My Buffyholism is Showing

Wherein I show my cynicism

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:34:40 GMT

Newsletter peeps! Please don't link to this post! Thank you!

Individuals, if you're writing an entry in response, you are free to link.

This may not be the most popular of entries. Ah well.

shadowkat67's post about fannish history and Mark Watches spurred thoughts.

I'm largely enjoying following along with Mark Watches. It's something of a nostalgia trip, though he holds fairly different opinions than I did (and do).

But...I'm left feeling weird.

This guy, he's very good at marketing. Kudos to him.

The Mark Does Stuff thing doesn't look like his full-time job, but it is providing some money. He has merchandise, including t-shirts and e-books of his blog posts. He also uses his experience maintaining the community on his LinkedIn profile, so it's providing him job experience.

I feel weird cause...I don't feel at all comfortable doing any of that. Merchandise? Huh? Selling e-books of past posts? Eh. Putting this journal on a resume? WTF! No way! Though I suppose I did get some money when I got published in Whedonistas, so maybe I'm being a huge ol' hypocrite. Huh.

And yet, Mark isn't subjecting the series to much in the way of in-depth analysis. He's reacting emotionally for the most part, which is fine. It's how I first watched the show. Thing is, we're eating it up, not so much because it sparks new understanding of the show, but because it nostalgically reanimates our love for the series.

The guy has an audience simply to consume media and post fairly short reactions to it.

That's so WEIRD.

I don't know what to make of it. I think the attraction is that it validates fandom's love for the series. I've heard that he disliked Twilight, but I think even that plays into the genre fandom's hatred of Twilight (which typically appeals to non-genre fans, from what I've seen).

I guess I feel weirded out by the comparison between what Mark is doing and what us other fans are doing. A lot of us put a lot of hours and energy into our fandom, whether it be with graphics or fanfic or meta or whatever. We don't receive any professional or financial compensation because it's a labor of love. Not so with Mark. He's found a niche in the blogosphere with a built-in audience and he's working with it.

That's smart on him.

But it makes me feel a bit on the dumb side. Hrm.

My thoughts, they are conflicted, you guys.

This entry was originally posted at http://gabrielleabelle.dreamwidth.org/356639.html. There are comments on the DW side. Comment over there or over here. Roger! Over and out!

Alas, I have no Wordy icons at this moment...

Thu, 12 May 2011 01:15:09 GMT

So, Andrew and I were discussing fanfic a while ago. He doesn't "get" it. He approaches fiction differently than I do, and his approach isn't conducive to ficcing. That's cool.

However, then he started asking about slash, because that really puzzled him (and since he's an outsider to fandom, slash is the Big Weird Thing that he hears about a lot). At first, I withheld from commenting on the grounds that I'm not a slasher. However, after another thought, I told him that I had written some slash - my Closet series featuring Willow/Cordelia.

When he asked me why I had written it, I explained how I thought the two characters had interesting interactions but that their relationship fell by the wayside in canon as the series went on. My fic is an attempt to fill in the gaps, as it were.

Andrew got that, but then he asked if it wasn't possible to do such a thing without the romantic element. You know, with them just as friends.

Well, that stumped me.

After some consideration, I fell back on the: "Well, they're just hot together" reason. Which worked for Andrew, but it didn't quite satisfy me (though it is quite true).

Now I've put more thought on it, and I don't know that I'd have ever written Willow/Cordy if I weren't in fandom. By that, I mean that fandom shapes the bounds of what I write as I'm all absorbed in fannish culture. Hell, a lot of fics would never have been written were I not in fandom, as they're often in response to or directed towards a fandom audience.

The Wordy is different, though, in that it's in response to fandom's romance-centric structure. Well, maybe narrow that down to the fanfic part of fandom. Fanfic is a ship-heavy arena. Archives tend to divide things up into pairings, and genfic's place is oft-debated.

Once I sussed on to that, the reason why I went the Willow/Cordy sexy-times route rather than the Willow/Cordy friendship route makes sense. Fanfic tends to default to romantic pairings in one way or another. So when I want to explore a relationship between two characters, the go-to way of doing so is to hook them up (I did the same with Robin and Spike in Intimacy, come to think of it).

This romance-centric aspect is to the point where a genfic written by a Spuffy fan would probably look different, have a different audience, and end up on different comms/archives than one written by a Bangel fan. Cause fanfic fandom tends to fracture around pairings (not to ignore the people who span the gaps, of course).

I found this all interesting. Now I'm pondering on the follow-up question of why fanfic tends to fall along such lines. My initial guess is that it's to do with it being female-dominated, but that seems a cursory answer to me. Join me in my mulling?

Let's gay!

Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:46:35 GMT

The title of this post has nothing to do with the content. That line just always makes me giggle.

You know what? People need to talk more about how incredibly Spuffy First Date is. And by "people" I mean me.

At the very beginning of the episode, Giles flat-out tells Buffy: "There's a connection. You rely on him, he relies on you."

Course, this is in the midst of an argument wherein Giles explicitly says that Buffy's "feelings for" Spike are clouding her judgment. I believe local_max has had some thoughts lately about Giles' response to Spike in S7 being rooted in old Angel issues. Watching this episode is interesting in that light.

It's also interesting to think about how Buffy reacts to this. In seasons 1-3, at various points, she was accused of being too emotionally attached to Angel. In light of such a criticism in S7, she promptly accepts a maybe-date with Principal Wood. Perhaps in an attempt to disassociate herself from Spike so that Giles will not continue to question her decisions?

I wish we'd seen more of the post-Showtime recovery, because it does seem that Spike and Buffy got significantly closer during then. In Potential, the following episode, Spike's not staying in the basement. We see the potentials down there in a few scenes, and Spike's cot is not set up. He's also still healing from The First's torture. Where's he sleeping?

In The Killer in Me, as soon as Giles takes the potentials out of the house, Buffy goes down to the basement with Spike. She doesn't have any particular reason to. They're just talking. Like friends.

Then, of course, she decides to have Spike's chip removed rather than repaired by the end of that episode - a decision Giles admonishes her for. Once Giles does so, citing his perception that she's too close to Spike, we see Buffy immediately back off.

I wonder if Buffy, despite her declaration of extra-missiony attachment to Spike at the end of the episode, will continue to attempt to maintain a distance to placate Giles in order to uphold her authority. I'm gonna watch out for that.

Anyway, the rest of the episode! Buffy checking on Spike after the fight. Love it. She places a hand on his arm, and they share a LOOK, and he puts his hand over hers. You can see the kinda-date with Wood just kinda go kablooey there. Buffy's attentions are elsewhere.

I know the scene between Buffy and Spike at the end is controversial among Spuffy fans. Some see it as incredibly hopeful and sweet. Others see it as Buffy making demands of Spike without giving him any real indication of her feelings. I love S7 Spuffy so I tend to the former, personally.

Spike's wanting to leave because The First is back. Without his chip, he's concerned that his "time" will come and The First will use him to kill the potentials. He wants to be away - far away. It seems likely there's a bit of resigned defeat, too. Spike ostensibly was okay with Buffy's date, but his jump-the-gun attempts to go fetch Buffy as soon as trouble reared its head suggests he wasn't quite as okay as he wanted her to think he was. So he's offering to bow out because they "have another demon fighter now" (Wood).

Buffy is adamant that he stay. She explicitly tells him that the demon fighting is not why she needs him. When Spike questions further, Buffy tells him: "'Cause I'm not ready for you to not be here."

An ambiguous answer, to be sure, but it gets the message across. Buffy needs Spike. Not just for fighting stuff, but because he provides something for her that she can't do without. Spike asks her about Wood, then, asking how he fits in. Buffy doesn't respond, but the answer is obvious: he doesn't. (Seriously, is Buffy/Robin even mentioned in following episodes?)

Taking things to the meta level, Wood represents Buffy's attempt at a romantic detachment from Spike. It doesn't pan out. And the end has her telling Spike, essentially, "No, I don't want Robin as my big love interest for the season. I need you for that."

Why doesn't she just come out and say it? I'm starting to wonder if Giles' protestations at the beginning of the episode play a large part in her reticence. It makes her walk a fine line of caring about Spike and wanting him to know, but also trying not to be perceived as having her judgment clouded by her feelings.

Gah, I love the Spuffy of this season! I mean, yeah, the plot and all is wonky, but the Spuffy? That makes me squee. Uh...obviously. Wow, that got long.

