June 2002 posts
Excellent Tara article -- tyche, 01:16:45
06/06/02 Thu
This article more or less sums up my feelings on the whole matter. While I
don't think that ME are homophobes, they certainly decided to pursue a storyline which would have the
homophobic members of the audience jumping up and down with glee. This article explains why.
"I killed Tara": Desire and Death on Buffy
by Todd R. Ramlow
PopMatters Film
and TV Critic
Tara is dead. Few things have saddened me more on network television than
the callous murder of the infinitely patient and caring Tara (Amber Benson) right in front of her lover's
eyes (Willow Rosenberg, played by Alyson Hannigan). It was a gruesome scene to be sure, and initiated
the countdown to the sixth season finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which aired Tuesday, 21 May 2002.
Having only recently reunited, and having just finished a bout of reunion sex, the girls are dressing in the
bedroom they share when a stray bullet fired by Super-Villain/Nerd Warren (Adam Busch) hits Tara in
the back. A stunned Willow, splattered with blood, watches her girlfriend collapse and cradles her head as
she dies.
Clearly, this was a tragic ending to one of prime-time television's most engaging
love stories. More disturbing, as well as more socially and politically troublesome, however, is that Tara's
death completes what has become a rather homophobic and pathological representation of lesbian desires
and relationships over the course of the past season.
In the past, Willow and Tara's
relationship has been hailed by television critics, Buffy fans and casual viewers, as a groundbreaking
representation of homosexuality and of queer youth in particular -- even if, after six seasons, the "kids" on
Buffy are in their early 20s. Compared to other gay and lesbian teens (or adults), like Jack McPhee (Kerr
Smith), so dampened by his own soap-box oratories and closeting over on Dawson's Creek, the love of
Willow and Tara gave many of us hope that things might be changing for queers on network TV. Even
better, this representation of lesbianism seems to have had direct influence out in the "real world." In
interviews, Amber Benson has repeatedly attested to the massive response she has gotten for her portrayal,
much of it from gay and lesbian teens who found in her character inspiration and the strength to come out
in their own lives.
The social and political import of Buffy has been the message that being
queer is okay. Through Willow and Tara, "we" have been shown that gay folk of all sorts aren't unnatural,
sick, perverse, etc. And given the significant tween and teen audience of the show, this is a message that
might have helped shape the perceptions of a generation.
Even so, I will admit that I have had
one ongoing gripe about the Willow and Tara relationship, and that has been BVS's reluctance to show
much intimacy between the two lovers. For the past few seasons, Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) has been
given free rein to express her sexual urges, first with Riley Finn (Marc Blucas) and this past season with
the de-fanged vampire Spike (James Marsters). In the episode "Dead Things," for instance, Buffy and
Spike shag everywhere in various states of undress, including on the balcony of The Bronze, where Spike
gives it to Buffy from behind while she watches her friends from above the dance floor. Willow and Tara,
on the other hand, have appeared positively prudish.
But, perhaps showcasing Willow and
Tara's morality and commitment in place of spectacular erotics is not such a bad thing, especially in light
of Vito Russo's assertion, in The Celluloid Closet, that throughout film history, gay men and lesbians have
been delimited by homophobic stereotypes of queer sexual excess and promiscuity. On the other hand,
BVS creator and executive producer (and still more than occasional writer and director) Joss Whedon's
skittish-ness about being too explicit around Willow and Tara's love life could easily be read as reflective
of the continuing homophobia and intolerance of American culture generally.
Whedon's
answer to this conundrum -- what and how much to show -- has been to code lesbianism as witchcraft,
and specifically, lesbian sex as spell-casting. Around the middle of season four, the episode "Who Are
You?" established the parameters within which lesbian sex could be portrayed. In this episode, bad-girl
slayer Faith (Eliza Dushku) wakes from a coma and with the aid of a magic charm, switches bodies with
Buffy. (And the sexual tensions between the dueling Slayers become more obvious when played against
the overt sexuality of Willow and Tara.) Tara is, "naturally," the first to notice that "Buffy" seems
different, and suggests to Willow that they try a spell that will reveal the truth. She cautions, however,
that the spell is "really intense" and that she will need to serve as Willow's "anchor" to the material realm.
We then see the two practicing their craft, all dewy-eyed and sweaty-faced, moaning and panting.
Overcome by the intensity and power of their bond, Willow falls backward, in slow motion, onto a bed of
pillows in orgasmic joy.
This representational strategy for representing lesbian sex has been a
relatively complicated gambit: viewers who might be anxious about overt representation of lesbian
sexuality can relax, for the girls are, after all, only practicing witchcraft, while more savvy viewers can
read the codes and find an empowered and loving lesbian couple with a healthy sex life. Nevertheless, in
comparison to their heterosexual counterparts on the show the lovers' sex life has been much more
obscurely represented. Most often, the girls merely allude to "spells" that keep them "up all night."
This changed during the past season, which took that relatively simple and progressive coding
of lesbian desire and sex as witchery and turned it into addiction and pathology. Early on, trouble is
brewing between Willow and Tara over Willow's increasing reliance on her magical powers. In the
episode titled "Tabula Rasa," Tara issues Willow an ultimatum -- either she get her witchcraft (sex)
addiction under control or Tara will leave her. Willow resorts to magic to make Tara forget their troubles,
things go awry, the spell is broken, and Tara, realizing she has been betrayed and violated, leaves Willow.
Following this, Willow spins out of control, seeks solace with the black-magic pusher Rack (Jeff Kober),
and which culminates in "Wrecked," where we watch Willow's descent into addiction and despair.
Once Willow realizes she "has a problem," she spends the last half of the season struggling to
stay clean and win Tara back. Here, Buffy came close to saving itself from its own internal logic of
lesbianism as pathology through the possibility of Willow and Tara's reunion. All Willow's struggles (and
the show's) were in vain, however, as the girls' rekindled love is brutally truncated in Tara's senseless and
untimely murder.
From here, Willow falls entirely off the wagon, maxes out on magic juice,
hunts down Warren, flays him alive, and burns him to death. Throughout the double-episode season
finale, Willow repeatedly refers to herself as a "junkie." But to what is she addicted? The power of
witchcraft or lesbian sex? Well, both, considering how BVS has gone to such lengths for the past three
seasons to code Willow and Tara's spell-casting as queer sexuality. And this has been a relatively new
twist on an old stereotype; now, rather than a psychological "condition," lesbianism is a physical addiction
that can ruin your life, and threaten both addict and those she loves.
Unsurprisingly, the
closure of Willow-Tara story arc in addiction and death has caused no small amount of outrage in the
show's fans. Much of the mainstream press (with some exceptions, like Salon) has been less vocal or
critical about the regressive changes in what has been up until now such a positive portrayal. In many
ways, this silence demonstrate just how easily "we" continue to accept the most prejudicial of homophobic
stereotypes -- apparently most journalistic sources haven't found anything objectionable in Tara's death
and Willow's rampage.
This has also been true of media watchdog groups that we might
presume to be a bit more fine-tuned to the representational nuances of homophobia. For the past two
years, among its many industry accolades and awards, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been nominated by
GLAAD (the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) for their media award in the category of
Outstanding Drama Series. Perhaps GLAAD needs to reconsider, post-season finale, for how can this
ending of Willow and Tara's story be understood as anything but defamatory? This is not to say that
groups like GLAAD should try to take awards back if their awardees don't follow party line. What is
surprising (at least to me) is that GLAAD again nominated Buffy this past year, considering the
problematic implications of the Willow-Tara story as I have outlined them here.
While much
of the mainstream press has been silent on the death of Tara, on-line fan venues have been abuzz with
criticism. Apparently, Whedon was so assailed after the season finale aired that he quickly posted the
following defense on the show's official website chat room: "I killed Tara... Because stories, as I have so
often said, are not about what we WANT. And I knew some people would be angry with me for destroying
the only gay couple on the show, but the idea that I COULDN'T kill Tara because she was gay is as
offensive to me as the idea that I DID kill her because she was gay. Willow's story was not about being
gay. It was about weakness, addiction, loss... the way life hits you in the gut right when you think you're
back on your feet."
Whedon's rationalization raises two problems. First, surely few people are
angry because they feel Whedon shouldn't have killed off Tara because she was gay. Instead what angers
me (and perhaps others) is how Buffy has transformed one of the most empowering and progressive
portrayals of lesbian desire, identity, and commitment on network television into an experience of
degradation and addiction that leads to death.
Second, Willow's story isn't about being gay?!
Despite the fact that over the past three seasons, her story has specifically been about her and the rest of
the Scooby gang's coming to grips with the fact? The story arc that started with Willow coming out as
bisexual in Season 4 has become by this past season about her direct affirmation of her lesbian self.
How can Whedon not see the direct connections between Willow's story of "weakness" and
historical stereotypes of homosexuality as congenital and/or psychological defect, or how her "addiction"
dovetails easily with prejudices against queer sexual pathologies and excess? We are not angry that Tara
was killed off because she is gay and there are so few representations (good or bad) of gays and lesbians
on prime-time television. Rather, we are angry that both Willow and Tara had to be so severely degraded
and punished for falling in love with each other.
[> Okay, I have a question... -- Marie, 02:13:49 06/06/02
Thu
I haven't gotten involved in much of the discussions on this board about the W/T
relationship, although I have read them with interest. While my brain understands and sympathises with
pretty much every argumment I've read, my heart is simply sad that Tara is dead, and Willow is in such
pain.
What is puzzling me, though, is what appears to be an assumption that Willow isn't
going to have another relationship with a woman. Everything I read seems to say "Joss Whedon killed off
the only honest gay relationship on television!". Where does it say that ME won't write another
one? And I'm not trying to downplay Willow's grief by suggesting that she jump straight into another
relationship. After all, Buffy killed her true love and didn't leap directly into another's arms. But she
eventually started to heal, and so will Willow, I'm sure.
Do you understand what I'm saying
here? I wish people would give ME a little slack, and wait and see what they come up with for us.
Marie
[> This is my last post on the subject. -- Traveler, 02:59:05
06/06/02 Thu
I've posted most of my views on Tara's death in a previous thread. Being
the argumentative person that I am, I couldn't let this article pass without comment. However, I am
thoroughly sick of this subject, so I will not respond to any further posts.
"Even so, I will
admit that I have had one ongoing gripe about the Willow and Tara relationship, and that has been BVS's
reluctance to show much intimacy between the two lovers."
This is mostly because of the
networks. After BtVS moved to UPN, the intimacies between Tara and Willow were more frequent and
explicit. Todd's assertion that their relationship was prudish is ridiculous. The Willow and Tara sex scene
in OMWF was as erotic and explicit as anything Buffy and Spike ever did, and there are other examples
where they kissed, touched, and flirted with each other.
"Whedon's answer to this
conundrum -- what and how much to show -- has been to code lesbianism as witchcraft, and specifically,
lesbian sex as spell-casting . . . Tara issues Willow an ultimatum -- either she get her witchcraft (sex)
addiction under control or Tara will leave her."
Magic was never used to portray
lesbianism; it was used as a metaphore for orgasm itself. Another example of this is when Willow
experiences a magic induced orgasm with Rack, the drug dealer. This event alters the metaphore slightly.
It is still a metaphore for orgasm, but it becomes a metaphore for drugs as well. This isn't an entirely
bizarre pairing, since some drugs do mimic the effects of orgasm. Thus, Willow became addicted the
feeling of orgasm as well as the power and control that magic gave her. This is also consistant with drugs,
since people taking drugs often feel a false sense of power. Thus, Willow isn't addicted to sex, even as a
metaphore, so much as she is addicted to a feeling of sexual power. Like drugs, this power is false and
ultimately hurts the people she cares about. This may tell us something about Willow, but it isn't meant to
be a statement about sex in general, let alone lesbian sex.
"Throughout the double-episode
season finale, Willow repeatedly refers to herself as a "junkie." But to what is she addicted? The power of
witchcraft or lesbian sex? "
Niether. See above for my description of her
addiction.
"Second, Willow's story isn't about being gay?! Despite the fact that over the past
three seasons, her story has specifically been about her and the rest of the Scooby gang's coming to grips
with the fact?"
No, Willow's story isn't about being gay, and once she "came out of the
closet," the Scooby gang dealt with the news fairly quickly and continued loving her as they always
had.
"Rather, we are angry that both Willow and Tara had to be so severely degraded and
punished for falling in love with each other."
Where is the cause and effect here? Willow
and Tara both suffered this season. So did all the other characters. Why do you assume that this suffering
was a punishment for being lesbian?
