control over it - yet I don't.
Actually less in some ways then if I spoke. When I write something and send it out over the internet, I have no clue who will read it, how they will use it, or interpret it. I have no control over that. None of us do. Joss Whedon has the same dilemma. When he writes, produces, and films an episode of BTVS he has no control over how we will interpret it, view it, use it, interact with it. He doesn't even own the rights to it (as far as I know) - Fox does.
At least i own the rights to my post, but under copyright law that does not prevent someone from quoting me or interpreting me in a way I did not intend. This is rather frightening. What's even more frightening at least to me is the possibility that I could inadvertently misunderstand or misinterpret someone else. And I have many times, not deliberately of course, I thought i understood. Or I did understand but I used the wrong words to convey this understanding and the more I tried to fix it...the more confused it got. Until I finally realized the best approach was to pull back and be silent. And now I have decided only to quote dead scholars and those? sparingly. So don't worry no more posts will be quoted in my essays, if i can help it.;-)
Bringing this back, sort of on topic, I think Whedon feels the same way. The fan/critical reactions to Season 6 must have frustrated him. Their interpretation was not the one he intended and no matter how many times he attempted to tell them this, they twisted his words to support what they felt. I remember his reasons for doing HUSH as a silent movie - the critics told him he was great at dialogue, silently implying he couldn't do anything else. So he thought, let's see what happens when I remove dialogue.
In the commentary to Hush the thing that Joss said which haunts me (again thanks to Doc for providing me with the opportunity to view this commentary) is that communication starts when the talking stops. When they can talk again?
The communication stops again.
I'm wondering if that may not be the biggest problem we have in our world, we talk too much. Instead taking in the information, letting it ferment, we are too eager to add our voice to the malestrom, to be the one who screams the loudest, writes the best, or says the most. I know I'm guilty of this. When sitting on the fence or just listening, might not be the best approach?
I don't know if any of this made much sense...but these were the words that have been fermenting in me since about Wed of last week. Hope it did.
At any rate, thank you aliera for saying for more succintly and beautifully what I've been feeling.
best,
Shadowkat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ho'oponopono -- redcat, 07:23:39 08/30/02 Fri
Aloha e Vickie,
I'd like you to know I wasn't offended by anything you wrote. I thought (and hoped) that we
were having a discussion, a vigorous one to be sure, but still a meeting of the minds across
time, ether and critical approaches to a text. I generally don't respond to people I don't respect
or find interesting, and not only do I respect you highly, I thought your questions and
comments deserved a sincere reply, which is what I tried to offer. I felt you had some
interesting questions and an intriguing comment (about circular reasoning), but that you had
also either misread or misunderstood my approach to critical analysis on the whole, which I felt
needed to be addressed. And as you had left me with the wonderful image of the silent
slayers each being a hero in her own untold story, I tried to leave you with a similarly insightful
image of a way to think about the practice of critical theory by "riding lightly" above the text.
I'm sorry if now my own too-vigorous prose style has offended you. That was certainly not my
intent. I sincerely hope that you will not stop participating in this or any other discussions on
the board, and I especially hope that you will not do so because of something I wrote. I,
among many others here, value your contributions. You enrich this community by your
presence. Although I am someone who truly treasures silence, I do hope I have not unduly
helped to create it here.
And I want to thank you for engaging me in this set of exchanges and pushing me to clarify my
comments about the silent slayers of color. Your questions and responses have encouraged
me to more carefully think through my initial analysis of these characters, and to more
rigorously consider them as individuals, as a group, and as they can be seen to function
symbolically in the show. I hope these exchanges have helped you in this sense as well.
I'm struck by your comment about the obduracy of the material. I think issues of race and the
practices cultural criticism are often both difficult things to discuss in our society. As aliera
notes in her lovely Hopkins-esque way, however, working through those difficulties **together**
are at the heart of this board.
So please do not go away to only sit and listen. I, for one, am grateful for the vigor of your
mind, your heart and your prose.
malama pono,
redcat
"ho'oponopono": to seek reconciliation through mutual goodwill and discussion
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, that's my head I'm talking about there! -- Vickie, 15:56:48 08/30/02 Fri
Red, the obdurate material is my thick skull! Once again, trying to be creative, creating only confusion. (me)
It's so easy to give offense in this medium. I'm glad you didn't take any this time. And certainly none taken by me.
I wouldn't have challenged your reasoning if I didn't think the reasoning worth it. I don't normally join in conversations I consider banal or worthless or boring. So, ironically, if I'm causing trouble in your thread it's a sideways compliment, of sorts.
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to clear up the misunderstanding (I just typed "misdunderstanding", which is certainly true on my side).
Now back to the interesting stuff!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> which slayers are silent -- anom, 15:34:54 08/30/02 Fri
There's another possible way of looking at which Slayers are silent. I don't mean to challenge the perspective discussed in this subthread, just raise an alternative one. I'm enjoying the discussion. Thanks, Masq, for bringing the thread back! & Vickie, please don't stop participating!
