July 2002
posts
End of the World Get-Together -- Dedalus,
12:07:34 07/25/02 Thu
Okay, I'm sure most of us have heard the news about that
British astronomer guy that located a mile and a half
asteroid that seems to be on a collision course with earth.
It's set to hit a few days before my 43rd birthday, on
February 1, 2019. Scientists say they need some thirty years
to get together something that could sufficiently deflect
it, but we've only got seventeen years to spare.
Okay, so there's always some doomsday scenario on the
horizon, and chances are the calculations are not in any way
correct, but just for the sake of argument ...
I mean, come on! If we're going out, we may as well have
some fun with it. Yeah, the world may be ending, but hey, I
still wanna hang. So I'm proposing the Ultimate Existential
Scooby Get Together on January 31, 2019. If there's going to
be an asteroid streaking through the atmosphere that will
eventually land and bring to an end human civilization as we
know it, I at least want a good seat, so I'm suggesting our
bash should be on top of Stone Mountain. You know, to give
it that Front Row Seat kinda feel.
One of the big advantages of this is there's simply not a
lot of room for excuses. A lot of people might whine and
say, "Well, I really haven't got the money," or "I just
can't take off from school/work then." Screw that! It's the
end of the world! What else have you got to do? I mean,
honestly, I see this as the best opportunity for all of us
to get together, and give the world-before-its-reduced-to-a-
fiery-nightmarish-post-apocalyptic-ash-heap a big
Existential Scooby send off. We'll talk philosophy, read
poetry, sing songs, eat pop corn, poll favorite Buffy and
Angel episodes, and what the hell, maybe even work in an
orgy. If these board romances continue, half the board will
probably be married by that time anyway.
What do you think? Can I get a "Whoa Existential Scooby End
of the World Get Together!"?
[>
Re: So next year is a no go, huh? :-) -- LittleBit,
12:21:48 07/25/02 Thu
[> [>
I knew Ded could find another excuse to postpone if he
only looked..:-D -- zargon, 12:23:48 07/25/02 Thu
[>
Count me in... ;o) -- dubdub, 14:30:51 07/25/02
Thu
...should I live that long!
;o)
[>
I'll come if we can make snow angels. And drink beer in
our pj's. -- Dichotomy, 15:03:20 07/25/02 Thu
I figure we can fit those activities in before the orgy.
Whaddya think?
[>
Sure, what do I have to lose? -- Earl Allison,
17:40:26 07/25/02 Thu
Maybe it's a GOOD thing, this way, I'll never see 50 :)
Take it and run.
[>
Hey, we might even get Joss and the rest of ME to
come! -- Dedalus :-P, 18:07:32 07/25/02 Thu
[>
I'm in...I'll need another vacation by then
anyways. -- LadyStarlight, 19:05:12 07/25/02 Thu
[>
got nothing else better to do that day.... -- Liq,
19:47:26 07/25/02 Thu
[>
Hummm... wonder what the Classic Movie of the Week will
be that week? -- OnM, 06:19:35 07/26/02 Fri
What if it lands in the ocean? Should we bring swim suits,
or will we still be all naked after the orgy?
[> [>
Re: Did I miss the memo on this? -- Brian,
06:28:46 07/26/02 Fri
I'll bring hot dogs and buns!
[> [>
Heck, OnM, that's easy--George Pal's "When Worlds
Collide" -- cjl, 07:16:51 07/26/02 Fri
What else?
Oh, and pencil me in for the orgy.
[> [>
Not particularly a good movie...but the obvious choice
for me would be "Armageddon" -- Rob,
09:23:30 07/26/02 Fri
...and the fact that Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck could
defeat the evil asteroid could give us some false sense of
hope!
Rob
[> [> [>
or the Canadian version - Last Night -- ponygirl,
10:13:26 07/26/02 Fri
...where instead of trying to save the world everyone just
politely waits for it to finish.
Fab movie though, definitely worth renting if you can find
it. I'll bring my copy to the orgy!
[> [> [> [>
YES!!! Incredible movie! But we should see it.. -
- redcat, 11:00:24 07/26/02 Fri
*before* the Last Night, in case the damn thing hits at
high noon...
[> [> [> [>
Re: or the Canadian version - Last Night --
matching mole, 11:55:42 07/26/02 Fri
A great film. Loved David Cronenberg calling everyone up to
assure that the Gas Company was going to keep on working
until the end.
A very civilized way to have an apocalypse.
Joss on the Death of Tara ...taken from Watch with
Wanda ...no spoilers -- Rufus, 20:32:31 07/25/02
Thu
eonline.com
Quote from Watch with Wanda July 26/02
On that note, before signing off, I want to share with you a
bit of a conversation I had with Joss about Tara's death and
the subsequent outrage. Hundreds of you emailed me with
differing opinions on the way it was handled, and many of
you forwarded me that thought-provoking article by Robert A.
Black, so I feel it's important to address.