Quite frankly, after reading this article and the
posts on the Kitten board, I am beginning to wish that ME had never made Willow a lesbian at all. They
stuck their necks out, pushed a groundbreaking lesbian relationship past the censors, and this is the
response? This article is an example of someone who is determined to interpret every event in the show in
the worst possible light, as it regards to his social agenda. It irritates me the degree to which people blow
things out of proportion. This show is not called Willow the Lesbian. It's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and
most of it isn't intended as a statement about lesbians. The world doesn't revolve around lesbians. Most
people don't walk down the street categorizing others as "lesbian" and "not lesbian." Most people really
don't care that much, and it's a kind of arrogance to assume that they do.
[> [> Re: This is my last post on the subject. -- tyche,
06:40:56 06/06/02 Thu
i) Sure, other couples on the show have suffered, but none of
them have had the combination of one partner being dead and one partner being evil. Oz is not dead,
Riley is not dead, Cordelia is not dead, Anya is not dead, Xander hasn't tried to end the world .. etc.
ii) Like it or not, ME are sending a message with the storylines they choose to pursue. The
writers said from the beginning of the W/T relationship that they wanted to portray it in a positive way,
that they were aware of the cliches and that they wouldn't fall into them. So they ARE aware of the social
messages conveyed by their storylines. And the message they're sending by having every gay character in
the history of the show dead or evil is what, exactly? That if you're gay you don't deserve anything better?
That if you're an unrepentant mass murdering rapist, you deserve to live, but if you're a lesbian and you
have sex, you deserve nothing but misery.
iii) How do you know what 'most people' think
about gay people? Have you got any statistics to back up your assertions? And how do you define 'most
people' anyway? Most people you know? Most people in the world? Most people with red hair? Most
people with blue eyes?
iv) You're right in saying that W/T was groundbreaking (and in saying
so you're admitting that gay couples on TV are rarely portrayed in a positive light, when they're allowed
on screen), but unfortunately the way the writers chose to pursue Willow's storyline was cliched in the
extreme. [heavy sarcasm] (I mean, certainly every lesbian I've every nown has been dead or evil.)[/heavy
sarcasm]
If they had subverted the cliche that gay people are never allowed to be happy,
THAT would have been groundbreaking and genuinely original. Until now, they've made the show
original, fresh and suprising by taking cliches and subverting them, twisting them around to defeat
audience expectations like they did with the very premise of the show - small blonde girl kicks butt.
And if you have really been reading posts on the Kitten board, you would know that people
there are happy and grateful to that W/T have been depicted in a groundbreaking and mostly positive way
up until now. People have been incredibly grateful to see a relatively happy gay couple on TV - there are
whole threads in the archives of the Kitten board praising ME for their depiction of W/T. W/T shippers
are so upset because they thought that this would be the first time a gay couple on TV would be allowed to
be happy. True, nobody in the Buffyverse gets away without some angst, but until this year, W/T had
beaten the odds and seemed to have a good chance of a happy ending. That's why a lot of people are so
upset that W/T have been utterly destroyed. If you are a member of a group of people who are rarely
depicted on TV, and the majority of those depictions are negative, then of course you're going to be upset
that a positive depiction turns into yet another negative one.
I am a straight woman, so there
are plenty of positive as well as negative depictions of people like me on TV. I cannot imagine what it
must be like to switch on your TV, and the only people you see who are like you are dead or evil. If I
don't like the way straight women are depicted on, say, 'Ally McBeal' or 'E.R.', I can change the channel
and see other positive depictions of straight women elsewhere. Gay people don't usually get that choice.
There are hundreds of positive depictions of long-term straight relationships on TV. But W/T were the
ONLY fairly positive lesbian relationship on TV.
This is not to say that ME should not have
the freedom to depict their characters and relationships however they want; or to drive their show
completely into the ground if they so desire, which seems in fact to have been the game plan for most of
season 6. If they want to have nothing but negative depictions of gay people on their show, then of course
they should have that freedom. Until media depictions of gay relationships - both positive and negative -
are as varied as depictions of straight relationships, claiming that losing the one positive depiction of a
lesbian couple doesn't matter is like saying that it doesn't matter if all black people are represented as
criminals, because after all, you were doing them a favour by putting them on air in the first place.
And here's another article I suggest you read:
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2002-06-06/arts.asp
[> [> [> Bored now..... -- O'Cailleagh, 07:35:37
06/06/02 Thu
With no offense intended to anyone who has posted on this subject, I have
to say that its getting a little old. It has been debated now for around a week, covering three separate
threads (on this board alone!) and the only thing happening is people are saying the same things back and
forth. Its getting tiresome. I am gay, I'm also a Witch. I found nothing offensive about the story arc, its
nothing to do with gay sensibilities, or even Witchcraft, its about Willow's self esteem issues and her quest
to better herself getting out of her control. I agree, all the gay characters within the history of the show
have either gone evil or died, but then all the English characters are depicted as foppish, the Irish
characters as evil/demonic, the black characters are practically non-existent. Willow is still around, her
evil is gone, she is still gay. She will be fine, and she'll get a new girlfriend. Lets just sit back and wait for
S7 now, shall we?
[> [> [> [> Thank you!!! -- Rob, 07:55:23
06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Yes, thank you! -- tomfool, 08:59:51
06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> And yet more thanks -- Wayne,
10:26:30 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Thank you. -- Traveler, 01:41:38
06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> Re: This is my last post on the subject. --
misterd, 13:12:46 06/06/02 Thu
Where the **** do you get the notion that the end
result of the relationship had ANYTHING to do with what the characters "deserved"?
Tara did
NOT "deserve" to die, which is why it was a ****ing TRAGEDY! It was not vengeance, it was not
justice. Her death was a hirrble crime and the ciminal paid for it dearly.
As for people's
attitudes about homosexuals, maybe you should take a moment and look at the response to Tara's death. I
don't see anyone dancing in the streets. It was a powerful storyline, and her death touched millions - and it
was not because she was a lesbian, or in spite of her being a lesbian, but because they liked the character,
period.
There is no "dead lesbian" clice. There is a "dead lover" cliche and has been one as
long as stories have been told. There have been hundreds of tv shows in which the lead has fallen in love
only to watch the character die at the end of the show.
Willow and Tara DID get special
treatment - they lasted longer than most couples on BTVS, and for the most part was portrayed as being a
far more normal, healthy relationship than any other we have seen on the series.
[> [> I'm with you...I think this guy is grabbing at straws to try
and make this comparrison. -- maddog, 08:52:53 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> Re: This is my last post on the subject. -- JM,
10:22:52 06/06/02 Thu
While I think that the debate has been very interesting and
informative and thought provoking, and the article was well written (though I largely disagree with it), I
was very frustrated with the discussion of magic. I think that it is an almost deliberate misreading of the
text to so absolutely equate magic with sex. Magic has been a metaphor for many things over the course
of the series, more often power than anything else. (The only metaphor that has been consistently
sexualized, in my opinion, is vampirism.)
The only season in which magic was used as a
metaphor for Willow and Tara's relationship was season four, and then only for a few episodes. The main
reason was ME's clever attempt to completely subvert the strict censors, who still balked at even one kiss a
year later. I'm pretty sure that they never used this metaphor after the relationship was
revealed.
The subtext to the magic scenes should be seen less as an example of magic equating
to sex, or magic inflaming sexual passions (which IMO isn't all that much different than saying that Tara
cast a spell and changed Willow's orientation), than part of the literary tradition of expressing restrained
desire through sensualizing non-sexual activities. I'm not a lit major, so I'm expressing this badly and
perhaps inaccurately, but I'm pretty sure that DH Lawrence is supposed to be known for this. The scene I
was always referred to was the feast scene in "Tom Jones," which is wickedly sensual, as well as
uproarious, and much more lascivious than anything that could have been shown on screen at that date.
But that doesn't mean that every other occurance of eating in the film is necessarily a metaphor for sex.
(At least I don't think it is.)
In season 5 and early 6 magic was briefly used as a metaphor for
different belief systems and ethical constructs. Whatever Willow and Tara's other problems, they are not
really co-religionists and do not share all moral values. Later in the season magic is used as a metaphor
for substance abuse, which seemed apt, because physical addictions sometimes develop as part and parcel
of emotional problems. (This is also not the first use of such a metaphor. "Dark Age" very directly
equated drug and magic use, and arguably "Band Candy" as well.) In the season finale, magic as drug
metaphor continued, but it also became a metaphor for emotion, and the danger of unrestrained emotion,
both negative and positive.
I feel that anyone sophisticated enough to grasp the "spell"
metaphor in "Who Are You," is sophisticated enough to grasp the instances where magic was a metaphor
for other things all together. Whether they agree with the choice of the PTB is another matter entirely. I
also think that the debate is heated, touchy, and intriguing enough without misrepresenting the text.
[> [> To tyche: I wanted to say to you what I said to Lurker.
-- Sophist, 09:04:42 06/07/02 Fri
I realized, belatedly, that the invitation I extended to
Lurker, in which several others joined, might cause you to feel that your posts were not equally valued.
This is especially true in light of some of the less thoughtful responses in this thread.
As was
true with Lurker's post, I did not agree with all of the points in either the article you copied or your own
posts. However, I think that both added valuable points to the discussion of this topic. Also, if you are the
same tyche who posts on the Kitten Board, I know that you can make good contributions. I hope you'll
post here more often.
[> [> Traveler, please read, b/c I wasn't here to respond to you
before! -- yuri, 15:35:50 06/07/02 Fri
I feel it so necessary to write this largely
because your last post which ended with "Now I would like to just step back and let the flaming begin,"
received amazingly few flames. I understand why - I agree that Tara died because it fit the story line, not
because she was gay; I agree that Tara was shown in the most favorable of lights, especially for BtVS, but
I think you discount to an appalling extent much of the background that fuels the valid anger people are
feeling. I did not feel this anger, I reacted to Tara's death in the way I believe ME wanted us to, I did not
come away thinking about how it played in to negative gay stereotypes, but IT DID. If this many people
think it did, and were hurt by it, IT DID.
I think that you don't give enough credit to the
subtleties of the reinforcement of stereotypes. Let me take, for example, the well known stereotype of the
black guy getting killed off first in action movies. Now, let's say you have the most amazing action movie
of all time, it's artistically gorgeous, the plot is exciting and driven, the intellectual implications are
fantastic, etc. etc. But the one black character gets killed off first. It completely fit emotionally with how
the character was written, and it was necessary in order to propel the amazing plot in the way it needed to
go, but nevertheless, it perpetuated a cliché. Now, I wouldn't have told the director or writer YOU CAN'T
DO THIS, but I would be slightly disappointed that it had to be this way, and I would demand that the
director/writer acknowledge how that scene could have been taken badly, and offer the humble oath that it
wasn't intended in that way.
I see also that you don't see how having a gay character killed off
and her lover get all crazy about it is a cliché, but you must trust those who have been hurt by it -
the angry/psycho/weird gay character has been done again and again, as has the punishment for being
happy and gay. Even when it is done in a way that portrays the gay character as "good," it is still very
affecting to never get a real happy ending to a gay relationship. (I have a terrible memory for examples, I
just evaluate them, make my opinion, and then discard them, but if you ask I would totally put some effort
in to finding a good, large list of examples for you.) I don't think Buffy is the place for having a happy
ending to anything, it is just unfortunate that what is truly a natural extension of the plot actually
reproduces a very sad and well known image.
To try and clarify my point, I wanted to quote
you - When Willowlicious said Thank god Xander is there to talk Willow down with anecdotes about
yellow crayons, or where would we be? A man saves the world from the crazy lesbian. What year is this
again? Just checking. And you say I can't believe you just took one of the most beautiful scenes of
any television show and spewed bile all over it. That was about two people who love each other, not a
lesbian and a straight guy. Well the fact of the matter is, some people will view them as the lesbian
and the straight guy, and they shouldn't be criticized for that because they may just be unfortunate enough
to live in that sort of factionalized world. Good for you that you don't. I don't agree with FUCK JOSS
thing many people have going on, but I respect and endeavor to understand where they're coming from.
Even though this scene in no conscious way tried to connote that straight men in the end will have to save
the lesbians, some people will see it that way because of the place we live in. The conscious intent of the
writers does not always forgive what something may represent.
You also say that No,
Willow's story isn't about being gay, and once she "came out of the closet," the Scooby gang dealt with the
news fairly quickly and continued loving her as they always had. Well, this time I can personally and
fervently disagree with you. Dealing with being gay does not stop after you come out and your close group
of friends deals with it. (and btw, that look that Buffy got right at first, even though she dealt with it really
fast, can stick on a person for a very long time.) You may say that yes, this is true, but the show hasn't
focused terribly hard on her dealing with being gay, but you see anyone who has had a somewhat
analogous experience (I came out as bisexual) will be thinking of it throughout.
Again, I WAS
NOT immediately outraged by the implications of Tara's death, and you know what? I'm fucking lucky,
because the people who were have obviously been through some shit. I don't think Joss could or
necessarily should have done it in any other way, because I think that it was perfect for what was going
on, but I think he should acknowledge people's anger and just be sorry that it had to be that way.