Leaving me is BAD

Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:13:16 GMT

Okay, so I'm sick (upper respiratory infection FTW!), but I can't help but have thoughts about Never Leave Me, which I watched last night.

It's a weird episode. It has no narrative climax and resolution. Stuff just...happens. Though I guess it's supposed to be taken along with Bring on the Night and Showtime, but it still makes for an odd episode to watch as a one-off.

I was struck by the recurrent theme of overtures of or allusions to power. It starts with Principal Wood bluffing to the two boys about what he could do to them with his authority as principal. We additionally get Andrew alluding to his special power when faced with Willow. In turn, Willow makes reference to her dark power to intimidate Andrew. Then Xander expounds at length about Anya's powers to intimidate Andrew. Finally, Spike shares stories with Buffy in an attempt to paint a picture of his potentially dangerous power.

I can only take this in the context of the wider "power" theme of S7, because Never Leave Me doesn't do much more than present this. Though, again, maybe I'll pick up something in the next two episodes.

I also found the conversation between Buffy and Spike in the basement to be interesting. I'm rethinking my thoughts that Buffy had reconsidered her worldview on vampires post-BY.

When Spike goes on about torturing and killing girls in his past, Buffy refutes him with: "It's not your fault. You're not the one doing this."

Later she says, "Be easier, wouldn't it, it if were an act, but it's not. You faced the monster inside of you and you fought back. You risked everything to be a better man."

I'm not sure what to make of her statements. It seems she and Spike are speaking at two different angles, and they don't really line up until Buffy just tells him she believes in him.

But before that? When she says she "saw [him] change", is she talking about getting the soul? Or things he did before getting the soul? After all, she also notes, "You fought by my side. You've saved lives. You've helped - "

She has to be referring to pre-soul Spike there, as post-soul Spike really hasn't done much of that (yet).

So what are we seeing here with Buffy's views? Is she rethinking her Angelus-influenced ideology that soulless vampires are distinct from their souled counterparts? Or is she rationalizing Spike as an exception? Or is she only taking notice because of the soul?

I don't know. I find Buffy hard to read in this episode. She's very shut down. Even when her actions are tender, her expression is cold. I know this is part of the NLM/BotN/ST arc because, well, compare this closed offedness with HER FACE OF LOVE when she rescues Spike in Showtime. But at this point, I'm not sure what to take away from her.

I think Spike feels the same way, as he gets increasingly frustrated through the episode until she tells him she believes in him. That cuts through all the ambiguity, and he gets that. Hell, he holds it with him for the next two episodes as The First tortures him so it obviously made an impact.

Regardless of all that, Spike is obviously her sole focus. Well, he had been in Sleeper, too. Here it's even more apparent, though, given how little attention she pays to Andrew's arrival. Buffy is never not talking about or dealing with Spike in this episode. He's a big deal for her.

Eh. We'll see if I pick up on anything in the next couple episodes. Y'all discuss. I'm feeling woozy and in need of a lie-down.

Huh

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:32:45 GMT

Hey, did I miss a memo? Is there a rift between soulless Spike/Buffy fans and souled Spike/Buffy fans?

Okay, that phrasing makes it sound like the fans, themselves, are soulless. Y'all know what I mean.

I was surprised to see a couple posts about it (older posts by internet time, but I'm slow sometimes). I mean, are we gonna have to bring out the all-penguin Spuffy AUs to unite the ship again? Cause we can.

I guess I haven't noticed any rift (Putting aside the history of the ship where I know that was a deal). I know that people have their own personal interpretations of canon and fanfic preferences, and that the two may or may not correlate with each other. Like, I don't think Spuffy is particularly feasible in canon while Spike is soulless, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading fanfic with such a scenario. Likewise, I think Spuffy in S4 is such a long-shot as to be laughable in canon (as it was in Something Blue), but I adore S4 Spuffy fanfic.

So if there's a rift, can I stand in the middle? Anybody else enjoy fanfic about something that they don't grok in canon? Do fanfic preferences always align with canon interpretations? What type of penguins would Buffy and Spike be, anyway? Answers, people!

Not Choosing Dawn

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:01:06 GMT

So, I snagged on something in Him of all episodes in relation to Dawn's arc in S7.

See, I've never seen the big squee over CWDP. Still don't, to be honest. But something that's always left me a little baffled is when Joyce/The First tells Dawn that "Buffy won't choose [her]". What's that supposed to be about? Well, I eventually kinda assumed that it has something to do with Dawn's decision in Empty Places to oust Buffy (And, no, we're not gonna debate whether Buffy was kicked out or chose to leave in this entry don't bring it up kthxbai). Maybe that was a preemptive strike before Buffy could, you know, fail to choose her.

That's a stretch, though, so it ended up being one of those dangling plot threads that S7 has so many of.

However, I think it makes more sense not in a foreshadow-y way, but as a way for The First to take advantage of Dawn's current vulnerability. Because the previous episode was Him where, under a love spell, Buffy sabotages Dawn to get to RJ. This bothers Dawn. A lot.

DAWN: It is so real! I love him. You knew how I felt—like I finally found something, and you betrayed me.

BUFFY: I betrayed you? You're the one that constructed this elaborate fantasy about you and my lover.

DAWN: (stands) Your lover? You're lover! (Buffy stands)

WILLOW: (mediating) Guys— Guys—

BUFFY: I tried to get you to back away.

DAWN: That's right! You lied to me!

BUFFY: Did you want me to tell you that he's in love with me? That your little crush is hopeless?

DAWN: (crying) It's not a crush! Stop. You're not supposed to do this.

BUFFY: Why? Because he's younger than me? You know, I'm extremely youthful. And peppy.

DAWN: No, because you were the one I trusted. (runs to her room and slams door)

Last three lines are especially relevant.

Now, it may seem silly to attempt to glean significant characterization from such a...weird episode. But it makes more sense - to me - to think that The First was preying on each person's immediate insecurities. And Dawn's, at that time, was about the fact that Buffy hadn't chosen her. The lack of payoff is still wonky for me, but this still works better.

Course, an argument could be made that Buffy's final Dawn-saving moment in Him should negate the earlier betrayal in Dawn's mind, but I don't think the human mind is that rational about stuff like that.

Also, I noticed for the first time in CWDP that Dawn was talking to Kit - the chick from Lessons - on the phone. Nice touch of continuity.

Anyway, thinking out loud, as it were. Thoughts?

Can't they all just get along? whimper

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 02:49:32 GMT

Well, I made it through Entropy. Am I the only one who finds Entropy harder to watch than Seeing Red? I don't see it talked about much, either.

I have trouble articulating why it bothers me so much, but I decided I might go ahead and try to list out some reasons and see what happens. And this isn't "bothers me" in the sense of "it's a bad episode". It's "bothers me" in the sense of "it's difficult to watch cause it guts me emotionally".

Possible reasons?

1. It's a strange episode, when you think about it. For one, there is no external conflict. We get a handful of Trio scenes, but they're largely gearing up for Seeing Red. No, Entropy is all about the group dynamics. It's a supernatural soap opera episode.

The show rarely does this, even as the seasons progress. The only other example I can think of is Into the Woods.

2. A lot of fans criticize the Scoobies' in-group clique-yness. Well, this episode does the same through Anya and Spike. This is a good thing, in my mind, but it makes me hurt for the both of them.

Add in the extra twist of Anya feeling excluded because nobody will help her torture/kill Xander, and I'm just...a bit overwhelmed at the fact that I'm feeling so much sympathy for her. Don't get me wrong. I typically have no trouble sympathizing with characters, even when they're doing shitty stuff (Hello, I love Buffy during S6). But this seems a little more difficult for me to get the cognitive dissonance worked out.

In any case, the two of them bonding as outsiders, seeking comfort in each other. Okay, yeah, it gets to me. I ache for them.

3. I want to bundle Spike up and give him a big ol' cuddle at the end of this episode. When Xander starts attacking him and Spike takes it. Doesn't try to fight back. He's defeated already, just giving in. Oh, Spike. *huggles*

Also, his dejected look to Xander hurling so many dehumanizing insults at him. Xander's not even talking to Spike, he's talking to Anya as if she just fucked a dog or something. It kills me. I can't stand it.

Hell, I can completely understand why Spike feels the need to take some of his own back by letting out that he and Buffy had had sex. I don't know if he does so with the intention of trying to raise his own status up (I fucked Buffy, I can't be that bad) or if his intent is to drag Buffy down in Xander's eyes (Well, if Anya sleeping with me upset you, get a load of this). I'm not sure. I don't care. I want to hug him all the same.