I asked Joss if he was surprised that Tara's death upset so
many people, and he said: "No, I wanted people to be upset--
it's my job to upset them. What was surprising was that
there was a lot of hate toward us. It was an episode that
was so clearly about male violence and male dominance, and
suddenly I'm a gay basher. It's one thing when you piss off
the people you want wiped off the planet. It's different
when it's people you care about--your audience. But it's
especially frustrating when they treat you in the same knee-
jerk manner."
I asked if he could understand why it was painful to lose
TV's only positive lesbian relationship. "You have to
understand," he said, "I'm not watching TV. You either watch
it or you make it. So,when people said,'Willow and Tara were
all we had.' I was like, 'I didn't know that.' And I felt
bad that that should be the reality. But on the other hand
then, it's like we were the coolest."
Robert Black or BBovenGuys essay is at the Trollop Board
I always saw the death of Tara as something about male
violence but do admit that the timing could have appear to
be invoking the "Lesbian Cliche"....so how I made up my mind
on the subject was to look at the history of both Willow and
Tara and the events of Tara's death and feel that Joss is
right it's about senseless violence and how it can have
unexpected consequences. JMO
[>
I agree, Rufus. (season 6 spoilers) -- Rob,
21:29:05 07/25/02 Thu
I understand how some have read it, but that is taking the
details of the story out of context, IMO. If Willow came
out, fell in love with Tara, Tara was killed, and Willow
went evil all within the space of two or three episodes,
then it would have been the old lesbian cliche. But I
thought it was quite clear that Willow wasn't being punished
for being gay. If she was, it was three full years after
having a rich, rewarding, and most importantly, positive and
healthy relationship with a woman. No, I don't buy that.
Willow might have been cosmically punished as a result of
resurrecting Buffy, but that's about it. I thought it was
quite clear (again, don't want to assign my opinion to
others) that Tara's death was a negative thing. And Willow's
transformation was a result of her hurt and pain over Tara's
death, especially so soon after finally reuniting with her,
not as a declaration that lesbian sex leads to death and
evilness. Why didn't this happen the other bajillion times
they had sex? If one were to argue that there was not as
much graphic touchage between the two before, I would point
him or her to a little song called "Under Your Spell" from
OMWF, especially the action occurring during the last
stanza. ;o)
I think all the touching and kissing was necessary to make
it clear that finally after months of hell, Willow's life
was finally coming back into place. Everything was
absolutely fairy-tale perfect...and then the rug was pulled
out from under her, making Tara's death all the more tragic
and her reaction all the more gutwrenching.
Rob
[> [>
Here, here -- cjc36, 01:52:07 07/26/02 Fri
[> [>
I don't understand... -- Darby, 07:11:51
07/26/02 Fri
...How people think that cliches aren't cliches because one
detail doesn't particularly line up. Think about all of the
variations of the "be trampy, have sex, get killed" cliche
that have been done in horror/slasher movies (Joss even
alludes to it on one of the DVD tracks). The W/T example
may have some mitigating details, but the "be lesbian, have
sex, get killed, go evil" cliche is very much there. And it
is largely irrelevant to say, "No, see, that's not really
the message here!" The cliche carries its own weight, as
cliches do. And someone on the ME staff (deKnight,
maybe?)admitted to knowing about the lesbian cliche long
before the ep was plotted (in the original breakdown, it was
largely avoided; I think that cliches become cliches
because they are valuable as cheap manipulation, and that's
why they get used and why it got used here).
No one has seriously accused ME of purposely sending the
message that goes with the cliche. That's the sad thing,
though: they knew what the cliche message classically is
and didn't take the creative steps to avoid it. Many of us
see this as indicative of a lack of...what? Talent? Social
consciousness? Probably effort. Does anyone here think
they could not have come up with a way to accomplish
their goals that would have given us that old emergence-of-
Angelus rush? Instead, it's this lingering jump-the-shark
twinge...
And does anybody believe that Joss didn't know the
significance of the W/T relationship on TV? How many times
have his own words said otherwise? Sure, our Great Nerd
Auteur is totally unaware, even after being interviewed for
gay and lesbian publications, of doing something fairly
unique. As I've said before, his attitude of "make the
viewers upset, give them stuff they don't want" has itself
become a cliche, and it's a dangerous one if you don't put
enough thought into it. This one has bitten back big-time,
and I'd just like to see them acknowledge it and move on.
Heck, I'm trying to talk myself into doing essentially that
same thing.
And for someone who never watches tv, he sure does snipe a
lot at Charmed...
[> [> [>
Agreed. -- AurraSing, 07:36:33 07/26/02 Fri
My view of this article was a lot more negative than
Rufus'...I've basically lost most of my faith in both ME and
Joss after the debacle of season 6. Pouring salt into the
wounds of those who were most outraged by the way W/T was
resolved does not help matters in any way,shape or form. It
was not so much the death of a lesbian lover but the death
of the last loving sexual relationship on the show and the
lame attempt to turn Willow into a BB that really was a slap
in the face to me.Was this truly the best that ME could come
up with??
"We can't think of anything better to do so let's break up
the couple and do a "Dark Phoenix" with Willow. And hey,we
are the coolest!!!"