[> [> [> Very nice post, yuri. Fair to both sides. -- Exegy,
18:06:48 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> Lovely post. Thanks for addressing my concerns.
-- Traveler, 18:08:24 06/07/02 Fri
"I think you discount to an appalling extent
much of the background that fuels the valid anger people are feeling."
I'm not sure what
you mean by "discount" in this context. I do consider the fact that people have different backgrounds and
experiences, and if I respond to someone's post, I always attempt to address all their arguments, even if I
don't agree with them. Having said that, being angry and abused doesn't make someone right. I may feel
sympathy for them as a person, but that doesn't make me agree with them.
"I did not come
away thinking about how it played in to negative gay stereotypes, but IT DID. If this many people think it
did, and were hurt by it, IT DID."
Some people will read negative stereotypes into just
about anything. I tend to take the things these people say with a large grain of salt, because they are not
speaking with anything remotely resembling a balanced perspective.
"it perpetuated a
cliché. Now, I wouldn't have told the director or writer YOU CAN'T DO THIS, but I would be slightly
disappointed that it had to be this way, and I would demand that the director/writer acknowledge how that
scene could have been taken badly, and offer the humble oath that it wasn't intended in that
way."
The post I originally responded to was not an expression of "slight disappointment."
It was a long and involved rant. Also, I would never demand that a writer explain themselves to
me. I judge them for what they do, but I don't expect personal concessions. Besides which, Joss
has written a very touching, personal explanation for why he killed Tara, which has been
reiterated by the other writers.
"if you ask I would totally put some effort in to finding a
good, large list of examples for you.)"
Don't give me a long list. Give me a short list of
recent, popular movies and television shows, with strong evidence supporting the conclusion that they
perpetuate this cliche. I'm not saying that such a cliche doesn't exist, but I haven't seen any good
examples of it.
"Well the fact of the matter is, some people will view them as the lesbian
and the straight guy, and they shouldn't be criticized for that because they may just be unfortunate enough
to live in that sort of factionalized world."
No offense, but that is their problem. A
lot of people used to categorize Angel as "the vampire with a soul" and Spike as "the vampire without a
soul." By becoming a slave to this overly simplified classification, they missed or ignored many of the
complexities that make this show interesting. If we can criticize someone for being a bad writer, we can
also criticize ourselves for being a bad audience. This happens when our own preconceptions
completely overshadow the art itself. ME didn't write Willow and Xander as "The Lesbian" and
"The Straight Guy," so anyone who treats them as such is doing the writers a disservice. Nabokov wrote
an essay on "how to be a good reader," which illustrates this concept in full.
"Dealing with
being gay does not stop after you come out and your close group of friends deals with
it."
You place a different emphasis here than the writer of the original post. It is one thing
to say that Willow must deal with being gay, but quite another to say that her story is about being
gay. Being gay is only one small part of who she is. Her story is much more complex and interesting than
some afterschool special. Personally, if I were gay and someone said my life was about being gay, I
would be really insulted.
"Again, I WAS NOT immediately outraged by the implications of
Tara's death, and you know what? I'm fucking lucky, because the people who were have obviously been
through some shit."
And if this is true, then these people have my profoundest sympathy.
However, I don't want them bringing their grievances to my favorite show. I understand that personal
experiences color everything we see, but with some people, those experiences overwhelm
everything they see.
Also, as a side note, if the Kittens had posted an essay as sensitive and
balanced as you did, my response would have been very different.
[> [> [> Always buckle up! (It's not just smart -- it's the
law) -- Malandanza, 19:31:28 06/07/02 Fri
In the old Batman series, there was
always a moment when Batman and Robin hopped into the Batmobile and the camera panned down to
show them buckling up. Periodically, Batman would stop and lecture, ostensibly Robin, but really the
audience, about some moral issue. It was fun. The lectures always seemed more of a mockery and less in
earnest to me. But that was Batman.
Buffy isn't an after-school special. The storylines aim for
maximum angst. Buffy is at its worst when it is preachy -- didn't we all hate the heavy-handed drugs-are-
bad and creepy-crack-dealers-are-evil episode? And the episode showing Riley reaching for a condom?
The camera focused so clearly and slowly on the condom that I was reminded of the seat belts from
Batman -- I half expected Marc Blucas to turn to the camera and say "Remember, kids: always practice
safe sex" followed by some sort of similar remark from SMG.
I think Joss handled the lesbian
issue quite well. Realistically, not some idealized version of the perfect lesbian partnership. The look you
mention by Buffy when Willow first intimated that she was gay is the perfect example. Buffy knew that
there was nothing wrong with being gay, intellectually, but when faced with a gay friend, something in
her rebelled. She didn't understand why and she was disgusted with herself (as seen in her lecture to poor
Riley about prejudice -- it was really a lecture to herself). I thought it was great that Willow's friends took
a couple of episodes to get used to the idea. There was also the scene in the magic shop where Xander
and Buffy puzzled over what to get Tara for a present -- what do lesbians like anyway? And Giles'
response helped set them straight -- they got it. Tara is Tara -- she was never defined by her sexuality.
Other than the brief fight in Season Five just before Tara got brain-sucked, lesbianism hasn't been an
issue. I think was potential to address other issues -- especially when Anya and Xander were getting
married. A moment for Tara and Willow to realize that they could never (under current laws) have a
marriage sanctioned by the government, but, oddly enough, ME decided to make Xander's wedding all
about Xander instead.
I think Traveler is right, "Some people will read negative
stereotypes into just about anything." Evidence that this is one of those cases is, I think, substantial.
Look at all the other negative gay stereotypes that ME has used in the past that no one has complained
about:
1. Larry, the gay jock, sexually harassing girls to hide his orientation
2. All the
"Xander might be gay" jokes -- some with Larry, but one when Xander was describing why Buffy might
be having sex with Spike
3. The homophobic remarks made by Spike (especially in the voiceover
when he made the cameo on AtS)
4. Homophobic remarks made by Warren and the portrayal of
Andrew as the evil closeted gay (and the gay truckdriver, looking to molest a couple of young hitch
hikers)
5. Wesley and Angel worrying that Cordelia's friends might think they're gay ("adds to the
mystery")
Instead, they've focused on the lesbian relationship where ME has treated
Willow/Tara no differently than any other couple. Isn't equal treatment what the civil rights movement is
about?
Why did ME have Tara killed off right after the reconciliation? Obviously to show
that lesbian sex is wrong, right? Or maybe because that's when the impact would be strongest, the regret
greatest, the suffering most extreme. They had to justify Willow going over the edge -- nothing less would
have worked.
I wouldn't watch Buffy if I had to sit through a sermon every episode and I can't
imagine many of the rest of you would sit through one after-school special after another.
[> [> [> [> Re: Always buckle up! (It's not just smart -- it's
the law) -- misterd, 19:53:26 06/07/02 Fri
Hey, you forgot "Beer
Bad"!
The lesbian militia seems intent on finding a hidden message in this incident. Well,
here's one I found:
Don't write lesbian characters. Don't portray them in a believable way.
Don't endear them to a largely straight audience so that the mainstream can come to see lesbians as real
human beings. If you do you will be forever beholden to them, and the moment you displease them you
can expect a sh*tstorm of criticism to come your way because their agenda is more important than your
art. They are nothing more than fair weather fans and not worth wasting time on.
See how
easy that is to find hidden messages?
If you want to see prejudice and fear you WILL find it
wherever you look.
As Jim Cameron wrote, you have to look with better eyes than that.
[> [> [> [> Re: Always buckle up! (It's not just smart -- it's
the law) -- Traveler, 01:55:03 06/08/02 Sat
"And the episode showing Riley
reaching for a condom? The camera focused so clearly and slowly on the condom that I was reminded of
the seat belts from Batman -- I half expected Marc Blucas to turn to the camera and say "Remember, kids:
always practice safe sex" followed by some sort of similar remark from SMG."
Personally,
I think Riley is a walking afterschool special. He seems to always be the one who gives us the "moral" of
an episode.
" I think was potential to address other issues -- especially when Anya and
Xander were getting married. A moment for Tara and Willow to realize that they could never (under
current laws) have a marriage sanctioned by the government, but, oddly enough, ME decided to make
Xander's wedding all about Xander instead. "
This is an interesting point. I think people
didn't respond that way to Xander's wedding because it's harder to complain about the absence of a
particular storyline than it is to criticize something that the writer actually did. Of course, if "Hell's Bells"
had been an episode about Willow and Tara getting married, it probably would have ended with
Tara leaving Willow at the alter...
"Look at all the other negative gay stereotypes that ME
has used in the past that no one has complained about:
1. Larry, the gay jock, sexually
harassing girls to hide his orientation
2. All the "Xander might be gay" jokes -- some with Larry, but
one when Xander was describing why Buffy might be having sex with Spike
3. The homophobic
remarks made by Spike (especially in the voiceover when he made the cameo on AtS)
4.
Homophobic remarks made by Warren and the portrayal of Andrew as the evil closeted gay (and the gay
truckdriver, looking to molest a couple of young hitch hikers)
5. Wesley and Angel worrying that
Cordelia's friends might think they're gay ("adds to the mystery")
You are actually giving
more weight to the Kittens' argument with these examples. They could say that this shows a trend within
the show itself of degrading homosexuals. My major argument against this line of reasoning is that all of
the scenes that you have mentioned are intended to underline the sexual insecurities of the people who
make these homophobic comments, not as a statement about homosexuals in general.
[> [> Well said. I couldn't agree more. nt -- Ian62,
15:50:29 06/07/02 Fri
nt
[> Response and aside to Masq. (spoilers) -- Darby,
06:00:44 06/06/02 Thu
This article is a good encapsulation of why people are reacting
negatively to how Tara has been treated.
In a show about images and metaphor, we should be
comfortable assuming that the writers consider the metaphors and images they're presenting. It is
disturbing that the "witchcraft = lesbianism" image (and Traveler, if you think it's an orgasm metaphor,
you're being short-sighted; rewatch Family and any of a dozen other episodes. I mean, a rose?)
was hijacked into a "witchcraft = addicting drug" metaphor, and now we're surprised that people are
seeing "lesbianism = addicting drug" and being upset at the implications?
For me, personally,
I'm less concerned with the specifics of the "death and evil to lesbians" controversy and more bothered by
what I see as a slacking off in sharpness of the show - to me, they either saw the negative metaphors that
they supposedly were not endorsing and either couldn't or wouldn't exert the imagination it would take to
avoid misconception and send exactly the message they wanted, or they failed to see problems that have
been obvious to people here (has anybody been happy with the "magic = drug" storyline?) for quite a while
and didn't really see this stuff coming. Forget what they did to Tara, this is representative for what I fear
they may be doing to the show. This is underlined by a disturbingly negative tone in the interviews with
the actors lately, such as NB and SMG, as if they are feeling it too.
To Masq - I looked
up Family to make sure that I had the ep title right, and what is said there about witchcraft and X
chromosomes doesn't really hold up - both you and I express our X chromosomes, it's not an either-or
between the X and Y. There conceivably could be a witchcraft inhibitor on the Y. From what little we've
been given of Tara's background, though, I would guess that her "gift" is largely epigenetic - passed down
in this case by teaching more than DNA. She talks about magical things she learned from her mother and
received from her grandmother.
[> [> Ditto to you and to tyche -- Sophist, 08:58:35
06/06/02 Thu
I agree with all of your points and most of those made by tyche. I would
sum it up this way:
1. Was Willow selected to go evil and Tara to die because they were
lesbian? Clearly not. JMHO, the writers chose Willow because they recognized AH's exceptional abilities
as an actor. Tara's death was a natural consequence of the decision regarding Willow.
2. Did
ME handle the story appropriately in light of the lesbian relationship? Borderline. They made 2 mistakes,
one in undercutting the magic/lesbianism metaphor of S4 with the magic/drugs metaphor in S6, the other
in having Tara's death associated with lesbian sex. The first of these highlights the problems Darby
mentioned.
3. Was the artistic effect worth the cost? This is bound to be a matter of opinion.
Mine is that it clearly was not. The cost is the loss of a very fine recurring character; the end of the most
important -- both socially and artistically -- couple on the show; and the destruction of a core Scooby
character. The magic/drugs metaphor was heavy-handed and ill-chosen, and the resolution in Grave was
contrived. AH is a fine actor, and she proved it again, but that is hardly compensation for these
defects.
[> [> [> Thank you tyche, Darby and Sophist -- Raccoon,
00:59:08 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> The Willow Story -- Tymen, 12:56:32 06/07/02 Fri
I
just wanted to weigh in here with something which i think people have avoided looking
at.