4. Then there's Anya's reaction to Xander's slut-shaming. Ugh. It hurts.

5. Maybe this is the biggest thing for me, though. It's that Anya and Spike were not doing anything wrong with their little one-off. Buffy had dumped Spike and told him to move on. Xander had left Anya at the altar. They were unattached and free to do what - or who - they wanted.

And I get majorly squicked that everybody watched it. Watched what should have been an intimate, private moment between them.

I further hate that both of them are subsequently blamed for it by Dawn and Xander (and kinda Buffy, though - to her credit - she tried to avoid Spike), and nobody really goes, "Hey, guys. They didn't do anything wrong."

I know it's not necessary. That happens. People get blamed unfairly. The show doesn't need to hold my hand and spell it out that Anya and Spike are being held to an unfair standard. It's very obvious. But it still hurts because a moment that should have been comforting for both of them ends up being, in retrospect, an ugly mistake.

It wasn't a mistake. Or, it wouldn't have been if it had remained private, as it should have been.

For some reason, this bothers me.

Well, it's over with. I don't know if I'll do Seeing Red tonight or not. On the one hand, it gets me to the Dark Willow episodes! On the other hand...you know.

I might just save it for later and play The Sims 2, instead...

More Culpability!

Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:13:44 GMT

This is a Part Two to my poll on culpability. As usual, I missed some stuff. :)

Thanks to menomegirl and, especially, laeria who suggested the questions.

The format is similar to the first part. It's on a scale system and involves actions our characters do "under the influence", either of magic or of their demonic nature (or insanity, in one case). In each question, the influence in question is noted in parentheses. Comment and discuss as needed. :)

View Poll: #1664664

Rape Fantasy Sanctuary Post

Sun, 02 Jan 2011 23:53:49 GMT

This post is intended to host an open discussion among people who have rape fantasies. Please read all of the instructions before clicking the cut.

1. Consider this a trigger warning. This post and the comments will discuss rape fantasy. If this is potentially trigger-y or even just unpleasant for you, please pass it on by.

2. This is a post for people with rape fantasies. I'm requesting that people who do not have such fantasies refrain from commenting. Even if you are open-minded and not at all judgmental, do not comment. If I suss out that a commenter does not have rape fantasies I will ask them to stop commenting. You are welcome to read the discussion, however.

3. Absolutely no shaming comments. The fact that some people have rape fantasies is not up for debate. It's not something that people can switch off willingly. Arguing with them about it is nonsensical and only results in making people feel guilty for something they cannot control. Don't do it. Shaming comments will be deleted without warning. Aside from spam, I've never actually deleted comments from my LJ, but this is a special type of post intended to be a safe place for people with rape fantasies. I will be modding with a heavy hand here.

4. I'm the final arbiter of what constitutes as "shaming comment". If I delete a comment of yours that you didn't think was shaming, you're free to PM me about it. You're not free to repost the comment. Doing so will result in escalated action by me.

5. Anonymous comments are allowed.

6. Though this is a post on rape fantasy, explicit misogynistic or victim-blame-y comments are not acceptable. You can talk about rape fantasies you have without perpetuating rape culture. If any discussion veers into rape culture territory, I will freeze the threads.

7. If this post goes wonky, I'm fully prepared to lock it down and thumb my nose at all the wrongdoers. It'll make me cranky, though. Don't make me cranky.

8. If you're concerned about anything that goes on in the post, please PM me.

Again, this post is for people with rape fantasies. If you don't have rape fantasies, skip this post. If you are insanely curious, you may read the discussion, but keep quiet. This post will be heavily modded as needed.

Be awesome. I know y'all can do it.

Here are some ideas for discussion. These prompts aren't the full extent of what can be discussed, nor are they required discussion. They're just some topics that those of us with rape fantasies probably think about a lot.

- Reconciling rape fantasies with feminism. Recognizing the culture that fosters these fantasies.

- Dealing with romantic/sexual partners. Do you bring the fantasies into the bedroom? How has your partner reacted?

- Dealing with the shame and guilt inherent in having the fantasies.

- Is it okay to express these fantasies through art or writing? Does writing rapefic help you explore your fantasy? In doing so, are you contributing to larger rape culture? How do you walk that line?

- The different types of rape fantasies. There are ravishment fantasies that play off old seduction tropes. There are graphic rape fantasies that include force and violence. There are bondage fantasies, sleep fantasies, etc.

- Rape fantasies are often associated with rape survivors. What about people who haven't been raped? Are rape fantasies more understandable for one than the other?

Eggs and Chickens

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:42:56 GMT

Necessary disclaimer: If you only believe one thing I say, please believe me when I tell you that this is not directed at or prompted by anything in particular. It's the result of many bouncing thoughts and a collection of my own experiences while in fandom. If you think I'm talking about you, you're wrong.

I've been thinking lately on the chicken and the egg.

Not in a literal sense, because that's silly and somewhat random. But I've been thinking of it in a metaphorical fashion as applied to fannish opinion.

Chicken: A person's opinion on a character

Egg: A person's evaluation of said character.

Explainy? Sure thing.

The standard thought is that the egg precedes the chicken. That is, the actions of a particular character ultimately leads a person to like or dislike that character. This will often lead to seemingly objective attempts to justify one's dislike of said character due to X, Y, Z. This will often, inevitably, lead to fans of said character raising an eyebrow and going, "Buh?" cause X, Y, and Z aren't as concretely objective as the first person might think.

My thought lately is that sometimes the chicken precedes the egg. That is, people take an intuitive liking or disliking to a character, and that affinity - or lack thereof - affects their perception of and evaluation of canon events. Also known as (by me) failing to give the benefit of the doubt due to a lack of sympathy.

Take the idea. Run with it. It intrigues me.

Buffy and Carpet Cleaning

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:52:26 GMT

molly_may in a comment somewhere referenced a now-lost meta that apparently compared BtVS and AtS with regards to "women's work" (written by dkissam, from what I've been told). I am disappointed that this meta is, apparently, not to be found now. However, just hearing about it prompted my brain to start with the working, and I have some thoughts on this particular insight.

Let me talk about carpets first.

No, this isn't a gay thing. I'm talking about housework. About women being believed to "belong" in the home so as to take care of the chores. Women are naturally inclined to keep things clean. See, it goes back to our cavemen days when the cavewomen would get bored waiting for their cavehusbands to KILL THINGS for food, so they'd entertain themselves by sweeping the cave floors. This became genetically ingrained in all women, and now us ladies just can't help ourselves. We're biologically driven to CLEAN THE CARPET.

It's what we're for.

Oh, and now, thanks to those feminists, women are allowed to work outside the home, and that's all good. However, women still take care of the bulk of housework. But now they have a second job, so the housework becomes the oft-discussed "second shift".

Keep in mind, of course, that this housework is unpaid labor. It's taken for granted. It's what women are supposed to do.

Let's now talk about professional carpet cleaning.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about this or this.

This isn't some sissy girly work. This is man stuff. You can tell cause they have MACHINES, which, of course, means women can't do it.

It's the big leagues of carpet cleaning. It's paid labor. It's a real job. And, yes, it's men doing it. Men are the professional carpet cleaners. Women, not so much. Men get paid when they clean carpets. Women, not so much.

Okay, okay, where's the Buffy, right? Let me make the subtext, you know, text:

Buffy cleans carpets because she's biologically compelled to do so. Angel, on his show, is a professional carpet cleaner. Buffy doesn't get paid. Indeed, she (and the other Scoobies) balk at the idea when Anya brings it up in S6. Angel not only gets paid, he eventually gets a snazzy job working at an evil law firm.

Buffy's chosen to fight demons. This is a fate handed to her that she can't get away from. The Council ultimately controls her (or try to). They pay her Watcher; they don't pay her. Why? Cause it's her duty. Cause she was born to do it.

I do want to note that I don't mean this as a criticism of...anything. I don't think it was necessarily intentional. However, I find thinking of the Slayer destiny in the framework of unpaid female labor, especially when contrasted by Angel's paid labor of the same type, leads to some interesting places.

I was gonna do a fun couple of images with a woman cleaning the carpet with Buffy's face pasted on and then have a professional carpet cleaner (helping a woman clean her carpet, of course) with Angel's face pasted on. Alas, my Photoshop skills are not leet enough for such a thing. So just...picture it in your mind.