After reading this article I've decided NOT to try and talk
my friends who have stopped watching BTVS during or at the
end of season 6 to start watching the show again when season
7 resumes.
If in fact ME does pull off a decent season,I'll urge them
to watch the reruns.
But based on the mistruths and sleight-of-hand they have
been pulling off over the past while,I'm the least
optimistic I've been about any tv show coming back for
another season in a long,long time.
I embarassed myself early this spring on one board by
declaring that "Hey,trust in Joss,things will get turned
around and we will all be happy about how things turned
out"...well,I apologise now for that statement and have
learned never to defend those who really don't deserve
it.
In this case I've been burnt and I'm coming back very,very
skeptical.
[> [> [>
Re: I don't understand... -- grifter, 07:38:55
07/26/02 Fri
"No one has seriously accused ME of purposely sending the
message that goes with the cliche. That's the sad thing,
though: they knew what the cliche message classically is and
didn't take the creative steps to avoid it."
See, the sad thing really is that people really DID think
they were doing the "cliche" on purpose. After two years of
the most beautiful relationship ever in a tv series people
over at the W/T boards really WERE accusing ME and Joss as
being gay-haters. I enjoyed the "Kitten Board" very much,
but soon after news of Tara´s death came out the whole
board, including, sadly, the moderators, weas running amok.
I had to leave it because I couldn´t stand it anymore that
people I had come to like over the last few months were
suddenly hating the people who were responsible for the very
existence of our community. I just didn´t make sense.
"Many of us see this as indicative of a lack of...what?
Talent? Social consciousness? Probably effort. Does anyone
here think they could not have come up with a way to
accomplish their goals that would have given us that old
emergence-of-Angelus rush? Instead, it's this lingering jump-
the-shark twinge..."
Maybe they did see the cliche coming. I think they tried to
avoid being to cliche-y. Have they failed? Apperently so. Is
this a reason to suddenly damn them all to hell? I don´t
think so. People make mistakes. Joss himself admitted to
making lots and lots of them. Why can´t you accept that and
move on?
"And does anybody believe that Joss didn't know the
significance of the W/T relationship on TV? How many times
have his own words said otherwise? Sure, our Great Nerd
Auteur is totally unaware, even after being interviewed for
gay and lesbian publications, of doing something fairly
unique."
The funny thing is that if Joss was trying to make the
perfect lesbian couple because he didn´t see it anywere else
on TV, he couldn´t suceed. And he knows that. The only
reason W/T were so great is that Joss never tried to create
the best lesbian couple on tv, but just to create two
fascinating human beings in love with each other. That´s
what he does, he creates humans, not rolemodels, who have
human relationships and lifes, not role-model relationships
and lifes.
"And for someone who never watches tv, he sure does snipe a
lot at Charmed..."
Well, Charmed really DOES deserve to be sniped at. ;)
[> [> [> [>
Re: I don't understand... -- skeeve, 08:34:42
07/26/02 Fri
It seems to me, having Tara die so soon after sex with
Willow was probably a side-effect of poor writing,
specifically the small amount of time devoted to the W/T
reunion.
Regarding the rest of it: Joss tries to do math. Joss
sucks at math. Maybe Joss tried to avoid a cliche. Maybe
Joss sucked at it.
Who knows, maybe Tara will come back. Just because Osiris
won't send her back, doesn't mean that she can't come back
on her own intiative. Maybe heaven is optional.
[> [> [>
Re: Charmed -- Robert, 09:59:13 07/26/02 Fri
>> "And for someone who never watches tv, he sure does snipe
a lot at Charmed..."
This is interesting. Could you please provide me links or
sources? Thanks!
[> [> [> [>
Wish I could... -- Darby, 11:21:03 07/26/02
Fri
There's the problem with having read WAY too many interviews
- I couldn't begin to cite specific sources.
The major impression I've gotten from Joss is that he sees
Charmed as essentially ripping Buffy off in a
very substandard way. I remember him specifically alluding
to Buffy plots being "recycled" (he used a different word,
more accusatory, but I don't remember exactly what it was)
by Charmed. He has used the show as a general stand-
in for bad tv when he makes snarky remarks. And there's the
whole Shannon Doherty thing - there was a rumor that she
would guest on Buffy, and his response was something
to the effect that he only works with "real" - what?
Actors? Professionals? Something that amounted to a pretty
nasty put-down (especially considering that SD and SMG are
supposed to be friends).
Can anybody help out my failing memory with specifics here?
I'll see if I can track some references down...
[> [> [> [> [>
Here's one... -- Darby, 19:05:53 07/26/02
Fri
Man, this is one difficult thing to do a web search on!
http://moonlight.dreamhost.com/coj/gospels/gospel23.html
[> [> [> [> [>
...And another... -- Darby, 19:13:53 07/26/02
Fri
I guess these were mostly postings - he does get a bit
nastier posting/
http://members.tripod.com/~Little__Willow/josssays.html
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Buffy can get preggers -- skeeve, 09:14:46
07/29/02 Mon
Thanks, Darby.
That site answered an interesting question, though Joss did
sort of hint that he really hadn't thought about it.