This Willow storyline has been in the making since the end of season two. Before she fell in
love with Tara and entered into that relationship.
As the writers have stated. If Oz had been
the one Willow was with, Oz would have died.
This has been built from the beginning. Willow
has never handled emotional pain well. The perfect example is Something Blue. (Although it has been
shown in other episodes, I can't remember them off the top of my head.)
She tries to bury the pain
first with alcohol and then with Magic. (It's our first connection of Magic = Addiction in a non-season 6
episode.) She uses the Magic to attempt to skip over the painful part and it backfires, because as Giles
states her energies are off due to her emotional distress.
So, we've seen this build up in
Willow's character coming for awhile now. So, we can't say it's sudden.
As for Willow going
bad with Tara still being alive. I don't see it. It couldn't happen. For Willow to go the Dark Phoenix route,
the one thing holding her in check had to be taken away from her in such away that it would shatter here
emotinally. As I stated before she doesn't handle emotional pain well and she dealt with it the way she
always does, by burying so deep within that it can't touch her. Under all the dark magics she can muster,
because vengeance is so much easier than grief.
Just my one post on the matter. Had to stop
lurking and say something about what I saw as a natural progression of the character and the story.
Amber Benson is a wonderful actress and Tara is a wonderful character. Stop the hate, neither
of them would want to be remembered in this way.
Tymen
[> [> [> [> I wasn't going to say any more on this topic
(well, at least for now), but -- Sophist, 13:29:24 06/07/02 Fri
I did want to
respond to a couple of your comments and to welcome you to the Board also.
As the writers
have stated. If Oz had been the one Willow was with, Oz would have died.
This is fair
enough insofar as the fact of Tara's death is concerned. I don't see that it affects the criticisms of the
manner of her death or the quality of the storyline.
As for Willow going bad with Tara still
being alive. I don't see it. It couldn't happen.
I certainly agree with this and said so. I can't
speak for others, but I think that there is general agreement that if it was necessary to take Willow that far,
Tara's death alone would accomplish it.
Stop the hate, neither of them would want to be
remembered in this way.
I'm puzzled why you included this sentence in this particular sub-
thread. None of the posters on this Board has used the emotional language found elsewhere. My own view
is that it's best to ignore rants, etc. and focus on the actual logical and factual parts of a post (if any). That
way we don't have to spend time reprimanding each other (a cycle that never ends), but can have a true
discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I wasn't going to say any more on this
topic (well, at least for now), but -- Tymen,
13:47:06 06/07/02 Fri
I did want to respond to a couple of your comments and to
welcome you to the Board also.
Thanks for the welcome.
As the writers have stated.
If Oz had been the one Willow was with, Oz would have died.
This is fair enough insofar as
the fact of Tara's death is concerned. I don't see that it affects the criticisms of the manner of her death or
the quality of the storyline.
I didn't have a large problem with the storyline. It seemed natural
to me and progressed from the earlier seasons to this one.
As for Willow going bad with Tara
still being alive. I don't see it. It couldn't happen.
I certainly agree with this and said so. I can't
speak for others, but I think that there is general agreement that if it was necessary to take Willow that far,
Tara's death alone would accomplish it.
Glad that we agree.
Stop the hate, neither
of them would want to be remembered in this way.
I'm puzzled why you included this sentence
in this particular sub-thread. None of the posters on this Board has used the emotional language found
elsewhere. My own view is that it's best to ignore rants, etc. and focus on the actual logical and factual
parts of a post (if any). That way we don't have to spend time reprimanding each other (a cycle that never
ends), but can have a true discussion.
I've just been reading so much about the topic and
wanted to state what came to mind. Mostly that came from other boards I'd read. Sorry if it came across
heavy. It spoke to me. I'm up for the discussion thing.
Thanks for the
response.
Tymen
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I wasn't going to say any more
on this topic (well, at least for now), but -- Sophist, 14:00:36 06/07/02 Fri
If
you're up for the discussion thing, stick around. This is a good place for it.
I'm going to drop
the W/T stuff for now. I'm sure we'll all get back to it later. Regardless of which side you're on, at least it
diverted us all from Spike!
[> [> alternative genetic explanation @>) -- anom,
18:00:16 06/06/02 Thu
"I looked up Family to make sure that I had the ep title right,
and what is said there about witchcraft and X chromosomes doesn't really hold up - both you and I express
our X chromosomes, it's not an either-or between the X and Y. There conceivably could be a witchcraft
inhibitor on the Y."
Either that or it has to be on both copies to be expressed, & it's on a part of
the X that doesn't have a corresponding part in the Y--that could explain why it's so rare, even in women!
(Um, are there actually genes like that, Darby?)
[> [> [> Um, yes and no... -- Darby, 08:49:55
06/07/02 Fri
...But the weird things about female mammals (or birds, but the XX are
males there as I recall) is that, for all intents and purposes (you could apply your theory if magic gets
expressed in the early embryo), only one X gets expressed in any given cell - the other is shut off so that
X-gene expression is "equal" in both genders. It's that shut-off X that is used in most athletic federations
when making sure that the female athletes are really female (does anybody know if the European Track
Federation test still involves lifting the shirt??) - a quick Barr stain of a cheek cell reveals a Barr Body, the
unused X.
The 2 X's in a female are expressed on average across the body - there's an
explanation buried here for why "sex-linked" problems are on X genes but show up more in males - but
we'd have to get into a fairly unpredictable game of coin-flip-equivalent patterns to try to explain magic
this way. It's certainly possible - after all, no one would deny that there are differences between the
genders that are hard to explain totally due to one side having "Y" genes and the other not. And for the
most part (I'm getting in trouble with some genetics theories here, but from a practical standpoint of
expression I can say this) there are no shared pieces between the X and Y chromosome that would
produce the interaction you suggest. There's still a fair amount of disagreement about whether the Y is a
degenerated version of the X, to give you some idea of how different they are (at that level, the discussion
gets too technical for me to feel like I have an opinion on it). If I was trying for a biological explanation,
I'd move in the direction of female hormones or other expressed genetic differences. We have seen
evidence that both genders can manipulate magic, so in the population at large it doesn't seem an "either-
or" thing. Strangely enough, as a biologist, I feel more comfortable with a sociological explanation -
there's lots of stuff passed through the female (or male) lineage of a family that is experiential or
material.
[> [> [> [> Re: Um, yes and no... -- matching mole,
09:09:39 06/07/02 Fri
As I understand it most of the genes on the Y chromosome
have to do with making an individual 'male' so I would have to agree that the idea of having some genes
on the X that are also on the Y is probably not correct.
As Darby says there are lots of other
possible explanations involving the social environment or an interaction between genes and the
environment. A straightforward genetic alternative is that Tara's familial witch-craft is due to a sex-
limited gene rather than a sex-linked one. This is a more general case of Darby's possibility of a
witchcraft inhibiting gene on the Y chromosome. A sex limited gene could be on any chromosome but it
is expressed differently in the two sexes for whatever reason.
[> [> I never got the impression... -- cjc36, 10:29:14
06/07/02 Fri
Okay, I am, to state again, a straight male, mid 30s. When I watched the
episodes V,TTG,G for the first time, I did not get any assumptions about lesbianism at all . I had
long ago forgotten that there was anything different about Willow and Tara. It just was. Willow
and Tara belonged to each other.
In watching the episodes, I was shocked at Tara's death, and
at the same time hoping Willow wouldn't go too far in her grief fueled vengeance.
I realize
that early in the W/T relationship, spells and magick was used as proxy for lesbian sex. However, by
OMWF, maybe earlier, W/T were having a sexual relationship that was shown, as much as they could on
UPN. At this point magick = lesbian sex was de-linked in my mind. They were already sleeping together
in casa de Summers. They had what amounted to a foster daughter in Dawn. They also practiced magick.
Sex and magick were now exclusive. Magick was now a talent, sex was sex.
In Barganing I
and II, the use of magick to bring Buffy back and to defend against Razor and his gang was not, to me, in
any conceivable way anything to do with lesbianism - symbolically or otherwise. It was, again, a weapon
of defense.
At the end of the seasons, magick was a talent and the only weapon Willow
happened to have lying around when she went looking for Warren. If she had been good with guns,
Warren would have had holes in him instead of skinned. I never got the assumption - and unless I'd read
it off the net, never would have - that someone could take Willow's dark turn to mean lesbianism =
addiction. Or lesbianism = vengeance or evil or whatever.
Tara never wanted Willow to stop
having sex with her, she wanted Willow to stop using too much magick (proxy for chemical dependency
in this case). She wanted Willow to not be an addict anymore. Is this great symbolism from ME? No, but
that's what it had became, a drug metaphor.
I'm sad Tara's dead the way I was when Buffy
sent Angel to hell (and before I knew he'd be back). But when I watched the show I made no jumps to
conclusion about lesbianism - good, bad, at all. Willow and Tara were not 'lesbians' to me, they were
Willow and Tara, and I was sad Tara was dead.
[> [> The symbolism of magic (spoilers) -- Traveler,
16:36:26 06/07/02 Fri
"(and Traveler, if you think it's an orgasm metaphor, you're
being short-sighted; rewatch Family and any of a dozen other episodes. I mean, a rose?)
"
First of all, you are being a little insulting. I am not being short sighted. I simply do not
have photographic memory and didn't remember "Family" as well as you did. After reading the shooting
script, I can see your point, but I still stand by what I said before. Magic is much more often used as a
metaphore for sex/orgasm. Yes, magic is portrayed this way mostly between Willow and Tara, but it is
also shown as a sexual metaphore between Willow and Rack. This is confirmed when he calls her
"strawberry," a term for women who trades sex for drugs. In fact, all of her scenes with Rack had a very
sexual undertone.
Even in "Family," the metaphore wasn't as clear as you pretend. The
metaphoric formula suggested in this episode was Wicca=magic=lesbianism=evil. We discover that the
"evil" part of this formula was a red herring, but the question remains; if Tara worried that lesbianism was
evil, why wasn't she worried about its effect on Willow? I would suggest that in "Family," magic
wasn't really a metaphore for lesbianism at all. Rather, we were simply meant to draw parallels between
them. There is a world of difference between drawing a parallel and using a metaphore. We can say that
Willow has Paralleled Spike to some degree (thanks to Shadowkat for pointing that out), but we wouldn't
say that Willow stands for Spike or vise versa. They are seperate characters. In the same way,
magic has occasionally been linked to lesbianism, but they are still seperate entities.
"It is
disturbing that the "witchcraft = lesbianism" image was hijacked into a "witchcraft = addicting drug"
metaphor, and now we're surprised that people are seeing "lesbianism = addicting drug" and being upset
at the implications?"
I never would have guessed that people would be so possessive of a
metaphore. Let us ignore my arguments above and assume for the moment that magic has always been a
metaphore for lesbianism. Even so, magic as lesbianism and magic as a drug were portrayed very
differently and in different context. When Willow did magic with Tara, it was always shown to be a
positive experience. When Willow did magic by herself, it was often shown to be negative. The latter was
true long before she met Tara. In what way were the negative magic Willow did by herself ever linked
with the positive magic that she did with Tara? It never was. Thus, even if you believe that magic
always portrays lesbianism, you still must concede that it has been shown to be healthy when it is
shared between two people.
[> [> [> Re: The symbolism of magic (spoilers) -- Tymen, 19:55:58 06/07/02 Fri
I
never would have guessed that people would be so possessive of a metaphore. Let us ignore my arguments
above and assume for the moment that magic has always been a metaphore for lesbianism. Even so, magic
as lesbianism and magic as a drug were portrayed very differently and in different context. When Willow
did magic with Tara, it was always shown to be a positive experience. When Willow did magic by herself,
it was often shown to be negative. The latter was true long before she met Tara. In what way were the
negative magic Willow did by herself ever linked with the positive magic that she did with Tara? It never
was. Thus, even if you believe that magic always portrays lesbianism, you still must concede that it has
been shown to be healthy when it is shared between two people.
-----------------------------
Just a
thought. If magic represents sex/orgasm in some instances.
Does that mean that at the end of
Becoming Part II Willow, Oz and Cordelia were having a threesome?
(Just trying a little spicy
talk.)
[> [> [> [> Juicy! -- Traveler, 16:26:32 06/08/02
Sat
"Does that mean that at the end of Becoming Part II Willow, Oz and Cordelia
were having a threesome?"
You know I'm going to have that mental image stuck in my
head for the rest of the day, not that I'm really complaining. Alyson and Charisma are fine looking
women.
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- J, 06:13:24 06/06/02
Thu
Second, Willow's story isn't about being gay?! Despite the fact that over the past
three seasons, her story has specifically been about her and the rest of the Scooby gang's coming to grips
with the fact? The story arc that started with Willow coming out as bisexual in Season 4 has become by
this past season about her direct affirmation of her lesbian self.