The Rape Narrative

Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:56:48 GMT

Trigger warning! This post discusses the AR scene in BtVS and rape culture, in general.

This is more of a feminist post than a Buffy post, though I am using the AR scene as a reference. Some comments made in the unpopular opinion post OF AWESOME provoked some thinky-thoughts. This is kinda where those thoughts led. This isn't at all intended to be a direct response to anyone in that thread. It's actually been helpful for me to work out some of my first reactions to the scene.

The idea that what happened in the bathroom wasn't an attempted rape privileges Spike's viewpoint and framing of the event. Doing this emphasizes the mental breakdown and the surrounding context leading up to it. It also privileges Spike's viewpoint over Buffy's. Because while looking at Buffy's viewpoint, it's near impossible not to label it an attempted rape (After all, if you find yourself falling to the floor, crying and screaming "No" while a guy is ripping your robe open, you know you're being raped).

Thing is, this privileging of the perpetrator's viewpoint over the victim's is an artifact of larger rape culture. This is the culture wherein rapists are horrible, animalistic people with no good in them, so if a guy that we like - that we sympathize with - tries to rape someone, then there must be extenuating circumstances. It must be something else.

It's almost like the inverse of the victim-blaming part of rape culture. If a woman gets raped while she's drunk, it's her own damn fault for drinking. If a man rapes someone while he's drunk, he's not as culpable for what he did.

There's a common trend in the feminist blogosphere to point out the things that make women culturally "unrapeable". If they're a prostitute, if they've had sex with a person before, if they were drinking, if they were wearing lingerie, etc etc. All these actions and details are used against women when they're raped.

I think there's a similar trend for men who rape. Our culture looks to certain traits to make him the unrapist. He's nice, he has a family, he was drinking, he made a mistake, he didn't mean to, he has his whole future ahead of him, etc etc.

It reminds me of a couple of posts at The Curvature. The first post reports a story about a man who raped a teen girl. It gets interesting, though, because a commenter claiming to be his wife speaks up. This gets highlighted in this post.

We see her handwave away her husband's culpability due to his mental state: "I know you guys think Stefano is a rapist and sick for what he has done. But Stefano is nothing like that. At the time he ment the young women Stefano was high and some time people do crazy shit to there selfs or in this case to someone eles with out knowing what they are really doing. "

We see her blame the victim for her behavior: "I also think she should been a little more wiser and should of waited untill the morning to take the bus to the place she was going to instead of going at night time when crazy people are out and about or when people are sometimes in a bad condition like being high or even drunk. I would never go down town at night time. "

And she ends with the declaration that her husband isn't a rapist: "His not a rapist but only a man that made a very terrible hurtfull misttake to a young women and he is truly sorry for what he as done."

Bringing it back to Buffy, I see this same reaction to Spike's actions in SR. His culpability is handwaved away due to his mental breakdown. Buffy gets the blame for driving him to it. And there are often final declarations that Spike didn't attempt to rape Buffy because it doesn't fit society's profile of a rape.

Which all ignore the simple fact that attempting to force someone to have sex with you - especially to the point of knocking someone over, pinning them down, and ripping their clothes - qualifies as attempted rape. If any of us read such a story in the newspaper, I imagine we'd universally reach the same conclusion.

The hitch with the SR scene, though, is we know the narrative. We know the context and the characters. We know about everything that led up to it and everything that came from it. When we know that, when we sympathize with the characters, it makes it easier for us to deflect and emphasize the other points of the narrative (Spike's mental state, Buffy and Spike's past sexual relationship) while minimizing the actual act. In fact, I'd say this is normal for fans of a certain character to handle a character's bad moments in this way. It's when this intersects with the larger problem of rape in our culture that it becomes especially problematic.

Thing is, that narrative exists with every real life instance of rape. Those articles you read in the newspapers, in my linkspams, in various blogs, all come with their own complex history and context. The rapist in those articles has friends, family, is often generally well-liked. He may be going through a "tough time". The victim is assured to be less than a saint, because no one is a saint.

However, we rarely know any of that. So it's easy for us to put the rapist in a special category. It's easy for us to think that rapists are always malicious in their intent, are always douchebags, always unsympathetic.

That's not reality, though. Instead, we get rapists who genuinely feel that what happened was a "misunderstanding". Or they think the victim just had post-sex regrets. We get rapists who are drunk or high at the time they rape. We get rapists who are otherwise likable guys. We get rapists who are at the tail-end of a bad relationship with their victim. We get rapists who, frighteningly enough, we can understand.

That's the harm of rape culture. It takes a social problem and twists it. Rapists are inhuman monsters preying on pristine virgin women. Anything outside that framework gets questioned and disbelieved. Because recognizing that our culture socializes men to be rapists, men who are "wonderful husband[s] and a great dad to his soon to be 3yr daughter. also helped out his friends and even the homeless people sometimes to". Those men are bombarded with encouragement towards aggression, towards dominance, towards objectifying women. And those men become rapists.

Spike isn't immune to any of those forces. He isn't immune to his own demon (He is a vampire). He absolutely isn't incapable of rape.

Ultimately, this is the primary reason why I hate the AR in a meta way. With the current culture, there is no way to do that storyline and not end up playing to rape cultural tropes or to have fans take up said tropes in order to maintain sympathy for Spike.

Buffy as Selfish/less

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:21:39 GMT

It isn't a new observation that Buffy often gets described as selfish by characters in the show and by fans. "Selfish", "self-absorbed", "self-centered", etc. I kinda find this interesting in a meta-y way. So let me go at it.

This isn't in response to anything in particular, but more to general concepts.

I find it interesting because one of the central themes of the series is that Buffy can't be selfish. As the Slayer, she is required to be self-sacrificing to an extreme degree. This culminates, of course, in S5's The Gift where she actually sacrifices her own life.

Cordelia's purpose in BtVS was initially to portray what Buffy would be like if she were not the Slayer. Selfish. Self-absorbed. Self-centered.

Thing is, Buffy can't be any of these things. She's not allowed to be. In fact, being the Slayer swings things too far in the other direction, requiring an extreme amount of selflessness on Buffy's part - often to an unhealthy degree.

In Prophecy Girl, when Buffy discovers that her duty requires her death, she "selfishly" rails against it. "I'm sixteen. I don't wanna die."

When she sees the distress that Willow is enduring, though, she does it. She goes to her death. Because being the Slayer means putting your own life aside.

We'll see this time and time again, notably in Becoming and The Gift.

This isn't to say that Buffy's never selfish. She absolutely is at times. The most significant being, as recently discussed, her leaving at the end of S2. Also, her depressed funk in S6 is highly selfish. However, I think focusing on that to exclusion of all else is a mistake as it overlooks the fact that those periods of selfishness both come after an enormous trauma endured by Buffy as a result of a selfless act (killing Angel to save the world in Becoming and killing herself to save the world (and Dawn) in The Gift).

Is it any wonder that the demands of being the Slayer occasionally result in a period of withdrawal to cope? Can that be described as "selfish" or is it more of a damage control, so to speak? A coping mechanism to deal with the strenuous demands of her duty?

Not the best coping mechanism, to be sure, but Slayers typically die young for a reason. It's not the type of lifestyle that lends itself to the long term.

I find it interesting how this Selfish-Selfless dichotomy plays out in the series, and in fannish perceptions. In S5, Buffy is determined to not lose Dawn. Take this moment from The Gift:

Buffy: I sacrificed Angel to save the world. I loved him so much. But I knew ... what was right. I don't have that any more. I don't understand. I don't know how to live in this world if these are the choices. If everything just gets stripped away. I don't see the point. I just wish that... (tearfully) I just wish my mom was here.

She gets up, walks a few paces away, turns to face Giles.

Buffy: The spirit guide told me ... that death is my gift. Guess that means a Slayer really is just a killer after all.

Giles: I think you're wrong about that.

Buffy: It doesn't matter. If Dawn dies, I'm done with it. I'm quitting.

Is this a selfish mindset? That Buffy should want to hold on to Dawn after losing everything else, even to the point of later threatening to kill her friends if they go near Dawn?

Likewise, is it selfish to want to get away and spend some time alone after having had to kill her lover in Becoming? Becoming didn't just strip away Angel, after all. It also stripped away her school (which had been integral to Buffy's attempt to remain a normal girl), her home, her fellow Slayer - Kendra. And yet, Buffy did it. Buffy did it, and it damaged her to the point where in S7's Selfless, she's still getting teary-eyed bringing it up. She's still reeling from the emotional trauma.