"Joss says:
(Mon May 29 20:38:51 2000 205.188.192.174)
Yes, Buffy can get preggers. I assume. Lotta girls can.
in a leaving mode..."
It leaves open the question of whether birth control pills
would work on her.
Of course if Spike comes back to Sunnydale with a soul and a
healthy body, Buffy might incorrectly assume that birth
control is unnecessary.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
G, I always assumed Slayers Were Sterile, for
practicallity purposes at least. -- Majin Gojira,
16:55:56 07/29/02 Mon
[> [> [>
Re: I don't understand... -- JBone, 17:06:17
07/26/02 Fri
OK, this is coming from someone who had no idea that there
was even such a thing as a lesbian cliche until this whole
controversy exploded. I knew of the horror cliche in movies
when someone has sex, they die, but had no idea of a special
lesbian clause. I'm fully immersed in the Buffyverse, and I
was only vaguely aware of the kudos that ME was receiving
from the gay/lesbian community for the Willow/Tara couple.
I'm upset that Tara was killed off, much the same way I was
upset that Jenny, Doyle, Joyce or Buffy was killed off.
It's sad and tragic, but the best stories usually are. And
Tara's death was arguably the most tragic story told on
BtVS. Anyway, this whole debate is giving me tired head,
and wishing for the good ole days of Spike saturation. Like
that subject never got its just due.
I don't mean to be insensitive, if this is, because I
understand the "burn Joss" point of view. I just don't
agree with it. I've been reading this stuff for three
months now, and I really just want to turn the page on it.
So go ahead and fry me, I'm a white, heterosexual male,
living in America if that helps you spray the lighter
fluid
[> [> [> [>
The two cliches conflated -- d'Herblay, 20:26:17
07/26/02 Fri
I am (big surprise) with Rah in thinking that whether or not
something is or is not a cliché has more to do with
its effect on the reader than with how many times it has
been done before. After all, the "Identical Twins Separated
at Birth" trope has been a standard element of farce since
at least the first century. That does not mean that when
Shakespeare went back to it in Comedy of Errors, he
was being cliché. Nor was Mark Twain, going back to
that well in The Prince and the Pauper, indulging in
cliché. But these are subjective judgments, and I'd
bet there were groundlings who sat through Comedy of
Errors muttering "This was old when Plautus did it."
It seems to me, that in the rush to find some reason (any
reason?) to condemn the death of Tara, people have conflated
two entirely separate clichés and created this
supposed "lesbian cliché" ab novo. The first
cliché is an expansion on the one JBone mentions as
being associated with horror films: someone has sex, someone
dies. But it is not limited to just sexual situations. It is
a recurring plot point in Buffy that just when people
are finally happy again, whammo! I just watched
"Passion" the other night, and one can see Jenny's death
just as she and Giles reconcile as cliché, or one may
prefer to view such as the stuff from which tragedy is made.
Again and again in the Buffyverse, people just manage to get
their lives back together only to have them fall apart.
"Passion," "Becoming," "The Body" -- if these were
cliché, give me cliché every Tuesday. I
suppose that there has never been a direct causation between
happiness and death on Buffy, never anything like the
cliché of the cop three days from retirement who's
just had a baby and has a bull's-eye on his back where you
can look right at a character and know he's doomed, but
there has been a definite corelation.
The other cliché cited over at the Kitten manifesto
is an "Evil Lesbian" cliché. I think this is a recent
innovation, dating back to Sharon Stone in Basic
Instinct, and it concerns a villainous female character
who uses her sexuality for nefarious purposes. (Jennifer
Tilly in Bound may be an example of such a character
who escapes cliché; Jane March in The Color of
Night one who does not. Denise Richards and Neve
Campbell in Wild Things also come to mind, but that's
not such a rare occurance.) Technically, it should be the
Evil Bisexual cliché, but never mind that.
This cliché is only evoked when the sexuality is
bound up with the evil. VampWillow might fit the criteria,
but EvilWillow certainly does not. A less sexual being I
cannot imagine.
I don't think either of these clichés really
occur during the season endgame, and I am certain that the
bastardized combination of the two currently being called
the "lesbian cliché" is not a cliché at all.
After all, if so many people have to be educated as to its
existence, can it really have become trite?
I also suspect that some people are so proudly waving the
this supposed cliché in Joss's face because they are
desperate for some grounds on which to criticize the loss of
a favorite character or the extreme transformation of
another favorite, and if, in the process, they can wrap
themselves in a rainbow flag and make themselves look holier-
than-thou, then all to their benefit. I thought that "Seeing
Red" was the most powerful Buffy episode of 2002, and
I am unwilling to let it be implied that in this subjective
preference I am somehow either insensitive to gay issues
(though I may well be; my apologies if anything in this post
offends) or not well-versed enough in popular culture to
recognize a cliché.
[> [> [> [> [>
THANK YOU, OnM! -- Rob, 21:10:05 07/26/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Ooof! I meant d'Herb! God...I'm too tired to be
typing. -- Rob, 21:23:00 07/26/02 Fri
A thousand pardons, d'Herb! Sorry!