I think this is where the
author gets it totally wrong, and reveals that he probably didn't watch the show very closely during S5.
Willow's story arc over the past three seasons has very little to with her "direct affirmation of her lesbian
self" -- that was accomplished pretty much by the end of S4 and in the very beginning of S5. Willow's
choice in Tara over Oz in "New Moon Rising" (S4ABB19) and the fact that the issue was pretty much
ignored until a year later in "Tough Love" (S5ABB19) should confirm this fact. And while there has been
some scooby-gang grumbling over the course of the two seasons, once again the majority of this story-arc
(if it can even be called that) was complete by "Restless" (S4ABB22).
Willow's arc for the past
two seasons hasn't been about coming to grips with being a lesbian, it's been about her coming to grips
with being a weak-willed and self-doubting inner nerd. "Witch" and "Lesbian" are two roles she has used
to cover up her feelings of inadequacy -- just like "dating a guitarist."
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- clg0107, 08:49:15 06/06/02
Thu
the homophobic members of the audience jumping up and down with
glee
Perhaps I'm naive, but how many homophobic audience members do you really thing
BtVS has left after 2-1/2 years of Willow/Tara being a going concern, and being accepted as "normal" by
the rest of the gang??
I can't imagine very many.
~clg0107
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- zz9, 09:05:50 06/06/02
Thu
I came to this site from a link on the 'Board Now' Buffy posting board. Having read
this article and its follow ups I have to make some observations.
Tyche said "a storyline which
would have the homophobic members of the audience jumping up and down with glee."
Sorry,
but making a character popular and liked then killing them off is a standard dramatic tool in the movie
and TV world. Have a look at our board, the response to Tara's death has been sorrow for a favourite
character who will be missed. Is that bad from GLADD's point of view?
Every character on the
show goes through bad stuff. In the last six years Buffy killed an old boyfriend who had been turned into a
vampire, killed Angel, her then vampire boyfriend, Giles saw his girlfriend killed, Buffy tried to kill all
her friends, Angel turned evil and tried to kill everyone and so on.
The point is these things happen
in the show, and they happen to everyone. All the examples happened to hetrosexual characters and no
one has ever pointed out any 'Anti Hetro' bias. But the way the Tara death has been picked on here makes
it clear that if the same things happened to a gay or lesbian character then it would have been
uproar.
Magic was not a metaphor for lesbianisim. Magic has been on the show from day one
used by men, women, demons, straight and gay.
Willow's story is not 'about' being a lesbian.
She is a character who happens to be gay. I don't define my friends as 'gay' or 'straight'. They're just 'my
friends', I don't label people.
BtVS took a risk in having a gay relationship on the show. This
reaction shows that people think that being gay should be a 'diplomatic immunity' to having harm or
misery happen to them. What this fuss will do is make other shows reluctant to having a similar
relationship. Is that progress? Is that what GLADD want?
Progress, to me, is having people of
all races and sexualities be treated the same as everyone else, and on Buffy that means having nasty things
happen to them.
I remember reading Halle Berry say getting the role in the Flintstone movie
was a big deal for her because it wasn't a 'black' role. The script just said 'Georgeous Woman' and she got
it because of who whe was, not because she was black.
I think GLADD should be happy that
Tara and Willow were on the show, were a great, liked, happy couple and were portrayed exactly as any
other couple and if fans of the show will say "I liked Tara and I miss her" that is a great result.
http://messageboard.cinescape.com/Buffy/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi
[> Regardless of what you feel about W/T, this is a disgraceful
article -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 10:49:43 06/06/02 Thu
I haven't posted on
this debate before but I feel compelled to defend ME from this article, which seems to me to evince a
wilful misunderstanding of the show on the part of the writer. Although I think the whole debate is very
complex and I have a great deal of sympathy for the Kittens' arguments (though I don't quite agree with
them), this little tirade just seems to me to be unpleasant, indifferent to the way characters and metaphors
develop on the show and keen to exploit an 'issue' whilst ignoring the story.
The first thing
that disturbed me about the piece was the remark about the 'homophobic and pathological' portrayal of a
lesbian relationship that the writer believes himself to have been watching. This is overstated, if nothing
else, but what really bothers me is how much it jars with what I've heard about the writers' intentions. I
am aware that the writer is talking about what they finally created rather than what they intended to create
but the fact that he doesn't even take their intentions into account suggests a narrow approach and this
suggestion is confirmed as he continues to construct his argument.
A little bit later on he
talks about the 'social and political import' of Buffy and the 'messages' it sends out. This is the level upon
which he is engaging with the show - that of 'messages' - and it is certainly tempting to do this given the
extent to which certain episodes (particularly 'Family') have discouraged and criticised prejudice against
Willow and Tara (and, of course, many other characters). However, I don't think that ME is in the
business of making political statements (in fact I think I can recall Joss saying that they invariably sent
him off to sleep some time ago) so I find this entire level of debate very difficult to cope with. Buffy has
always dealt with characters first and stories second - 'issues' (and I think by that I might mean
'generalisations') have always seemed to be entirely irrelevant.
The writer of this article
actually criticises the 'soap-box oratories' of shows such as Dawson's Creek and then treats Buffy as if it
works in the same way - it doesn't! It is possible, as this writer has so ably demonstrated, to read Buffy in
an extremely negative way but only by disengaging oneself completely from the story and looking at a few
dubiously interpreted aspects of it in isolation.
In this particular case, the focus is on the use of
magic as a metaphor for lesbian sex in season four and then the use of magic as a metaphor for addiction
in season six. The writer's argument appears to be based on a very simple formula: lesbian sex = magic =
'addiction and pathology'. This formula is, of course, spectacularly inaccurate.
Magic was used
as a metaphor for lesbian sex. A metaphor. This, according to my dictionary anyway, is 'the application of
a name or descriptive term or phrase to an object or action to which it is imaginatively but not literally
applicable'. That was, 'not literally applicable'. Magic has at no point been the same as lesbian sex on
Buffy. Did Willow use lesbian sex to float a pencil into the heart of that vampire in Choices? Metaphors
on Buffy have always been loose and transient - their flexibility is what makes them so fascinating. Dawn
is often used to represent the childish side of Buffy but she is still a character in her own right. Vampires
represent emotional problems but they are still demons in a fantasy world. The instability of these
metaphors creates a mythology of unprecedented depth and complexity and leaves enough ambiguity to
allow the viewer to interpret the show to a very large extent as he or she wishes.
For this
reason, it is also wrong to say that magic = drugs in season six. Willow's abuse of magic has often seemed
very similar to drug use (arguably too similar - this is why so many people have been dissatisfied with this
storyline) but it is different. If it wasn't, all of the subtlety of the metaphor would be lost and it would
become a banal, 'issue'-based approximation of the writers' personal opinions on drug use. To suggest that
ME should abandon this complex use of metaphor for the sake of political correctness is to entirely reject
the soul of the show.
Having said that, I can of course see that this misinterpretation is easy
to settle upon. However, ME have dealt with it. This is from the shooting script of seeing red (from
Psyche):
WILLOW: Mmm. I forgot how good this could feel. Us. Together. (a
bit guiltily) Without the magic.
TARA: 0(soft) There was plenty of magic,
Will.
Here we see the differentiation between the 'magic' of their love and the magic Willow
uses to wreak vengeance on Warren in the following episode. A similar distinction is made when Tara
sings, 'I'm under your spell' both to mean that she is in love with Willow and that she is literally under her
control. The complex use of the magic metaphor here or rather the complex ways in which the two
metaphors of magic as love and magic as control interact lead to questions about balance in nature and the
moral neutrality of skills and objects that run through the whole of season six (and the whole of Buffy the
Vampire Slayer). It is absurd to vulgarise these ideas (and they are ideas, not 'issues') by claiming that
they all contribute to some sort of coded homophobia. However it is - and I think this might be a large part
of the problem - very easy.
So as the article powers into its grim conclusion, the writer can
confidently say, 'what angers me is how Buffy has transformed one of the most empowering and
progressive portrayals of lesbian desire, identity and commitment on network television into an experience
of degradation and addiction that leads to death'. This statement demonstrates clearly the twin problems of
a simplistic and unfair interpretation of the material and an eagerness to deal with 'issues' at the expense
of the story.
I am sure it is clear by now that I sympathise more strongly with ME in this
debate but that is not important at all here (the last thing I want to do is perpetuate this boring argument).
What I object to is the facile, sensational way in which this article approaches a very complex situation
and I hope that I have gone some way towards articulating this.
[> [> Very well articulated. You should post here more
often. -- Sophist, 11:05:15 06/06/02 Thu
I say this even though you can see, from
my post above, that I disagree with you. Notwithstanding the considerable emotion generated on this
issue, I remain convinced that it is possible to conduct a rational discussion on it.
[> [> LBR's back!! And better than ever! (Though LBR was damn
good to begin with!) -- d'Herblay, 11:11:44 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> Excellent - the request for more posts is seconded --
Rahael, 14:49:32 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> Adding myself to the heap of praisers--please remain
restless! -- Exegy, 16:14:40 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> Thank you all! -- Lurker Becoming Restless,
00:50:56 06/07/02 Fri
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- JM, 10:50:23 06/06/02
Thu
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2002-06-06/arts.asp
This is a
link (I think) to an article with a similar viewpoint, though a slighty different stance.
[> insensitivity has its advantages -- skeeve, 12:23:46
06/06/02 Thu
If one doesn't notice a metaphor, one doesn't have to deal with it. Even
when a metaphor is pointed out, one often doesn't see what's pointed at.
Magic a metaphor for
lesbian sex? Nah. This one thinks that W & T's references to spells that keep them up all night are just
'lies' that aren't really intended to fool anyone.
Willow addicted to magic? I don't think so, at
least not before she went to Rack. Willow was into having her own way even before she discovered
magic. Remember all the reading she did of other people's files? People very rarely died of having their
files read, but when Willow brought that careless of other people attitude to magic, something nasty was
bound to happend eventually. Fortunately the people in the Bronze came back in better shape than the
cash register in the Magic Box.
Before Rack, there was no evidence that using too much magic
would have any psychological effect on Willow other than fatigue. She apparently did rather a lot of little
things, e.g. closing curtains, with magic that the rest of us, possibly including most witches, would have
done directly with hands. This one saw no evidence that Willow could not have built a house or a housing
project with magic and still not have an addiction problem. She might have had union or legal
problems.
My recollection is that there were people who thought that Angel putting the bite on
Buffy in Graduation was erotic. Whether or not I missed a metaphor, I don't want to date any of
you.
[> [> Geraldine & Christabel -- Cleanthes, 21:22:06 06/08/02 Sat
You know, as a Xena fan, I've heard a lot about this supposed clichè of the "inevitable" death
of the lesbians. Hmm, everyone born before 1890 is now dead. Death is pretty much inevitable, perhaps
even more so than taxes.
I've read so very many accounts of how all lesbian relations in art end
this way. Indeed, I well remember someone tracing it to the 1816 poem by Coleridge, 'Christabel'.
Except, the lesbians don't die in that poem. Yeah, the poem is unfinished. And, yeah, they probably
would have died if STC had been able to want to finish the poem. But he couldn't because his magic ran
out and I think it ran out because he wanted to leave them alive and so they still live in
that artistic place where fictional characters dwell in their final state. (Hamlet's dead but Horatio still
lives, for example.)
So, when you read that ALL lesbians die in art, well, it ain't so and it ain't
been so for 200 years tracing back to one of the first mainstream artistic portrayals.
. She took
two paces, and a stride,
250 And lay down by the maiden's side:
. And in her arms the maid
she took,
. Ah wel-a-day!
. And with low voice and doleful look
. These
words did say:
255 In the touch of this bosom there worketh a spell,
. Which is lord of thy
utterance, Christabel!
http://www-
sul.stanford.edu/mirrors/romnet/ckw/1816text.htm#part1
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- I feel sick, 20:15:18
06/06/02 Thu
I can't believe this.
This is the most stupid, irrelevant article I've ever
read in my entire life. It's as if the writer is begging for gays and lesbians to be portrayed as victims. Tara
was probably the most moral, sensitive, open minded character of Buffy..and she was the GAYEST.
So to all you people running around and screaming that "they killed the lesbian", GET OVER
YOURSELVES.
If you want to reduce every homosexual to their sexual orientation and blame every
injustice on that, just remember that you are doing it to yourselves.
Oh, and just for the record,
happy lesbians rock.
[> [> Why would happy lesbians want to...Oh, I get it --
Arethusa, 05:05:10 06/07/02 Fri
[> Re: Excellent Tara article -- Q, 20:55:48 06/07/02
Fri
I just wanted to comment on the whole Willow/Tara thing, and this seemed like the
most logical place on the board to do it, even though this isn't really a response to the article
above.