Her sacrifice in Becoming (and earlier in Prophecy Girl) set the stage for one of the main conflicts of Buffy's character. Being the Slayer means she's "just a killer" because she isn't allowed to be anything else. Everything "just gets stripped away". Not of its own accord, necessarily, but because she's the Slayer. She's often compelled to let things get stripped away. She's required to be selfless to the point of self-destruction.

There's a cultural imperative in society for women to be self-sacrificing. For them to eschew their own feelings in favor of taking care of others'. This is the Woman as Nurturer or Emotional Care-taker role that is frightfully persistent to the point where women often feel guilty taking time for themselves, above and beyond any guilt men might feel for the same activities. Furthermore, women are typically judged more harshly for self-indulging than men are.

That's the context Buffy's in. The Slayer is the epitome of the self-sacrificing woman. The Gift is the apotheosis of this concept. Buffy setting everything to the side, including her life, to save the world.

Of course, The Gift is complicated by the suicidal undertones, which suggests that the selflessness required of the Slayer is so damaging that it often intermingles with the complete selfishness of suicide. Two oppositional concepts leading to the same place. Feeling the desolation that comes from being not only the emotional isolation that comes from being the Slayer but also the responsibility of being the physical protector, Buffy becomes selfless to the point of seeking out purely selfish means to escape. An extreme act of selfishness to match the extreme expectation of selflessness she endures.

This puts Chosen in an interesting light. The "solution" the show presents to this unrealistic expectation for women is to share not only power, but responsibility. Buffy's burden is lifted because other girls now share the Slayer responsibility. When the duty is not resting all on one shoulder, it becomes more bearable as it's not all down to one girl in all the world.

I'm not sure exactly how to translate this out of the metaphor in this framework. It could be seen as an encouragement to form friendships and bonds with other woman - share the emotional burden. This may seem a bit obvious, but given how much encouragement women receive to compete with each other, it's actually nicely progressive. I think there's something more there that I'm just not able to work out. I'll throw it out there for anyone else who's interested.

Being a Fan

Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:29:27 GMT

I should be studying. But I'm not.

This might seem like an odd poll at first, but do read this explanation before taking. It should clarify the intent.

It's an easy bet that if I asked my flist if they're fans of BtVS, most people would say they are. Duh. However, I've been pondering for a while on the intricacies of that. A good number of people seem to be fans of the characters or concepts, but not so much of the actual events that may have happened. This is especially noticeable when you get to S6 and S7, which some fans are apt to write off entirely.

So here's the question on this one: As a whole, did you like the narrative of BtVS? Starting from the first moments of Welcome to the Hellmouth all the way to Buffy's smile in Chosen, did you dig it? Of course, everybody's gonna have some parts they disliked. That's natural. But does the good outweigh the bad so that you can sit back, look at all seven seasons, and say, "Yeah. That was a good story"?

*Given that I don't read the comics, we're just working with TV canon here.

And because I'm feeling slightly evil, I'm limiting your options to a strict yes/no answer. Choose which one is closest to your opinion. If you find yourself having to exclude whole swaths of seasons in order to think positively on the story, you're probably gonna have to choose "no".

After voting (and possibly commenting), check out the AtS edition of this poll.

View Poll: #1605803

Words

Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:45:16 GMT

So, I was pondering about running themes in Buffy/Angel and Buffy/Spike. Like, for B/A, "forever" seems to be a catchword of some sort. That specific word gets used repeatedly in reference to their relationship. I find that interesting (and intend to do some meta on it when I ~~am not so lazy~~ have the time).

Buffy/Spike, though, appears to have a couple catchwords. "Real" is one (from Crush, Intervention, S6, and beyond). Also, "fire" or fire imagery (which I suppose is not quite a catchword but it serves the same purpose).

This intrigues me. Did Buffy/Riley have a catchword? I don't think so. Course, maybe it's notable that they first kissed in Hush, the silent episode.

Okay, I have no substantial thoughts. I'm just procrastinating on studying. That's a worthy goal, right?

What Happens vs How It's Done

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:41:15 GMT

I've had this post simmering for a while. I've noticed an interesting distinction in fannish opinion and discussion along the lines of the Doylian vs Watsonian divide of viewpoints. I guess this all crystallized in reading the comments to my episode polls. I've come to grok that there's another division of viewpoint among fans. I'm lacking in terms and I'm not feeling very creative, so let me just make it simple and call this the What Happens vs the How It's Done division.

What Happens is when fans look at...what happens. This probably describes my first viewing of the show. I didn't much care about the execution or anything. It was just a pretty basic "what happens next" mentality. This also includes things like characterization and plot development, though, so it's not all surface-y stuff.

How It's Done is the more nitpicky of the two. It factors in the quality of the writing, the execution of the plot, etc. It usually encompasses a Doylian perspective as far as what might have been intended and how successful it was.

Let's give an example from the series to illustrate what I'm talking about.

This is just my opinion on this one, but I don't think it's entirely uncommon. In looking at The Gift and Chosen, I think The Gift is the superior episode just in terms of How It's Done. The execution is superb. The writing is top-notch. The plot is fab. It's just beautiful. Chosen, however, is the better ending for the series as far as What Happens. It may falter next to The Gift in How It's Done, but the narrative of Buffy sharing her power is a better What Happens for the end of the series. Feel free to disagree with me, but not in this post. The post isn't about the example. Don't get sidetracked!

Just looking at my own thoughts on the series, I find I'm rarely bothered by What Happens. In fact, the only major thing off the top of my head that bugs me from that category is the AR in Seeing Red (though I also have issues with How It's Done). I wonder if people who watched as it aired may be more prone to be bothered by What Happens, just because there's more time to speculate and get attached to fan theories as to what might happen next (so the canon events may seem unsatisfying).

Of course, this isn't a simple binary. It's not like there's a group of What Happens fans and a group of How It's Done fans. That's silly. However, like the Doylian vs Watsonian distinction, this provides a couple different perspectives for viewing and discussing the show. And I often see discussions falter because of a conflict in perspectives. Some fans may prioritize one viewpoint over the other (sometimes at different times). If one fan is just looking at What Happens, and the other one is talking about How It's Done, they're not gonna be talking about the same thing. It's mass chaos! *waves hands*

Anyway, since I began to formulate this idea, I've found it interesting to read discussions on the series to see how they fall into these perspectives. Oftentimes, people that are unhappy with What Happens attempt to justify that unhappiness by critiquing How It's Done. I know I've done that. I initially wasn't happy with the Willow/Xander-ness of S3. I just didn't like the development, plain and simple. I tried to use How It's Done arguments to explain why, but really, I've come to realize that I just didn't like it. I didn't like What Happened. It's a thing.

Not to say that a person can't dislike What Happens because of How It's Done (AYW, anybody?). There's no hard and fast constant on this. It's a whole mess of interacting perspectives and opinions and dynamics of how arguments are phrased. It's fascinating to nerds like me.

That all being said, I just wanted to throw it out there so like-minded nerds could chew on it and see what they think. :)

Anya. With Kids.

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:34:02 GMT

*was thinking in the shower again*

In The Replacement, Anya brings up the idea of having a child with Xander. Okay, so the context belies the sincerity of it as Anya's just rushing to plan the rest of her short, mortal life. However, in Forever, she again brings up the idea of having a kid with him.

Anya: (lifts her head to look at him, laughs) Breathe. You're turning colors. I'm not ready to make life with you, but I could. *We* could. Life could come out of our love and our smooshing, and that's beautiful. (Xander looks relieved) It all makes me feel like I'm part of something bigger. Like I'm more awake somehow. (smiles) You know?

Again, not an immediate plan, but something Anya can see in the future. Of course, in Hells Bells, we get Xander's vision of Anya-as-mother, but the vision should be taken for what it is (which is a means to get vengeance on Anya).

Anyway, my main point here is...are there any fics of mother!Anya? I know that I've read a couple Spuffy fics that have Xander/Anya (or Giles/Anya) as a side couple, and they have kids. But what about a fic featuring Anya either pregnant or with a child? Wouldn't that be interesting? Can you imagine what the kid would be like?

Oh, come on! I can't be the only one intrigued by the idea!

Not So Given

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:25:21 GMT

I had something of a revelation the other day during a shower (most of my best ideas come during showers). This isn't directly inspired by anything in specific, though it is the result of me mulling over various discussions on social justice that I've either seen or taken part in.