Rob :o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Does this mean I have to write a movie review
tomorrow? -- d'Herblay, 23:31:07 07/26/02 Fri
Well, short notice but ok. And if OnM has to do the
archives, yay!!!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And what will your CMoTW be? ;o) -- Rob,
08:32:41 07/27/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm starting to suspect that OnM took my offer
seriously! -- d'Herblay, 18:10:37 07/28/02 Sun
Where is the CMotW, anyway?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Look up! :-) -- OnM, a day late, but only 50c
short. Not bad, considering., 19:17:50 07/28/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
Nice post -- Rahael, 05:14:46 07/27/02 Sat
Let's not forget the jealous black man killing his white
girlfriend cliche, or the greedy and rapacious Jew or
powerhungry ambitious women, evil witches, miserable
puritans etc.
Though it does remind me of the amusing story where a woman
goes to see Hamlet for the first time. Asked what she
thought of it, she said "It was good. But did the lines have
to be so cliched? (!).
And err, Rob, LOL
[> [> [> [> [>
Cliche City -- Darby, 07:24:53 07/27/02 Sat
People with more background and better memories than I wrote
essays back when this was a fresh controversy invoking
movies and television that were so old that I remember
watching it when I had no idea there were lesbians to
punish, so it's older than Sharon Stone, literally. I seem
to remember that it was a point of discussion in The
Celluloid Closet, and the images shown seemed to support
the idea.
For me, a cliche becomes problematical when it draws you out
of the story, when the pattern is so stubbornly adhered to
that any sense of tension in "Oh, what's going to happen?"
becomes this nasty mixture of "Here it comes, here it
comes," and "Oh, they're not really going to do this, are
they? Have they no pride?" I mentioned the Mark Harmon
subplot on the season finale of The West Wing, which
is a great / horrible example - he just needed a red shirt
to complete it.
And it occurs to me that I might not be quite fair in this
instance because there's a significant difference: part
of what made the whole thing seeme cliched is that I knew
what was going to happen anyway. I quickly learned here
that I prefer to remain unspoiled, but there was no way to
avoid more-or-less knowing about Tara, so maybe the set-up
just seemed cliched.
Nope, nope, that's not what happened here. I forgot,
cliches work two different ways: there are the ones you see
coming (like, from this discussion, I'll see rolling in
every time a BtVS character is shown being blissful) and
which are distracting in the moment, and the ones which you
don't see because of ignorance, like the minority
stereotypes in the movies I watched as a kid but now,
because I know more, I can't ignore. I have to admit that I
didn't pick up on the cliche when I watched the episode for
the first time, but it sure colors my attitude toward it
now.
And I'd forgive it if there was some inherent payoff -
there's a difference between the cliches of Scream
and the ones of the current Halloween. Shakespeare
could take a cliche and twist it into something fresh,
something ME is generally good at. Where's the twist here?
Is Tara coming back from the astral plane to say, "Well,
Will, I had to die, I was the lesbian. You didn't go all
evil, did you?"
But even though that may happen, the infuriating thing about
this has been the "Who, us?" innocence exhibited by ME.
When it was pointed out that the wig lady monster was
disturbingly phallic, they immediately confessed with an
"Oops!" and acknowledged it on the show when the chance
arose. There is a certain responsibility as artist
exercised here, as also showed up in "Yeah, the season was
depressing, but we meant to do that, and maybe it didn't
work out as well as we'd like." (Why do I suddenly feel
like the "Smell this shoe!" lady on Boston
Public?)
What I've seen from ME that bothers me is a combination of
pleading ignorance - "Really, even though we've been asked
about the lesbian cliche and discussed it in the past, we
really knew nothing about it" - and misdirection (this is
coming more from fans) - "Yeah, well, they had obvious
sweaty lesbian sex, and then one partner died and the other
went all psycho-bitch, but hey, how about Willow and Tara in
season 5? Wasn't that great?"
What makes me want desperately to drop the subject but what
also keeps bringing me back to it is that most responses
don't seem to understand why and how cliches are an
indicator of bad writing (and a single instance, not an
overall condemnation) and that the detail or extraneous
details are irrelevant. That Mark Harmon was a Secret
Service Agent does not make a war-movie cliche "fresh;" the
backstory on W/T changed the emotional resonance of the
scene but the pertinent details of the cliche - be lesbian,
entice heroine, have sex (and in previous more cencored
incarnations, it was mostly implied), one partner gets
killed, the other goes nuts and becomes evil/suicidal/martyr
- were all there.
This is where it gets dicey - people bring more to the
table. They read conscious anti-gay messages in - but no
one here is doing that, that I've seen. I think that
people also react to my problems as if I'm indicting the
entire season and all of the writers, but I'm not. I do
find this disturbing beyond a single bad cliche, for reasons
I've mentioned, but if I didn't like and respect the show I
wouldn't be here.