It seems that a lot of people use this as a defense of ME in the Tara's death situation: "
Tara's death was NOT a punishment for lesbianism. She was killed by a stray bullet, totally
coincidentally, NOT by a homophobe who was out to punish her" (Granted, I see this on other boards, not
here as much). The problem with the argument is that it gives ME no credit whatsoever. If you are
looking at the LITERAL, then, no it wasn't a punishment. That truly would be like an after school
special. But if you look at it in a more symbolic, complex way-- it is easy to see how the dead/evil lesbian
cliche is at least one obvious way to do a reading on this subject. Since the show has LONG been
heralded more for what lies beneath than what is right on the surface, they are very much opening
themselves up for criticism when they don't care much about the OBVIOUS reading of a particular plot.
That being said, I would like to point out why I do not think it will cause THAT much harm
(by not giving much credit to the audience). Most mainstream TV viewers will NEVER view this as the
lesbian being punished. The mainstream viewer will ALWAYS look at the surface material, take it at
face value, and look at it all with a very simplistic point of view. To them, it will always be the "stray
bullet coincidence". Only 2 types of people will notice the possibly offensive material here 1) More
intelligent people who watch the show on a literary level, and look for levels in the story, ( I am not saying
that only the intelligent view this as a homophobic cliched storyline. I am saying that only people who
look deeper than base level will see this *possibility*, regardless of what side they take in the debate) and
2) people who *related* to the gay characters on some socially relevent level.
The event may
cast a shadow on the writers a little bit in some circles, but the mainstream viewing public will not be
effected as bad as some are saying, in my opinion.
(This post is not as effective as it could be,
because I am basically responding to a post I read days ago, and is long since gone. Since I can't find it, I
stuck my thoughts here on the only Willow/Tara thread I could find, and it lost a little punch. But I got
the remarks off my chest, and that was the real reason I posted-- the therapy of it all!)
Buffy/Spike vs Buffy/Xander -- Diana
Michelle, 01:36:16 06/06/02 Thu
Okay, very nervous here, as this is the first time that
I've posted a new post and not just replies.
I've been thinking about my feelings as a fan, not
just of the show, but as a 'shipper (believer in specific relationships).
I 'ship the people who fit
together in my eyes. And that's why I don't 'ship any particular kind of ship, be it 'best friends' or 'enemies'
or what have you.
Because everyone is different and I look at it case by case.
I 'ship
because of the people, not because of the relationship. My OTPs are always my two favorite characters in a
fandom.
Buffy/Spike can never work for me because it strikes me as highly unhealthy for Buffy
in so many ways (This is still true of souled!Spike. I can't see the good in having a sexual relationship
with someone who attacked you.). And the fact that Buffy also hurts Spike doesn't exactly help their case
for me. Especially since she hurts him a lot out of self-hate. And the idea of B/S!S also squicks me
because it's seems so Luke and Laura. Like it's saying that if a guy tries to rape you but then he says that
he's better and that he changed because of you, you owe him your body and heart.
I could
handle the sadness and wrongness of B/S. I could not handle it if they put them together next year.
Tara/Willow getting back together after what Willow did was bad enough, and I love
them.
Buffy/Xander works for me because, although they're similar and very close friends, they
still fight and challenge each other in healthy ways - they always, always stop the fight before too long
(Dead Man's Party; Revelations/Amends, Seeing Red). Xander is the epitome of what Buffy has always
claimed to want. He's a normal guy who likes her for her Slayerhood and just for who she is. All of who
she is.
[> No need to be nervous. -- Traveler, 01:49:50 06/06/02
Thu
However, it's hard to argue which character belongs with who, since it really boils
down to a matter of opinion. Personally, I like Xander and Buffy better as friends, but there are many
people who agree with you. Who knows; it could happen. What would happen to Anya, though? Xander is
her main connection to the scooby gang. Without him, it's hard to find good reasons to keep her on the
show.
[> [> Re: Anya's place -- Diana Michelle, 14:55:12
06/06/02 Thu
Which is a good point.
However, they've never had a break-up
where both characters stuck around and just had to deal with it and I could see that being fascinating.
Angel left, Cordy left, Oz left, Riley left. Anya hasn't left. She was still connected by the store (which is
destroyed now, though) and by her need to help (which grew stronger ep by ep).
Plus, she
seemed comfy with Giles.
[> Re: Buffy/Spike vs Buffy/Xander -- Elizabeth, 02:03:29
06/06/02 Thu
Regarding a SouledSpike/Buffy relationship: If you go by one
interpretation of the Buffyverse mythology it wouldn't be Luke and Laura it would be Laura and Luke's
remorseful twin brother Steve;). Personally I would like Buffy to be single next
season.
Knowing Marti, I feel that if ME did either relationship they would make the male
character involved into an obnoxious clone of Riley.
[> [> I think it also boils down to where you want the story to
go -- ramses 2, 06:30:38 06/06/02 Thu
And where you think it's been. As you
say, Xander would be good for Buffy because she just wants to be normal.(Sorry paraphrasing)I think
season six showed us that Buffy can never be a normal girl. That her wish to be is causing her great
pain.
Buffy has to accept that she's the Slayer. Instead of being afraid(The dream in Dead
Things)of what she is, she needs to discover herself. This season has had Buffy fleeing from that discovery
all while Spike is trying to find out.
You think Spike is bad for her. But, if he makes her confront her
fears, makes her start to question what it means to be a slayer again, then isn't that a good thing? Perhaps
her crying for Spike to stop in SR was more about Buffy rejecting her slayer side.
In wrecked,
Buffy is pretty freaked the next morning. She tells Spike only one vampire got her hot. And that Spike
was just convenient. She looks visibly upset. My theory? Only one vampire made a house crumble down
around her. She responded to Angel as a girl. A normal girl. She responded to Spike as a Slayer.
Remember later in the episode when Spike tells her it's her calling. She is terrified by what lies
inside.
I think next season we see a stronger Buffy, when she accepted Dawn's help in the hole,
I
think that was symbolic of Buffy embracing her emotions, her chi(mystical energy) and her slayerhood.
And by accepting herself, Buffy will be able to live normally.
[> [> [> Re: I think it also boils down to where you want the
story to go -- skyMatrix, 11:07:22 06/06/02 Thu
Perhaps her crying for Spike
to stop in SR was more about Buffy rejecting her slayer side.
I usually just lurk on this
board, but after reading this comment I felt like I had to respond. I apologize for launching myself with an
attack post, but that's how it is sometimes.
I guess what I want to say is, when is a
metaphorical interpretation going too far? In that scene, I saw a man (influenced by his demon nature, of
course) attempting to force himself on a (incredibly strong) woman, who was able to fight him off finally.
This scene is especially disturbing because most women in RL do not have slayer-strength, and the rapist
is usually successful.
So anyway, it seems to me that a lot of people are such fans of Spike that
they are desperately trying to find ways in which it wasn't Spike's fault or, even better, how it's Buffy's
fault. Is someone going to tell me that she asked for it?? I haven't read all the threads on the rape scene,
but maybe someone did try to claim that. If so, excuse me while I cry for the nth time that sexist notion
has been repeated.
So I guess, here we don't have the "asked for it" comment, but we do have
the notion that the rape scene somehow says something negative about Buffy rather than Spike. Her
refusing to be taken advantage of is supposed to signify that she hasn't reconciled her innner conflicts or
something. Does this mean that when she acknowledges her slayer identity, she'll know to just give in to
Spike no matter what?
Yes, Buffy has given plenty of mixed messages and treated Spike badly
on plenty of occasions, but in a moment such as that, the only thing important is the present. It's a cliche
too, but "no means no," and if that message is dilluted in fiction than it can be further dilluted in real
life.
Again sorry for the attack, but I felt motivated to respond, and I would like to say that I
am capable of greater coherency on occasion, so I apologize for the odd grammatical quirks.
[> [> [> [> Re: I think it also boils down to where you want
the story to go -- Ronia, 11:58:55 06/06/02 Thu
Do you ever wonder what would
have happenned if both Buffy and Spike had behaved well from the outset? If when she said "no" and
meant "yes" he had taken her at her word and refused to settle for the unrelationship she was seeking?
Call me crazy, but at the beginning of this season, something sort of unprecedented was starting. Yes, I
think there were issues besides romance involved for each of them. My question would be, when in real
life is that not true? To me it seemed to be all about choices ( a major theme of the season imo). Bad
choices were made by both Buffy and Spike, and while it doesn't excuse the behavior of either of them, it
did (imo) pave the road for both Spikes attempted rape and Buffy using him to gratify her desire to feel,
without taking his feelings into account. The differrence between the two being that Spike was willing.
Or was he? Did he not also say no on at least one occasion and be overruled? Did he not ask her
specifically not to start something she would not be willing to finish? There are no pat answers to this
scenario for me. Is one missuse of someones trust worse than another? I don't know. Looking back, it
only makes me sad, that they will never know what might have been had they showed some restraint and
some self respect. Respect for others might not have been a bad idea either. The most striking element of
the spuffy ship for me was knowing that once a thing is done, it can't be undone. You can be sorry, but
you can't take it back. Perhaps this applies only to well to the rest of the scoobies as well. I for one can't
wait "till October. Welcome to the board!
[> [> [> [> [> Agree--especially about the "Can't
wait 'til Oct." part ;-) -- Exegy, 13:06:28 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> I totally agree with you. -- Diana Michelle,
16:03:09 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Normal Girl -- Diana Michelle, 15:18:03
06/06/02 Thu
Actually, I didn't say "Xander would be good for Buffy because she just
wants to be normal.", I said that he loves both her human and her Slayer sides. He loves her as she is,
because of her abnormal strength, because of her attitude.
Sorry, but that is different than what
you think I meant.
[> [> [> [> I did say I was paraphrasing, hard to quote
when message -- ramses 2, 16:21:05 06/06/02 Thu
Isn't there in front of you.
Sorry. I still maintain people view BTVS differently depending on where they hope the storyline is
going.
I saw the episode where Xander gets her a job and then fires her for bringing her slayer
thing to work as underlining that while he admires her for her abnormal strength and her attitude, he
doesn't really understand her. I think that was the point of the season.
I can't believe a return to
quippy Buffy who slays at night and hangs with her friends is where BTVS is going. I think(And this is
just my opinion) we'll see a strong Buffy questioning the council and everything else she has perceived as
normal for her. Next season we finally get answers to you only think you know.
[> [> Re: Buffy/Spike vs Buffy/Xander -- Diana Michelle,
14:59:31 06/06/02 Thu
Actually, my perfect series ender would have all three of them
single but with romance possibility on the horizon (B/X together and W with another
girl).
Knowing Marti, I feel that if ME did either relationship they would make the male
character involved into an obnoxious clone of Riley.
You made me laugh! Hee. Also, do
you need 'obnoxious' when you already have 'Riley'? Hee.
[> Re: Buffy/Spike vs Buffy/Xander -- Rowan, 17:18:30
06/06/02 Thu
"Buffy/Xander works for me because, although they're similar and very
close friends, they still fight and challenge each other in healthy ways - they always, always stop the fight
before too long (Dead Man's Party; Revelations/Amends, Seeing Red)."
I think Xander is about
the worst choice any woman could make right now. He is the epitome of prejudice. Just look at how he's
treated Anya during the course of their relationship. He can't deal with her demon past and he's mocked
her in front of his friends. He continually has put down Spike as an 'evil soulless thing' while at the same
time advocating using him as muscle to hel the group. He tried to stake Spike because he slept with Anya,
for goodness sake! What right did he have at that point to monitor Anya's sex life? He left her at the
altar. Then he basically called her a morally tainted tramp to boot. He's shown an alarming
possessiveness towards his female friends and their sex lives.
Xander only reinforces the
prejudices Buffy is already subject to. He's her mirror, not her partner. She needs someone who forces her
to grow past her own preconceptions. That's Spike.
Rowan
[> Buffy/Xander ? (spoilers to Grave!) -- shadowkat,
18:29:10 06/06/02 Thu
Hi - clipped this from my above post on Tara and Dru b/c it
also works here. I'm not saying Buffy should be with Spike or anyone right now. This is just to show why
they won't and shouldn't put her with Xander. It also states why Willow shouldn't be with Spike or
Buffy.
Xander is Buffy's non-sexual confident, the brother figure as opposed to the father
figure - hence her inability to be sexually attracted to him - Buffy wants a father-figure not a brother.
Xander aids her in her fights without physical backup or sexual need. He does not act like her father, so
much as a mirror- the calm voice of reason/her heart. He is Pancho to her Don Quixote. Xander is the
confidant and the friend, to bring romance or sex into it would as Buffy long ago put it - destroy the
friendship that has become so vital to her. He's always been one of the girls (Prophecy Girl, Season 1 Btvs.