Looking over the list of non-Buffy Slayers we've seen or heard about, it strikes me that the ones who are "silent" in various ways can also be described as the noncontemporary Slayers, if "noncontemporary" is narrowly defined so that it excludes Nikki, the slayer in the 1970s. Both of the Slayers who are contemporary w/Buffy have no problem speaking, & speaking out. It's the ones who preceded them who we never hear, at least in a way we can understand, directly. If we categorize them this way, how does it affect our understanding of their silence?
Certainly Buffy can't talk to them (if you don't count dreams & visions); they all died before she was born, so they're silent to her. I don't know if there's any more to be said about this aspect, but if there is, I'm sure other posters will say it!
Are they women of color in order to be symbolic? Or is it just to show us that Slayers have been called all over the world? (The case of Buffy & Faith--2 Slayers from the same country separated only by one other--is probably very rare.) Are they "silent" to an audience mostly of English-speakers because they're women of color? Or is it because of who they were as individuals? The Chinese Slayer has been called "silent" because she speaks Chinese, which Spike doesn't speak & we understand only through a subtitle, but why would a young Chinese woman living at the time of the Boxer Rebellion speak English? The First Slayer speaks first through Tara, then for herself at Buffy's urging--but it's Buffy's dream, so is the First Slayer really speaking English? She wouldn't have in her lifetime--English didn't exist. We only hear about a Korean Slayer--we never see or hear her, so we don't even know if she spoke English or lived in Korea. Nikki is the only one we see & don't hear, in what is clearly a deliberate choice. From what we see, she doesn't look exactly docile--she's an Afro'ed black woman at the height of the Black Power movement, & I can't believe her Watcher never had any trouble getting her to toe the line. (I can picture her asking why she should bother protecting white people when they have the entire power structure to protect them--I'd love to know more of her story!) She fights aggressively, confidently, creatively...right up until Spike kills her. Her silence is literal, & a lot harder for me to understand, even though she's there to illustrate Spike's story. Maybe her silence is more indicative of Spike's attitude toward her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> on Nikki -- Vickie, 16:03:33 08/30/02 Fri
Yay, anom! I really like your concept of Nikki the Vampire Slayer!
Perhaps the reason Nikki doesn't speak in that scene is that there really is NO dialog? Spike doesn't speak to her either. The only talking is effectively a Spike narration. He even speaks directly to the camera (and presumably to Buffy) from the subway car.
It's as though the storytelling approach in FFL becomes more and more modern as the time portrayed does. William's vamping is very traditional and linear camera work (if I recall), while the Boxer Rebellion feels a little more choppy, as if the camera has started giving me a more subjective POV. By the time we're in the NY subway, Spike breaks the fourth wall and addresses us/Buffy directly. Maybe OnM or another cinematically inclined board denizen could comment--I'm definitely out of my depth here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: on Nikki, et al -- redcat, 22:11:07 08/30/02 Fri
anom and Vickie, these are great posts! anom, I love your description of Nikki -- got a wickedly
delightful image of her poor watcher... (grin). And Vickie, I think what you note about the
camera work in these scenes is very, very interesting!! Good connections here to some of the
other posts lower down on the thread re silence, speech and POVs.
There are many interesting points throughout both of these posts. One comment of anom's
sparked me to think through something.... here's the result...I'm not sure that it really
addresses what you were saying though.... but maybe it's another piece of the puzzle?...
anom: "Are they women of color in order to be symbolic? Or is it just to show us that Slayers
have been called all over the world?"
I'm not sure this has to be an either/or situation, just as I'm not sure Joss initially (or for that
matter, ever) intended them to be symbolic, even though they can be interpreted
that way. I think socially "meaningful" markers of difference, like skin color and ethnicity,
necessarily work on many levels at the same time. They carry multiple messages, are rife with
sets of linked attributes that have historically been meaningful in the broader culture.
Audiences seem to learn to "read" these visual markers consciously or unconsciously, we learn
to "see" their supposedly-linked attributes in complex, multi-layered ways as we engage our
society's literature, media, art, political speech, etc. It's part of our "cultural literacy" as
westerners (this is different but also similar to what fresne writes below about the different
ways that memory/learning/understanding work in literate vs oral cultures).
So casting women from various ethnic groups to represent slayers from different time periods
and global regions, and then costuming and choreographing them to accurately reflect those
times/regions -- or at least to reflect what most of the show's viewers will likely assume is
accurate for those times/regions -- makes sense dramatically and visually on the screen. It's
an effective and appropriate way to graphically represent the historical and global reach of the
Slayer/Vampire dynamic, and helps create a relatively realistic and - importantly - recognizable
"universe" within which Buffy's story can occur.
But the specifics of these slayers' physical presentations, their ethnicity and skin color, the very
things that help make them such effective visual markers for those time periods/regions, the
very things that help make the slayers seem so "real" to us, are also deeply tied, at least in
western culture and in most Euro-American societies, to a whole range of other cultural, social
and historical "meanings." Some of these other "meanings," or perhaps "correla