So D'Herb, would you really put this usage of a cliche on a
Prince and the Pauper level and not It Takes
Two?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Cliche City -- Sophist, 10:37:55 07/27/02
Sat
The most disturbing aspect of cliches is the fact that
they are invisible to most viewers at the time. When
Elizabethan audiences watched Merchant of Venice,
they didn't see Shylock as a "cliche", they saw a portrayal
of a Jew that fit their pre-existing prejudices. When Ilsa
Lund referred to Sam as a "boy" in Casablanca,
American audiences in 1942 didn't think of it as a cliche,
that's what they thought of African Americans. That lack
of conscious recognition is what makes it a cliche.
The fact that so many people were unaware of the cliche is
evidence for its existence, not its absence. However, if you
don't like the term cliche under such circumstances, you
could call it a failure to identify with the Other. :)
There are no new scenes in art. Every artist has to take a
plot as old as Abraham and re-work it. What distinguishes
art from a cliche is not whether the viewers recognize the
cliche, but whether the artist can bring something fresh to
an old story.
In the S2 commentary, JW admits being aware of the horror
film cliche in which the character (usually the girl) has
sex and gets killed. He knew his story arc invoked that
cliche. It worked because he made something new and fresh.
Great artistry. It didn't work that way in S6.
I completely agree with Darby about having limited
criticisms of S6. As I've made clear before, there was a lot
that I liked in S6 and I liked that a lot.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Cliche City -- Rahael, 10:38:28 07/27/02
Sat
"What makes me want desperately to drop the subject but what
also keeps bringing me back to it is that most responses
don't seem to understand why and how cliches are an
indicator of bad writing (and a single instance, not an
overall condemnation) and that the detail or extraneous
details are irrelevant."
Please explain further. At some point everything can become
a cliche "Vampire with a soul? how lame is that?". The
stuffy English librarian. The bitchy airhead who gets taught
a lesson about life and becomes a better human being. Angel
going psycho after sex, and 'not calling' the next day.
Professor Walsh, the mad scientist who creats a monster.
What confuses me is when people talk about 'bad writing'.
Don't you mean bad plotting?
If you are saying that Seeing Red was a badly written
epsiode, full of clunky lines, unoriginal and stunted
dialogue, hack writing etc, I clearly have no critical
discrimination. Because I think it is a finely written
episode. You say, Shakespeare delivered things with an
original twist - I don't think he did. He made good drama
using and playing up to cultural stereotypes - look at the
Welsh and Scottish characters in Henry V. He didn't subvert
the cliche (did Shylock somehow turn round and confront
society's prejudices?) He just wrote great, complex drama
where even the villains were real human beings. Adding flesh
to the cliche.
Writers write the same stories again and again. They do rip
off each other. THey do use familiar storylines. Shakespeare
didn't make up most of his plots - he used existing
stories.
I can see that western culture has often portrayed
homosexuality as deviant, as sick, as mentally ill and as
undesirable. That if you're gay, you are doomed to a life of
misery and abnormality. Please show me how ME reinforces
this in Seeing Red. To be honest, so far the arguments that
have been advanced have been disengenous. If we're going to
condemn ME for stereotypes and cliches, we should start with
Episode 1, Season 1 and work our way through. And I strongly
protest that we take one episode out of context. BtVS is all
about nuance, about context. That's the level where cliches
get *subverted*. If you ignore the subtext, you get a
reduced and impoverished and misleading reading.
And I have observed that the most harmful and discriminatory
way that Television and Film operate is in the subtle
subtext. Well, nowadays, because it can no longer openly
display itself. For ME to so flagrantly and openly take on a
cliche and make it gut wrenching drama which is all about
Willow and her grief and her pain, is brave and
uncowardly.
I've been the first to defend ME from charges of racism. But
a much stronger case for casual, and wilful racism could be
directed at them than at perpetuating harmful stereotypes
about sexual orientation. People are getting angry at the
way two main gay characters are acting. Where are the
protests about the behaviour of the two main black
characters? Oh, wait. They aren't there
I think a more clear charge of lazy writing could be
directed at the Willow/Tara relationship of Season 5.
Willow, lispy little girl and Tara the placid blank slate. A
clear indicator from ME that being gay infantilises you and
makes you want your partner to read you cute bedtime
stories. I could write post after post that made Joss appear
to be a misogynist, a man who falls back on easy stereotypes
and who produces a programme which is trivial and lazy.
Buffy never gets a break - you could argue that Joss enjoys
punishing women. That being a strong woman means you'll
never have a happy life. Men go away. They are threatened.
They turn evil after sex. Why not just kill yourself and go
to heaven?
This is a view which picks and chooses, which prefers BtVS
show us how to live our lives, and portrays morally
improving characters. It is a reductive approach. Because it
doesn't acknowledge the depth of character, the power of the
narrative, the emotions the show stirs up. If people said
"well, of course it's perfectly natural she turn evil" then
the cliche is alive and well. If they say, "how did that
happen? she was the best of them? how could someone like her
do that?" Then, then, I think, here is a show which is both
challenging, thought provoking and worthy of my interest.
The day I know that Willow is always going to do the right
thing, because of course, she's gay, and the day that Buffy
always is clever and correct in her decisions, because, of
course, she's a woman, and the day that I know Kendra is
going to be a loveable human being the minute I see her
because she's black is the day I hope never to see on Buffy.