& Witch. Also see IWMTY and Into the Woods.) In some ways their friendship is more lasting and more
beautiful than a romantic liaison could ever be. It's important that he never be sexually involved with her -
because then she would be unable to heed his advice or understand it. It would be colored by emotion.
Unlike Angel and Riley - Xander acts as Buffy's conscience -yin personified. Metaphorically - if they were
linked romantically - these two would remain forever unbalanced = two yins and it would stop their
mutual journeys to enlightenment. (For this reason - it would be a mistake to put Willow and Spike
together. And for the same reasons it's a mistake to put Xander with Buffy, it would be a mistake to put
Willow with Buffy - because Willow serves as Buffy's sister self or the mirror to her yang, showing her the
positive and negatives of emotional or receptive responses.) Xander in many ways is more important than
Angel - because Xander shows Buffy what she can do without the super-strength, he represents her
psyche. Another way of putting it is that he operates as a mirror - showing her what happens when yin is
in balance and out of balance - see Xander's mistakes in season 3, his jealousy of Angel, his romantic
escapades in Season 1-2, and his tendency to see the world in black and white and to be very judgmental.
Or the positive aspects - when he talks Willow down in Grave or persuades Angel to help Buffy in
Prophecy Girl.
Remember Btvs does not have successful long lasting relationships - it's not a
soap opera or a romance, its a horror show with elements of soap opera and romance, so investing in
"ships" is masochistic, not that I don't do it as well - masochistic fiend that I am...but that's the way it is. ;-
) shadowkat
Restoration of the Soul (spoilery through BtVS and AtS
season finales) -- purplegrrl, 08:21:57 06/06/02 Thu
First, I want to
apologize for being so late with my thoughts on BtVS and AtS season finales.
For the past
couple of weeks I've been doing some work for a fellow writer who is writing a book on bipolar disorder
(in addition to my regular 40-hours per week job). I'm doing fact-checking and glossary/index work.
There was a statement I ran across in my research concerning seasonal affective disorder: "sunlight is
soul-restoring."
My first thought was what if this were true in the
Buffyverse?
Traditionally, the soul is associated with light and warmth. And we have seen this
association in BtVS and AtS: Buffy's afterlife experience, Cordelia becoming a higher being, when the
African demon restored Spike's soul, and the way an orb of Thessela glows when a soul passes through it.
Warm, glowing (and in several instances almost blinding) light is evident in each case.
Except
that it is not supernatural, but merely physical, a case could be made for sunlight restoring the
soul.
A vampire is a creature who is not only considered soul-less but who can be destroyed by
sunlight. No other demon that we've seen has this problem.
Perhaps sunlight really does
restore the soul of soul-less beings. But because sunlight is a purely physical phenomena with no
supernatural element, the restoration of the soul destroys rather than heals. The soul cannot re-integrate
with the body, and the body is destroyed (burned by the intense light).
Whether the sould is
restored using an orb of Thessela (Angel) or transferred directly into the body (Spike), an intensely bright
light is still evident and the creature still experiences the physical pain of re-integration. But the magic
element compensates and allows the soul to reunite with the body and the vampire is not
destroyed.
Any thoughts?
(BTW, although I haven't had a chance to read all the
posts concerning the BtVS season finale I'm sure there is much speculation as to exactly what happened to
Spike. IMO, Spike should have been a lot more careful in asking for what he wanted. How could a
supernatural demon (living in Africa, no less) possibly know about some little high-tech chip implanted in
Spike's head? When Spike asked to be made like he was before, the demon thought he meant human. So
Spike is not a vampire with a soul (been there, done that), but rather human William with Spike's
memories. On one level I feel sorry for Spike. But on another level I have to laugh at him - as usual, all
his posturing got him no where!)
[> Re: Restoration of the Soul (spoilery through BtVS and AtS
season finales) -- maddog, 08:40:21 06/06/02 Thu
Well, as someone who hasn't
been around, there are at least two schools of thought on this topic. The first being your theory, that he
was too ambiguous for his own good. And the second, which is the one I stick to, and that's that down
deep he really wanted to be human(to be what Buffy deserves) and that the ambiguous nature of the
comment was a writer's trick to keep the average fan sure he wanted the chip removed.
[> Re: Restoration of the Soul (spoilery through BtVS and AtS
season finales) -- O'Cailleagh, 08:46:01 06/06/02 Thu
Some really interesting
points here Purplegrrl. The Sun does have mystical qualities though (eg there are a number of deities
attached to it) and it it probably the mystical energy that the sun emanates that is responsible for the
vampdeath. Otherwise they could wear sunblock and not worry about it!
[> Not sure about the sunlight issue... -- Malandanza,
09:18:42 06/06/02 Thu
I think that sunlight kills vampires for the same reason that
crosses repel them or mirrors fail to reflect them -- it's part of the mythology.
But as for your
comments about Spike:
"BTW, although I haven't had a chance to read all the posts
concerning the BtVS season finale I'm sure there is much speculation as to exactly what happened to
Spike. IMO, Spike should have been a lot more careful in asking for what he wanted. How could a
supernatural demon (living in Africa, no less) possibly know about some little high-tech chip implanted in
Spike's head? When Spike asked to be made like he was before, the demon thought he meant human. So
Spike is not a vampire with a soul (been there, done that), but rather human William with Spike's
memories. On one level I feel sorry for Spike. But on another level I have to laugh at him - as usual, all
his posturing got him nowhere."
I couldn't agree more. Spike made human makes perfect
sense considering his wish and his impetuous act first, think about the consequences after they've
happened personality. Yet another scheme goes awry because he didn't bother to work out the details.
Spike turned into a vampire with a soul -- well, he asked to be like he was and he's never been a vampire
with a soul. The problem is that one of the ME writers has said he's going to be returned as a vampire
with a soul -- and that he went to Africa for the express purpose of getting a soul to make himself worthy
in Buffy's eyes. I'm hoping she's speculating, mistaken or lying, but JE is the source of all the Angel Part
II posts. There are just so many things that don't make sense with this scenario.
Dead Soul
had a theory that the chip would prevent Spike from killing himself after being souled -- if we extend that
theory, it makes perfect sense that human Spike would not be able to kill himself since he can't harm a
human being. And think of the impotence/castration issues! Can't kill people, can't kill demons, can't
even kill himself. What's he going to do with his free time?
Well, there's always
Dominoes.
[> [> Re: Not sure about the sunlight issue... -- purplegrrl,
09:29:24 06/06/02 Thu
***And think of the impotence/castration issues! Can't kill
people, can't kill demons, can't even kill himself.***
Isn't there a Greek tragedy along these
lines??
[> [> [> Speaking of Greek Tragedies... -- Malandanza,
20:41:01 06/06/02 Thu
Speaking of Greek Mythology, if Spike went to Africa to get
his chip out and ends up human or souled instead, I'd say he just made the top ten best Poetic Justice
moments.
Number one, of course, is this great scene from
Reunion:
ANGEL: You set things in motion -- play your little games up here in
your glass and chrome tower and people die. Innocent people.
HOLLAND: And, yet, I just
can't seem to care.
...
Darla, starting to appreciate what's about to happen, moves to
Holland, puts a friendly arm around him.
HOLLAND: Angel, please, people are going to
die.
Beat. Angel nods.
ANGEL: And, yet, I just can't seem to care.
And
with that Angel closes and locks the two big oaken doors on all of them.
or, if you
prefer it from Darla's perspective:
HOLLAND: I understand you girls have been on a
little... spree.
Darla glances down. The camera PANS with her to reveal a DEAD CUSTOMER
on the floor and a SALESLADY, wounded, bloodied, trying to crawl to safety.
DARLA: Is
that a problem?
HOLLAND: On the contrary... As a matter of fact, I was thinking why settle
for a spree, when you could have... oh... say, a massacre?
...
Darla and Drusilla, in
the doorway, dressed to kill and looking fine. A small trickle of blood drips down the corner of Dru's
mouth.
HOLLAND: Ladies. H-how--
DARLA: Your wife was kind enough to
invite us in, Holland.
DRUSILLA: Very sweet, she was...
She wipes the blood
from her lip with a finger and licks it off.
DRUSILLA: Like clover and
honey.
Holland swallows hard, unnerved, trying to appear composed.
DARLA:
Just think of it as our way of giving you what you want.
HOLLAND: (confused) What I--
?
DARLA: I believe you said something about...
TIGHT TWO on DRU and
DARLA as they SIMULTANEOUSLY MORPH into vamp face.
DARLA: ... a
massacre.
Number two right now is the Willow/Rack scenes from Wrecked
and Two to Go, but that may be just because it is still fresh in my mind:
RACK:
Relax. I'm not going to hurt you. But you have to give a little to get a little, right?
Willow
glances at Amy, who nods and whispers-
AMY: It's okay. It's over fast.
Willow's
terrified - but she submits as Rack reaches toward her again...
RACK: That's right. I'm just
going to take a little tour.
Rack places his hand on Willow's upper chest. As soon as he makes
contact, there is a magical BURST OF WHITE LIGHT AND SOUND, and WILLOW goes RIGID. Rack
closes his eyes - drinks her in. Delicious... After a long beat, he lets her
go.
...
RACK (cont'd) So tell me, Strawberry...
He gently
reaches out to touch her face, whispers into her mouth:
RACK (cont'd) What on this earth do
you want?
Willow reaches out, touching Rack's face in return. Gently at first, but then her grip
turns iron hard as she smiles.
WILLOW: I'm just gonna take a little tour.
And with
that Willow begins to SUCK THE ENERGY out of Rack. It's horrible instantly. Multi-colored tendrils of
light come ripping out of his head and body, directly into Willow. The second it starts, Rack screams and
we cut to:
So, want to help me fill out the top ten?
[> [> Well, there's always Dominoes. - LOL!! (NT) -- J,
10:22:57 06/06/02 Thu
[> A human with the vampire's memories has been done before,
too -- Masq, 12:53:34 06/06/02 Thu
Darla in AtS season 2. There really isn't a
whole lot here that would be fresh and new, given the possibilities. Only the chip makes it different from
the Angel or Darla scenarios. And, of course, Spike and William's winning personalities : )
[> [> Re: A human with the vampire's memories has been done
before, too -- Dochawk, 15:05:24 06/06/02 Thu
I think it was explored in much
greater detail (in terms of a parallel with Spike at least) in I Will Remember You. Angel became human,
but lost his vampire powers (as did Darla of course) and hated what he had lost and not even having
Buffy's love was enough to overcome it. But, he fgot a choice which I doubt Spike has.
[> [> [> Similarities are relative -- Masq, 15:51:54
06/06/02 Thu
I think the Darla case is more similar because Angel was an ensouled
vampire who became a human and Darla (the last time we saw her) was a soulless vampire who then
came back as human. For her, the change was instantaneous, she had no memory of the four-year interval
in between.
[> [> [> Angel's reasoning in "I Will Remember
You" -- Scroll, 17:16:52 06/06/02 Thu
You're right in that Angel and
Darla have both been used to explore human with vamp memories, but I can't agree with you regarding
Angel's reasoning for giving up his humanity in "I Will Remember You". Yes, he lost his vampire
strength and he didn't like that, but it wasn't a fear of being weak that made him choose to be a
vampire.
Angel understood that his purpose on earth (being brought back from hell by the
PTB) required him to serve humans, to be their protector. He knew that he and Buffy, people chosen to
fight the forces of darkness, didn't belong to their own selfish desires for happiness but were obligated to
put the rest of the world first. As a human, Angel couldn't save the people in Doyle's and Cordelia's
visions. And according to the Oracles, if Angel remained human, Buffy would have died much sooner
than she actually did. So he gave up his dream of being human for her sake and for everyone else's.
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel's reasoning in "I Will
Remember You" -- Malandanza, 09:32:35 06/07/02 Fri
"Angel
understood that his purpose on earth (being brought back from hell by the PTB) required him to serve
humans, to be their protector. He knew that he and Buffy, people chosen to fight the forces of darkness,
didn't belong to their own selfish desires for happiness but were obligated to put the rest of the world first.
As a human, Angel couldn't save the people in Doyle's and Cordelia's visions. And according to the
Oracles, if Angel remained human, Buffy would have died much sooner than she actually did. So he gave
up his dream of being human for her sake and for everyone else's."
Angel's reasoning
sounded a whole lot like rationalizations to me. Ordinary humans can do good in the Buffyverse --
Xander and Gunn being two fine examples. Perhaps part of it was that Angel didn't think he deserved
such a reward, but I think the main reason he was willing to throw away life with Buffy was the same
reason that Riley waited so long to get medical help -- he was afraid of he would lose Buffy if he didn't
have super powers (yet irrationally loses her to keep his powers).