There are common disconnects that tend to occur that often leave me frustrated and baffled. Oftentimes, when an *ism is pointed out, a lot of effort has to be put forth to "prove" that, yes, it is actually attributable to prejudice of some sort and not to any extraneous factors. In some of the more extreme cases, the goalposts for an incident to "count" as *ist are unreasonably situated so that pretty much everything will fall short.

It's kinda irksome to attempt to have discussions about various *isms when you keep having to start at ground zero: proving that *isms are a significant and constant part of everyday life.

And that's about where I had my shower epiphany as to where that disconnect in these discussions is coming from. People keep starting from different premises.

Okay, so I've been doing the social justice thing for a few years now. I've read a lot. I've discussed a lot. I've actively attempted to work things out. It's a thing.

And my involvement in these issues is twofold. For one, I consider it part of my fandom involvement to be aware of how different social characteristics affect participation and/or reception. For another, I am a sociology major, and so *isms are a significant part of my education.

Despite what some might think, I don't blindly soak up and accept everything I read. I have some pretty noteworthy issues with sociology's take on mental illness, for example. With race/gender/class/sexual orientation/sexual identity (henceforth continued to be referred to as *isms), though...

Well, let's put it this way. I have issues with sociology's take on mental illness because it runs counter to my own experience and the experience of others that I know. There's inconsistency and with that comes some criticism on my part.

The *isms, however, aren't inconsistent with much of anything. In fact, what I learn about institutionalized racism or sexism or heterosexism or whatnot illuminate aspects of my life that had previously been uncertain.

Basically, it resonates with my reality. Plus, as a sociology major, I've had to read through a whole oodles of studies that, time and time again, prove the existence of aversive racism or sexism or heterosexism or any other *ism you might want to name. Today. Here and now. I know it exists, and I know that it has an effect on people without their even being aware of it.

So this is a long way to come around and say that for me, the *isms are a given. That is, when something is brought up in fandom - a COC that's seemingly ignored by fandom, for example - it's a given to me that race plays an issue. It's a given because I know that race is pretty much always an issue in some form or fashion. Especially in the aggregate (Individuals are a different matter).

Allow me some nuance here, because it can be easy to take away that I'm saying that fandom are KKK racists who hate COC when...really not. Let me try to break it down in a concise way:

*isms underlie cultural mentality in just about everything. When there's an imbalance in reception being displayed with regards to a character (whether that character is of color or a woman or genderqueer or whatever), it's pretty much a given that *isms will be playing a factor.

That's it. Not the totality, but a factor.

It's a given that sexism plays a role in how fandom reacts to female characters.

It's a given that racism plays a role in how fandom reacts to characters of color.

It's a given that *ism plays a role in how fandom reacts to character of *.

Get my gist?

Here's the disconnect, though, because a lot of people - most people - don't work with this initial premise. Instead, any time an *ism is raised, it has to be proven first before discussion can ensue. That is, it has to be irrefutably proven that Fannish Phenomena is directly attributable to *ism.

That's a tall order when you think about it. How can one prove that fandom has an aversion to writing characters of color because of aversive racism short of Harvard's nifty implicit association test? Not possible.

Yet it comes up time and time again. When I did my righteous feminist rants about the general fandom attitude towards shippers and how it's steeped in sexism, I had a couple people who doubted the connection. Fair enough. I don't have any way to prove it. No, really. I can't.

What I can do is produce a whole host of sociological studies that prove that sexist thought is still widely prevalent and accepted and that this plays a part in most aspects of life, especially in our attitudes towards entertainment. With that proven, it's just a short walk towards figuring out that, yeah, when people make derogatory remarks about shippers, there's likely some sexism underlying it.

No wonder these discussions are often tangled messes of...tangledness. People keep coming from different premises. People from my perspective are trying to point out how *ism manifests in whichever particular phenomenon is being looked at. People from the other perspective don't want to rush to conclusions and so attempt to come up with other, non-*ist, factors that could account for it. To them it would seem that the phenomenon is being used to..."prove" *ism on the part of the perpetrators? I suppose?

Okay, I said I had an epiphany; I didn't say I'd worked out all the details. :)

Really, though, understanding that people are coming from different premises and grokking how this would affect their approach to these sorts of posts helps explain a lot for me, both in discussions I've had and in discussions I've watched from a distance.

It's relevant to my interests.

As is cheesecake. I'm gonna go have some cheesecake now.

My Dead Things can beat up your Dead Things

Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:46:31 GMT

Just a couple tidbits of thoughts here. I was going through the original shooting script for Dead Things (as I'm sure most people do), and some of the wording intrigued me. There's not gonna be anything really enlightening or new here. Just random thoughts.

I wrote about a couple interpretations of the dream sequence in my last Buffy Came Back Wrong post. Of course, I think this sequence can mean just about anything (Except maybe that Buffy's secretly in love with Warren. I'd argue with you about that one.). My BCBW post covered the interpretation that highlights Buffy's depression, but there's another, more Buffy/Spike-focused interpretation that seems apparent to me, as well.

It hinges on the Spike-Katrina parallel that's made fairly explicit in the episode (and even continues on to As You Were).

Sidebar: Not sure what I mean about AYW? Let me throw a couple scenes at you.

From Dead Things.

WARREN: Tell me you love me.

KATRINA: I love you, Master.

More kissing. Katrina keeps her eyes open and her same blank expression while kissing.

WARREN: Again.

KATRINA: I love you, Master. (more kissing)

WARREN: I love you too, baby. (shrugs) Get on your knees.

And from As You Were.

BUFFY: (quietly) Tell me you love me.

SPIKE: (surprised) I love you. You know I do.

She takes a couple of steps closer.

BUFFY: Tell me you want me.

SPIKE: (whispers) I always want you. In point of fact-

BUFFY: Shut up.

The similarity of the scenes is striking and only reinforces the Spike-Katrina parallels that had been established in DT.

End sidebar.

That said, this part of the original shooting script for the dream sequence of DT caught my interest:

EXT. CLEARING - NIGHT

Just a quick flash. Buffy violently strikes a shadowy attacker in the woods. We can't make out who it is.

EXT. WOODS - BOTTOM OF EMBANKMENT - CONTINUOUS - NIGHT

Now Buffy is straddling Katrina, who is in the same position as Spike was on his bed. She roughly handcuffs Katrina's hands above her head. Katrina's expression betrays both pleasure and pain...

BUFFY
Do you trust me?

INT. SPIKE'S CRYPT - DOWNSTAIRS - CONTINUOUS

Quick flash. Spike and Buffy are on the floor amid the wreckage of their love-making They're going at it again, rough and hot.

EXT. CLEARING - NIGHT

Quick flash. Buffy lashes out again. Hits someone. This time we see that it's KATRINA - who goes flying from the brutal blow.

I think it's the phrasing, "lashes out", that kinda clicks for me and crystallizes this particular interpretation. Buffy is lashing out in her depression, and Katrina/Spike get caught in it. Add in the very literal lashing out during the time wonkiness scene where Buffy accidentally punches both Spike and (who she thinks is) Katrina.

This is, of course, the more Buffy/Spike-relevant read of the scene (and episode) that I alluded to in my BCBW post. Where DT centers on her realization that she's using (and abusing) Spike much like Warren used and abused Katrina.

One other thing from the shooting script caught my eye, and it's during the alley scene where Spike is trying to prevent her from turning herself in.

SPIKE
You're not doing this.

BUFFY
Let me go, Spike. Please. Just let me go...

SPIKE
I can't. I love you.

That only adds to her guilt.

BUFFY
No, you don't.

It's the "That only adds to her guilt" that I'm focusing on. For a while, I hadn't been sure how to read Buffy's reaction in this scene. I eventually concluded, in my BCBW post, that the reminder that Spike loved her added to Buffy's guilt pile because it highlights the very Wrongness of what she's doing with him.

So I was kinda happy to have this line in the shooting script, because it works to settle my mind that I was on the right track (as far as authorial intention goes). The alley scene, again, has Buffy lashing out. Not in anger, but in guilt and self-loathing. This places the final "Tell me that I'm wrong" scene between Buffy and Tara firmly in the "Buffy can't believe she's doing this shit to Spike, who loves her" place.

It still makes me unhappy with the follow-up to DT (OAFA is not at all sufficient to address what had happened in this episode). But I'm happy to see this particular read backed by the shooting script.