Because, that is the real cliche.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The function of criticism -- Sophist, 11:01:13
07/27/02 Sat
Your post makes a good point, though I'm not sure you
intended it so. The fact is, there are many directions from
which one could analyze the show. Your best example is that
people have argued here about the lack of characters "of
color".
Where I think the problem rests is this: there is nothing
per se illegitimate about any such criticism. The
function of criticism is to deconstruct (yeah, I'm
deliberately using a loaded word) and expose hidden
assumptions and attitudes expressed in the show. The only
real issue is whether the critic provides reasonable
evidence to support the criticism.
What is bothersome about ME, and in some of the posts I've
seen here (not yours and not dH's, and
not any in this thread), is the attempt to de-
legitimize the very effort to discuss the problems with the
W/T story arc. The critics (IMHO) are being berated
dismissively rather than refuted.
I have some limited sympathy with the critics. My posts here
have probably given the impression that I feel more strongly
about this issue than I do. In truth, I consider this issue
relatively minor compared to my real problem with the ending
of S6 (the consequences of Dark Willow and the contrived
ending on the hilltop).
What really bothers me -- and the only reason I continue to
post about W/T -- is the failure by so many to address the
issue on the merits.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The function of criticism -- Rahael,
12:10:43 07/27/02 Sat
I'll take the backhanded compliment. Of course, all sorts of
criticisms can be made about the show. And this forum of all
places should be a legitimate forum for criticism. I can
remember back to the heated race debate. I remember feeling
very irritated by being told that to simply look for, and
criticise any show about race was a) illegitimate b) having
a chip on my shoulder. Regardless whether I choose to defend
ME or criticise them, the freedom to do so should exist.
To be honest, I think that a lot of people have made very
clear why the Willow/Tara storyline is not regarded by them
as cliched. Others have an equal right to bring up their
dissatisfaction as many times as they want (if I didn't want
to argue the point, I would bypass the thread, and not
bother responding). There is no official party line
here.
Seeing Red has provoked quite the most thought and
discussion of any ep apart from OMWF. I think that it is to
be welcomed. I am not someone who easily excuses writers/tv
from the perpetuation and transmission of dubious messages -
nor am I someone who is unaware of hidden assumptions and
messages. I've always seen everypart of my life, whether at
my workplace now, or in my academic work to unpick ideas,
and deconstruct texts.
I am probably influenced by how shell shocked I was as a
result of lurking at the Kitten Board after SR. I'm not
surprised, considering all the insults and threats against
ME that the writers are not responding. There is no
obligation for them to defend themselves. Their show speaks
for them, and there is no better defence they could mount.
If I believed that Joss wrote a show which was steeped in
racism and misogyny and fired by knee jerk prejudices, I
wouldn't even accord it the dignity of a response. I'd
simply stop watching it, and since I don't watch much
television anyway, that's not an idle threat. Everything
about this show makes me feel at home, and the more I learn,
and the more I deconstruct, the more I realise how
thoughtful and tolerant and sophisticated it is. Just look
at IRYJ!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree with you about the Kitten Board -- Sophist,
12:23:18 07/27/02 Sat
I think grifter expressed that pretty well higher up in this
thread. Their reaction was self-destructive and abusive.
Even with the Kittens, however, I don't believe anyone
accused ME of intentionally stereotyping lesbians (I
could be wrong here; there were lots of wild accusations
posted there). I'm quite sure no one here has suggested
that. The question for critics is whether ME handled the
potential for stereotyping in a way that was artistically
sound and emotionally sensitive.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
the problem with selective fandoms... --
celticross, 21:14:26 07/27/02 Sat
I too lurked at the Kitten Board after Seeing Red aired. I
didn't like the episode all that much, it was far too
painful to be enjoyable - I don't deny its artistic merits,
but I'll never be able to watch it again. I'd heard the
online rumbles about Tara's death, and I knew the Kittens
would take it hard, but I was unprepared for the level of
rage expressed on that board in the days following Seeing
Red. And I begin to think about the nature of fan boards
and select communities of fans online. The internet has
provided a place for people with similar views to
congregate. If you love the Willow/Tara relationship, there
are others who share your view.
However, it becomes all too easy for a party line to
develop, as Rah put it, and in such an environment, fans
tend to zero in on what they love best about the show and
cling to that as their reason for watching and their
barometer for how well they like what they see. For many of
the Kittens, W/T was the only reason they watched BtVS, and
a few even stated they'd rather see Willow killed off than
with someone new, male or female. Spike is the only reason
some watch, and it was the most ardent redemptionistas who
lead the charge against Marti Noxon (which also got nasty,
though not nearly as vocal). There are websites dedicated
to every possible romantic pairing, and to every character.
We all have favorite characters. I personally prefer Spike,
Giles and Willow (pre Magic Crack, when it was still her
fault). And we like these characters because we can
identify with them. The problem becomes OVER-
identification, which, in my mind, makes watching far less
enjoyable.