Yes, the oracles did say that
Buffy would die sooner, but they were pretty vague about it. (And Angel is the "don't believe everything
that is written" guy -- how many prophecies concerning himself have been misinterpreted?). How much
sooner? A Year? A day? An Hour? And shouldn't Buffy have had some say in the matter? This was a
unilateral decision Angel made after he tried (and failed) to fight a demon on his own (and had to be
bailed out by his girlfriend). It was a decision more about ego and insecurities than about self-sacrifice
and saving the world.
Just wanted to say thank you to the generous responses
to my book review. -- Sophist, 09:24:17 06/06/02 Thu
Caroline: I love
GE&H. Another personal favorite is Horton Hatches the Egg: "I meant what I said and I said what I
meant, and an elephant's faithful 100 percent."
dH: Sterelny's book is fair and balanced,
leaning to Dawkins. Segerstrom did a complete history of the whole controversy, but she is so partisan and
unfair that she diminished the value of her effort.
[> Sorry it got archived so fast -- matching mole, 13:43:05
06/06/02 Thu
I still haven't decided what my choice as greatest book of the 20th Century
might be! I was actually hoping that the thread would stick around until this evening when I might have
time to think about it some more. Being short of time I read through your review pretty quickly and
looking over it later I noticed several things that I hadn't really absorbed the first time. Like Darby I'm
not likely to ever read the whole thing but you did give some excellent pointers about the parts I might
find the most interesting (the evo-devo constraint part, species selection, and the part about the modern
synthesis becoming rigid).
Can you post the titles of the books you mention in your aside to
d'H? When I have time I'd like to look them over. I could use the perspective. I guess the way I would
describe it is that I am inside a house (maybe in closet) working away at my task. I find out about the rest
of the house by various people poking their heads in the door and talking to me about it. You are outside
the house but you are walking around and looking in the windows.
As a side note I find it
difficult to respond when people ask me about Dawkins vs. Gould. It is difficult for me to judge, as an
outsider, Gould's stature as a paleontologist but it seems he must have been one of, if not the, major
figures in the field over the last thirty years. In contrast as a behavioural ecologist or as an evolutionist in
general I would have to say that Dawkins primary role is as a popularist. He is an eloquent advocate for
the power of natural selection but not really someone whose thinking has lead to any significant changes
in the field. Gould really did seem unique in that he was a major figure and on original thinker in
evolutionary biology who was eager to take his view to a broader audience and he had the skill to do so.
Pity that I can't agree with him more.
[> [> Books -- Sophist, 14:23:27 06/06/02 Thu
I'd be interested in your nomination for the best book of the 20th Century. In fact, I'd be
interested in the whole Board's opinion on this.
"Dawkins v. Gould" is by Kim Sterelny. As I
mentioned to dH, it's a fair and unbiased review of the controversies by an independent biologist. He
(she?) does lean to Dawkins' view of gene selection.
"The Sociobiology Wars" is by Ulrike
Sederstrom. This is a lengthy and very detailed social history of the various controversies surrounding
sociobiology, including all the related controversies between Dawkins and Gould. The book contains a
great deal of information (more than anyone wants to know, probably). Unfortunately, she is so highly
partisan that she applies an obvious double standard.
I agree with your characterization of
Gould and Dawkins. I have no technical ability to assess the validity of their views, but Gould makes good
arguments. That, of course, is not at all the same as being right.
[> [> [> Best book of the 20th Century -- d'Herblay,
14:48:22 06/06/02 Thu
Hmmm . . . I'm reminded of the fever of best-of lists that
plagued us two Decembers ago. I believe that Amazon's top ten of the century list had entries from Ayn
Rand, Robert A. Heinlein, J.R.R. Tolkein and L. Ron Hubbard, so special interest groups (and nerds are a
special interest group) tend to dominate. Reflective of this was that one poll on the best book of the
millennium was overwhelmingly won by the Bible, which was then disqualified (for tautological reasons),
and The Lord of the Rings was named the winner.
But the nature of this board is
antithetical to some grand consensus on the book of the century (unless we vote for the season two scripts,
volume two). I am very interested in hearing what obscure titles people come up with. I would like to say
though that I draw a sharp distinction (as any Philip K. Dick fan must) between best and my
favorite. The best book might be something trivial like The Great Gatsby or Civilization
and its Discontents, while my own idiosyncratic favorite (Crosstown Traffic, by Charles Shaar
Murray [a Buffybuff!!!]) blows any such quality book out of the water.
[> [> [> [> I don't expect agreement. I'm just looking for
what I might have missed. -- Sophist, 17:57:54 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> I'll bite -- dream of the consortium,
10:45:32 06/07/02 Fri
The 20th isn't exactly my favorite, reading-wise, but I'll throw
in my probably-dangerously-off-the-cuff responses:
Best fiction : Lolita
Best non-fiction :
Robert Caro's Power Broker
Most personally beloved fiction (as in, deep in my heart of hearts, which
book would I be most crushed if I could never read again): Same as when I was ten, The Once and Future
King, T.H. White
Most personally beloved author: Robertson Davies
Favorite author (as in,
whose books am I most excited to read or re-read): Iris Murdoch
Favorite author non-fiction: M.F.K.
Fisher
Favorite (and could make a good argument for best) short story writer: William Trevor
(Though on a desert island, I might beg for Shirley Jackson, too)
Fiction author I would like more
people to read: Tie for first Steven Millhauser/Dawn Powell
Author I consider most overrated: Tie
for first John Updike/
Joyce Carol Oakes
I know these sorts of lists are just about as
antithetical to serious discussion and understanding as you can get, but I find them completely addictive.
I would read a list of anyone's favorite books; I'm as hopeless before them as I am before the want ads
("oooh, look, someone is selling a collection of thrity bird cages for $50 - why would someone do that?
Who would have thirty bird cages to sell?"). Would love to see other posters favorites.
[> [> [> [> [> I loved Lolita -- Sophist,
13:03:32 06/07/02 Fri
But didn't you need to keep a dictionary next to you while
reading it? I sure did.
[> [> [> [> [> Hee--love The Once and Future King!
(My Personal Rave follows) -- Exegy, 15:18:51 06/07/02 Fri
I discovered that
book (actually, a collection of four books) at about the same age you did, and nine (relatively long) years
later I still recall it with the greatest affection. The work evokes the strongest of emotions; I've laughed
and cried every time I've read it. The progression of the work is amazing: I love how it builds from the
cheerfully innocent days of Wart (a boy who doesn't realize the glory--and the immense burden--of his
future title) to the tragic ending. We get the first hints of real darkness with Queen Morgause (her twisted
relationship with her four sons opens the second book just as her liaison with Arthur to beget another
child closes it, planting the seeds of doom for all). Then we move on to the tragic romance of Lancelot and
Guinevere (The Ill-made Knight is my favorite of the books, guaranteed to inspire some tears; the scene
where Guinevere drives her lover insane--beautifully executed). The last book deals with the dissolution of
Arthur's idyllic Camelot; the son he so wants to love (Mordred) proves the agent of his fall.
Arthur remains a good and fairly simple man throughout; he is that same Wart, grown up to
greatness and all the misfortunes that a kingship entails. One gets the feeling that this innocent boy of a
man has always been in over his head (especially with the removal of his mentor Merlin). He doesn't
understand why things should be so terribly complicated, why people can't just get along (as the geese
could). He wants things to be good and perfect--hence the dream of Camelot and the Round Table, hence
the desire to get along with his only son. But dreams are not reality; Arthur is sadly disabused of his
ideals. He becomes a cuckold, a pathetic figure who cannot hold his marriage or his kingdom together. He
is betrayed by those he holds most dear: his Queen, his best knight, and his son.
Yet Arthur
clings to his dreams even in his darkest hour. We see him passing the torch (the candle in the wind) to a
young boy--a young boy who is very much the image of the Wart who once was. And so we see Arthur's
ideals kept alive (if only in the innocence of youth). As long as the wind does not extinguish that candle,
as long as there are people who can dream--the possibility of Camelot will be kept alive. The possibility
may never be realized, but that is not the purpose of dreams. The purpose of dreams is to get us to work
for something better, to come that much closer to dissolving the boundaries between ourselves (the lesson
of the peaceful geese versus the warring ants). A beautiful close to a beautiful book.
And I love
the comic interludes that dominate The Sword and the Stone and continue to lighten the later, darker
books. The running gag of the Questing Beast--hilarious!
One final note to dream: I totally
agree with you about John Updike being one of the most overrated authors. I've read a few of his books
and I just don't see the appeal. There are so many novelists who are better.
[> [> [> [> [> And List of my Favorite Fiction (long but
still incomplete) -- Exegy, 16:31:08 06/07/02 Fri
I'm a voracious reader, so here
are just some of my fave works (not all of which I'd define as the "best" works).
For light
reading (so sue me, I'm a fantasy buff):
(in no particular order)
--collected fiction of
J.R.R. Tolkien (daddy of modern epic fantasy, must give him credit)
--Watership Down (The Plague
Dogs is disqualified due to a truly hideous ending, don't get me started)
--Chronicles of
Narnia
--Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series (not his Conan serials)
--Stephen King's works
(especially The Dark Tower series, It, The Stand, Pet Sematary, The Mist, The Long Walk, other
novellas/short stories)
--Robin Hobb's books
--Dragonlance stories (fond memories of my
youth)
--Redwall series (once again, youthful delight plays a part)
--Philip Pullman's His Dark
Materials trilogy (great juvenile fiction, by far superior to Harry Potter--although Potter also provides
entertainment)
--Where the Red Fern Grows (tearjerker)
--Lloyd Alexander's Prydain
Chronicles (more great juvenile fantasy, esp. The Black Cauldron and The High King)
--Madeline
L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time (youth classic)
--Lois Lowry's The Giver (another youth
classic)
For more serious reading:
--Shakespeare's plays (do I have to
explain?)
--The Divine Comedy (ditto)
--Don Quixote (ditto again)
--100 Years of
Solitude (this novel uses imagery to GOOD effect, the tie-in from the end to the beginning is amazing,
makes me almost cry)
--Gone with the Wind (sweeping romance with some realism thrown in, nice
characterization)
--Huckleberry Finn (there's a reason this is required reading in HS)
--1984
& Animal Farm (love dystopian visions, also any work that inspires the movie Brazil is good enough
for me)
--Brave New World (see above on dystopias)
--Heart of Darkness (can be analyzed on
many levels, great)
--Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged (don't agree entirely with her
Objectivism, but gotta give her credit for so clearly defining her philosophy in these novels)
--Anna
Karenina (only Tolstoy I've read so far, soon to be remedied)
--Lord of the Flies (nice
symbolism)
--Homer's works (esp. The Odyssey)
--The Oresteia (hee, the cycle of vengeance
described)
--The Snows of Kilimanjaro, other Hemingway stories
--The Aeneid (whew, almost
forgot)
--One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
--Spenser's The Faerie Queen (love imagery)
-
-Invisible Man (Ralph Ellison)
--Inherit the Wind (great play)
--satires (Moliere, Swift,
Heller)
--Chekhov and H. James (love psychological characterization)
Okay, I feel bad
because I'm blanking on some other great works. These are all I could think of offhand, but they're enough
to counterbalance all the derivative crap I've read in nineteen short years. If I had to pick the "best" of the
bunch, I'd go with Shakespeare's collected plays and The Divine Comedy. I can't choose between these
Western canon classics. They both get to share top honors.
This list doesn't consider nonfiction
works, of course.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And List of my Favorite Fiction
(long but still incomplete) -- Q, 21:11:59 06/07/02 Fri
A lot of great stuff listed
here! Loved "Lolita", and "Invisible Man". I also love the dystopias, " Animal Farm" and "1984", and
what about "The Hand Maids Tale". I think "Animal Farm" is my favorite because of the truly great
closing image! And for closing images in a novel, what about "The Grapes of Wrath"! And one more
dystopia-ish novel I am going to throw a bone to: " A Clockwork Orange". Critically bashed at times for
it's didactism and simplicity, not to mention the cop-out ending, it NEEDS kudos for the way it was
written. Though it will never rank as one of the best because of the story or plot, I think it deserves to
rank as one of the best because of its form. Written to mimic a classical symphony, with three movements
exactly in proportion with each other (7 chapters each), it develops the way a composer of music would,
introducing the theme, then developing the theme through musical tools such as inversion and retrograde.
Wonderful stuff if looked at through a musicians eyes. Also loved how it created it's own wonderfully
catchy language! Plus, ME owes SO much to it for the entire Spike story line, that it must be
acknowledged by Buffy fans!
So many great novels, but " A prayer for Owen Meany" was
brought up earlier this week, and so I don't want to overlook that, either. And since "Invisible Man" was
brought up, what about the works of Richard Wright, like "Native Son".
You know, we could
probably go on forever with this (off) topic!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree. The final images of
Animal Farm (and 1984) are great! (Sp