And that's all. As I said, nothing really new. Just some tiny tidbits.

I draw my parallels with a crayon

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:39:09 GMT

Fanwank with me, folks.

As I was going through screencaps and transcripts (as one does), I was struck by an interesting unintentional parallel.

In Into the Woods, Spike walks into Buffy's room while she's sleeping naked. After he insists he has something to show her, Buffy waits for him to turn around. He scoffs that he totally doesn't care (but he does) and then turns his back. Can we give props to Spike for not trying to peek at Buffy dressing in the mirror a la Xander?

In Wrecked, Buffy walks into Spike's crypt while he's sleeping naked. She gives him the wassup about the Dawn sitch, and he stands up in his full naked!Spike glory. Buffy quickly turns her back, to which Spike makes a snide comment.

This must mean something. Really. It must!

Okay, it probably doesn't. But the coincidence amused me.

What I want from the idiot box...

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:16:47 GMT

I've been watching TV again.

Well, specifically, I've been watching "How It's Made" late night on the Science Channel while I wait for my sleeping meds to kick in (I'm fascinated by stuff like that. *iz a geek*).

It dawns on me that I mainly watch non-fiction stuff when I watch TV nowadays. I think it's because of my whole, "I'm bored by watching guys all the time" thing. TV offers up few awesome female characters. Though I do have a huge thread full of recs, a lot of which I checked out and enjoyed. Something seemed to be missing, though.

Cause (this will seem like an odd segue, but bear with me), I went through classic Identity Issues a couple years ago. Guys were treating me "like a girl". This upset me. Watching commercials on late-night TV reminds me of why. Girls get excited over some new fabric softener. They happily use a swifter to clean up after their husband and three sons. Men worry about the finances while women look on, concerned.

What's more, being feminine was so tied in with being subservient, powerless, not-as-smart-as-guys.

It took me a while to figure out that being feminine didn't require those traits. That being "just a girl" wasn't an insult. I had to learn to embrace the feminine in myself without accepting the cultural baggage. Some of my heroes helped me do this - Buffy, Willow, Gabrielle.

There's something that was missing in this, though. While I was attempting to reconcile my feminine side, I also had to figure how to deal with my, well, masculine side. Traits that are typically seen as "guy-like". I'm not butch by any stretch, but I've been thought of as "one of the guys" in the past so there appear to be some characteristics of mine that are perceived as masculine.

I don't see that very much on TV, though. The one that sticks out in my mind is Brennan in Bones. I like that.

I'm not at all sure how to phrase what I want without sounding all gender essentialist. In essence, I want TV to be less gender essentialist. It's shown me that feminine can be strong (and we need more of that seeing as "girl" is still used as an insult). I want it to also show me that being a woman can encompass just about anything on the gender spectrum. From stone butch to lipstick femme and every combo in between. Because it took me years to come to terms with this in myself - that I wasn't wholly "girly" but I wasn't "butch". And I didn't have to be.

One of the shows that was suggested back when I was lamenting the lack of awesome female characters was The Closer. It's a show I've come to love and adore, and it's replaced Law and Order: SVU as my Number One Cop Show. Johnson was given as an example of a woman who is quirky and socially awkward yet always solves the case (a la Castle or Monk). And she is...but she's a feminine woman. Not a bad thing. In fact, I've grown to find the way they play on gender roles fascinating with her.

So this isn't me wanting something "instead of" that. I want something in addition to it. I also want a woman who wears suits and is stereotypically guy-quirky (which differs significantly from girl-quirky, apparently). I want butch women in shows not about lesbians. And by "butch", I don't mean Michelle Rodriguez looking tough (even though it is hot) or Pink on a motorcycle (though, again, hot), but I mean butch women. The kind people deride as "trying to be men". The type who look like men. The type that straight people don't understand why lesbians go for instead of "actual" guys. Yeah, I'm talking stone butch.

I want them.

I want the baby butches. I want the andro. The genderqueer. The cross-dressers. The transgendered. If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then I want to see characters from Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto and beyond.

I want a female character who looks like Rachel Maddow and acts like Spike - growly, snarky, cigarette-smoking, lurking, tough exterior hiding a soft-wooby center. I want her to prowl around in a leather jacket, predatory and cool, protecting little sisters and oozing sex.

I don't necessarily want them to be gay. Orientation is a whole separate issue. I just want gender identities that I can grok. I want it all. Women for me, not for the male viewers.

Cause just as I'm bored with guys doing stuff, I'm getting bored with feminine women doing stuff. I love their stories. But I want more. I want the other stories, too.

And that's why I watch non-fiction on TV. I'm just waiting for the media to get with the program.

Recs? Are love.

Feminist thinky-thoughts

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:32:47 GMT

In my Social Movements course, we had a section on the New American Right movement, which prompted some thoughts.

Actually, they collided with some thoughts I'd already been playing around with regarding feminism.

So now I have these two thoughts that have collided, and I need to untangle them. So bear with me here. I have no conclusions or anything. I'm just working out a thought trail.

I'm not sure what inspired the first thought, but I had worked out a couple central tenets of feminism.

1. It's recognized that women, in general, have proportionally less power than men in society, especially in the areas of economics and politics. What's more, it's recognized that society encourages rigid gender roles in which women are required to be nurturing homemakers.

2. It's desired that men and women hold equal power in society, and it's recognized that steps must be taken to attain this. It's also recognized that gender roles can be harmful and ill-matched to many men and women and that more flexibility in these socially constructed roles is ideal.

Believe it or not, that took forever for me to write up.

But it helps me to clarify some stuff.

Feminists, no matter what specific ideology, will (hopefully) agree with 1 and 2. The pseudo-feminists, those who spout "equality" but use it as a way to try to draw attention to men, only focus on 2 without recognizing 1. Then there are those who recognize 1, but they don't desire 2.

It's this last group I want to focus on. They're the conservatives and the anti-feminists. And here's where we tie into the other thought because we were discussing this ideology in our section on the New American Right, and I found it interesting in some ways.

The general belief, as I understand it, is that, yes, women and men do have separate roles and that this is actually a good thing. It's breaking these roles that lead to problems: breakdown of the family, less support from men, etc.

Therefore, the 2 for the anti-feminist view would be something like: These roles are beneficial to society, and it's recognized that movements that seek to change or dissolve these roles are actively harmful.

Okay, this makes it easier for me to think of this stuff. Cause here's where I get all muddled. I think it's obvious that these gender roles don't work for some people. You only have to look at the people railing against them to grok that. I suppose where I'm confused on the anti-feminist position is why there is seen to be a need to enforce these roles upon people who clearly do not want them.

I know feminism has had issues with being dismissive towards housewives or those women who choose traditionally feminine roles. I also know that feminism has worked to change that, and that most feminists you talk to today openly advocate a woman's freedom to choose her own lifestyle, no matter what it might be.

Anti-feminists are wanting to curtail that choice, though. And I just can't wrap my head around the logic there.

Sorry, but in my Social Movements course, we've been trying to be all objective and unbiased, especially when looking at conservative movements because a lot of them are based on a sense-making ideology. But this particular one? Doesn't make any sense to me. Even if I try to twist myself to look at it from their viewpoint.

But then, I'm kinda a fan of "live and let live". I do my thing; everybody else does their thing. As long as everybody's consenting and no one gets hurt, then it's cool. So I'm not too fussed about what other people do with their lives. The anti-feminist view, however, is inherently about regulating what people do with their lives. And that boggles me, especially as how I want to live my life is diametrically opposed to their ideals.

...and there. I have no conclusions, as I said. That was a fun thought trail to ride on, though.

Write what you don't know...

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:11:04 GMT

This is probably just a "me" thing, but when I come across a popular ship/character that I just can't grok, I want to try to get it. Like, really. And eventually, given enough time and musing and discussion, I usually do. Even if I don't end up liking it, I "get" why other people do.

There's three big ships in fandom that I've been trying to understand the appeal (cause...I don't see it).

1. Buffy/Angel. Obviously, a canon ship, but it doesn't appeal to me at all in a shippy sense. And I'm desperately waiting to come across a Bangel fic that nails how I view the ship and makes me bookmark the hell out of it and rec it to everybody as, "That fic that I loved...and it's a Bangel fic!" As it is, most Buffy/Angel fics are leaving me either bored or rolling my eyes (or both).

2. Buffy/Faith. A subtext-y ship where I am oblivious to said subtext. I just don't get it. I don't see Faith as having a thing for Buffy, and I don't see Buffy as being sexually tempted by Faith or whatnot. And most Buffy/Faith fics kinda work on the assumption that those two premises are a given, so I'm left floundering. So I'm waiting for a Buffy/Faith fic to work me into the pairing and sell it to me. I know it's out there somewhere!

3. Spike/Xander. Yeah...I don't know that I have as much hope for this one, but dammit, I'm working on it!

My solution? I wanna fic them. Yeah, I wanna do a fic for each of these ships and try to sell myself on them. Don't know how long it's gonna take or how successful I'll be. But it'll make me feel better that I made an honest attempt to get the ships. Then, if I'm still left puzzled, I'll just let it be and remember that not everybody's gonna understand every ship. You just have to accept that other people will enjoy different things than you do. :)

On Lurkers

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:21:28 GMT

Meh. I'm feeling all icky and I kinda wanna just curl up and watch random South Park episodes on my comp, but it seems like a timely time to take up the topic of lurkers and why I wield pom-poms for them. Any incoherency is strictly due to me being stupid, not the sickliness. :)

Let's start with one of those damned annoying questions that'll make your head spin and your shoulders shrug. What is "fandom"? Who are we talking about when we talk about fandom? It's a word used so often by us, but actually pinning down who it includes can be something of a bitch.

Let's start with the basic: People who create fanworks, whether it be fanfic, fanart, fanvids, meta. Also, people who run comms, forums, award sites, rec lists, or in some other way actively contribute with significant chunks of their time/talent.

Those people are indisputably part of fandom. Hell, they're the part of fandom you hear about most. But fandom surely doesn't stop with them.

We'll work outward a bit, then. Fandom also includes people who actively comment or contribute to discussion, even though they may never offer fanworks or run any sort of fan comm.

So, at first glance, this would appear to be the first group's "audience". After all, we could all be creating fanworks for each other in one big incestuous pile of fannish orgyness. "Oooo...your fic was sooo good. Have an award." "Oh, yeah, baby. Your fic was good, too. Have this award."

While that reeks of self-congratulatory pretentiousness, the second group provides a ready and visible audience for what's produced by the first group. We can gauge their reaction because they comment and they vote. We talk to them. They're part of the fandom with us. It's a beautiful symbiotic relationship in which the first group provides fanworks/comms and the second provides an audience/participation/feedback.

Let me interrupt you before you start linking hands in companionship and singing annoying songs, though, because there's a third group that I haven't yet come to.

They're the lurkers.

We don't talk about them, acknowledge them, or even recognize their existence most of the time. Instead, we prefer the first two groups link hands and pretend that they're the entirety of the fandom (while anybody else is just on the outside looking in).

I say pshaw to that, though. ...pshaw!

Studies indicate that lurkers make up 90% of online groups. 90%. 90! Peeps, that means for every one person who comments on your fanwork, there's nine others who read/watched/looked at it but didn't say anything.

Oh no! What ungrateful jerks! Consuming all that we produce without even leaving feedback (which is the currency of fandom)! How dare they! Leeches!

I say they're not leeches. They're the entire reason we post our shit.

I need to digress into The Nature of the Internet 101, but it seems essential for a lot of fandom who don't appear to understand the concept.

The net is a wonderful, miraculous thing. It breaks down barriers and walls and inhibitions and gives us lots of porn.

Okay, let me start that again.

The net is a wonderful, miraculous thing. I get to talk to people who live a fucking ocean away! On a regular basis! For no additional costs! Without the net, I would barely be aware of their existence. (Apologies, but I turn into Sagan-~~Man~~Woman sometimes. Guys, we can talk to people in China instantly! Isn't that CRAZY??)

One of the aspects most touted about the internet is that anything you post publicly has the potential to be seen by anyone in the world (provided they have access to a computer with a connection). This means that if you have a website, even if you don't promote it, people have the ability to view it. Any people. Anywhere. Unless you restrict access in some way.

However, most of fandom is unrestricted. Fannish websites: unrestricted. Mailing lists: unrestricted (you only need an email address to sign up). Forums: mostly unrestricted. LJ: mostly unrestricted.

Rewind and play back that last part.

LJ: mostly unrestricted.

Unless you specifically make a post private or filtered, then access to it is unrestricted. That means that anybody with a modem, anywhere in the world, for any purpose, in any way, could possibly stumble across it and view it.

If you are only writing for your flist, then it's best to make your posts friends-only. Not doing so carries with it the knowledge that someone else could view it. And that person? Would be a lurker.

Hard to believe, I know. LJ likes to think it's an insular island that nobody could possibly find (or get stranded on). In some ways, that attitude creates the situation because LJ can seem clique-y and unwelcoming to outsiders. There's also a significant learning curve to learning the ropes here on LJ for some people. So it's likely that LJ has less fannish lurkers than an off-LJ board or site. Cause, really, who's gonna think to go to a journaling site for fannish stuff? "Journal" implies a personal diary of sorts. It's counter-intuitive unless you're already "in the know".

And yet, lurkers still come here (An LJ comm shows up in the first ten search results when you google "buffy fanfic"). When you pimp out your awesome new fic, you hope people will rec it. Those people may do so. And in doing so, they may send lurkers your way.

These are people you invited by implication when you posted publicly on the internet. You laid out the doormat. You expect to be read. You want people to read you. These lurkers? They're your audience.

See how I tied that digression back up to the main topic? Kinda nifty, huh?

Now let me move forward with that thought, because I know the general attitude towards lurkers is that they don't matter because they don't contribute. I'd say that they matter because they're the reason we contribute. They don't cease to exist just because you can't see them. They're there. They're consuming. And they're being fans in their own way.

When you're on a fic-reading spree, there's probably times when you don't leave feedback for a piece for whatever reason (and if you comment for every single piece of fanfic you read, you're like a fic-reading demi-god or something). For that piece, you were a temporary lurker. You read. You (maybe) enjoyed. You moved on. Did you stop being a fan in that moment just because you decided not to leave feedback? Did you stop loving the show as much as you used to?

Odds are, other people do the exact same thing with any fanworks you may produce. They consume it. They enjoy it. They move on. For that moment, they were lurkers, too.

Fandom encompasses those people of the first group, those people of the second group, and the lurkers. Everybody consumes. Some produce content. Others participate in discussions. And the lurkers provide the constant audience.

I talked a long time ago about how I assumed I always had at least one lurker reading my stuff. That way, if I didn't get any feedback, it didn't matter (And I have been in fandoms where I wrote stuff that got zero feedback. I kept writing). Because that one silent person presumably read and enjoyed whatever I put out there, and that was my purpose in posting it to the net in the first place. For someone, somewhere, to enjoy.

Given lurker statistics, there's a good likelihood that that holds true.

So I know that it's easy to wonder exactly what these lurkers are contributing.

I've tried to work out one of my crazy visual metaphors, but my brain keeps fucking it up. So let me just mangle these thoughts I have around on this one.

The visible community of fandom which consists of the first and second groups form something of a performance club. An open club where anybody can participate, but that is out on the street (the internet, see) with the awareness that anybody can come watch. In fact, we want people to come watch. We want people to see the fantastic works of fiction and art and meta and video that we're creating. We want people to read the discussions, the debates. Without those people watching, we might as well lock down our doors and retreat to a password-only section of the net. We might as well stop promoting our stuff far and wide in the hopes people will read and enjoy.

We're performers and the lurkers are the audience. We're performing fandom and in watching us, the lurkers become a part of that fandom. Without them, we're just some crazy loonies out on the street contorting ourselves for our own amusement. With them, we become recognized as contributors to something greater.

They don't have to say a damn word to do so. Because they're busy or don't have anything to say or don't feel comfortable speaking English or they just don't want to. And yet, because of them, what we're doing here in fandom ripples out and touches many more people than we can immediately perceive.

And that's damn nifty.

*waves pom-poms*

Did I blab on enough? Can I stop now and watch South Park while slowly wasting away? Yes? Okay!

Idle curiosity

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:20:59 GMT

Humor me a bit. It's Friday night. I have no plans. And I have question-y thoughts.

Poll is below. Unfortunately, I could only include BtVS characters. LJ poll limits prevent me from adding AtS characters on. Sorry!

...I forgot Anya. *flogs self* Select "Someone else" if need be for her.

View Poll: #1518441

I have no point or hidden agenda. I'm honestly curious to see if this holds true or not. And if so, what (if anything) it means.

Discuss!