There. I've rambled. Make some sense of it if you can.
:)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
good points - I agree. Some additional ones --
shadowkat, 06:15:20 07/28/02 Sun
You make a great deal of sense celtic-cross and I agree with
your points. Been trying to stay away from this topic
because - well it was thrashed too death before SR even
aired. But you make some good points I think about the
episode and fandom.
1."I didn't like the episode all that much, it was far too
painful to be enjoyable - I don't deny its artistic merits,
but I'll never be able to watch it again."
Agree. Seeing Red was IMHO tightly written, well acted with
some Emmy worthy performances. It blew me away with some of
the scenes. But like you I'll never be able to watch
segments of it again.
A friend asked me on Friday, whether Btvs or ATs had ever
done anything this controversial in the past. If they did
they cloaked it in layers of metaphor so the audience wasn't
hit over the head with hammer. Not so in SR. They hit us
over the head with the hammer. What they decided to do in SR
was risky to do. They created not one but two very powerful
and controversial scenes around characters that fandom had
become obsessed with. Similar scenes unfortunately had
already been done on a plethora of tv shows, both daytime
and nighttime. Most notably daytime soaps. (See Lifetime
Channel on Cable for the made-for-tv movies both on the bad
boyfriend and on
the homosexual relationship - which television tends to stay
away from. Everything from Dawson's Creek to 90210 have
dealt with these things and not very well IMHO.)But as
others on the board have pointed out - There really aren't
any new ideas out there - just new ways of expressing them.
And ME normally does an amazing job of expressing these
ideas in new and different ways.
Since I knew Tara was going to die as early as Restless and
only briefly got dissuaded from this opinion, I really had
no problems with that part of the episode. I tend to agree
with Rufus, Rah, D'H and Rob on that one. But that said- I
think the writers made an honest mistake as writers do and
to be honest I may have done the same thing as a writer. We
have to remember that creating something is very different
than watching it. You may watch what you create but it is
unlikely you'll notice what someone else less close to the
art notices.
What was their mistake? How they used the metaphor. Yeah,
yeah - i know Whedon and company were moving away from
metaphors this season, but they still used them. And some of
the metaphors they used contradicted how they used them
previously - confusing the audience. (I think they tend to
forget that their audience remembers every episode and has
analyzed some of the episodes to death.) On W/T - they
attempt to get around the WB censors in Seasons 4-5 by using
magic as a sexual metaphor. Which would have been fine if
they weren't also planning on using magic as a drug
metaphor. PArt of the audience, got confused. What was ME
trying to say? That a lesbian relationship led to darkness?
Or is it a power addiction? Or drugs? At least with OZ,
Willow wasn't using magic as much in the beginning, their
sexual relationship did not feel associated with magic in
the least. It wasn't used as a metaphor for their feelings
towards each other. With Tara - the magic, Joss admits this
in Hush and Restless commentary - was a metaphor for the
sex. What they attempt to do is switch the metaphor - and
let Tara and Willow really have sex. Which would have also
worked well if they had started doing it in Bargaining not
SR. We really don't see them naked in bed until SR. We do
see them kiss and in bed together. But not to the degree. I
see what the writers intended - which was quite innocent and
very nice dramatically but I can also see why a portion of
their audience reacted negatively towards it. If they had
shot Tara anywhere but the bedroom. The backyard. The coffee
house. It wouldn't have been as bed. Of course the bedroom
was more dramatic and enabled them to do the Dawn scene and
link the whole thing to Joyce - etc. I honestly don't think
it ever occurred to them that a portion of the audience
would see the shooting in the bedroom as a negative message
about lesbianism. I didn't see it that way.
But then it's not an issue I live with or that is close to
my heart. Nor was I heavily invested in W/T since I always
knew Tara or whomever they put Willow with would die. That
seemed obvious to me. But i can see why it didn't for other
people.
"We all have favorite characters. I personally prefer Spike,
Giles and Willow (pre Magic Crack, when it was still her
fault). And we like these characters because we can identify
with them. The problem becomes OVER-identification, which,
in my mind, makes watching far less enjoyable."
I agree and feel the same way. My favorites are also
Spike,
Giles and Willow and (pre-drug metaphor Willow). I also
agree that there is a danger of over-identifying with these
characters. For some reason posting and inter-acting on the
internet tends to foster this. Mob mentality? Some of the
boards tend to bolster the emotions, heating them to a
frenzy. I saw that with the Marti threads and the SR
threads. The boards I've stayed with - B C & S and ATP
did not do that. The moderators kept control. We tend to
forget sometimes that Btvs is JUST a television show. It may
be an amazing television show. But it is still just
televison. The characters aren't real and are often created
to serve a plot device or storyline. That's the nature of
fiction. To over-identify with a fictional character to the
extent that they become real and you'll actually send hate
mail to the creator for killing them - may mean it's time to
turn off that tv set, get off the computer, and go outside
for a few walks in the woods.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
I agree cc, sk -- Rahael, 07:34:27 07/28/02
Sun
and just a comment on the magic metaphor. It, like Vampirism
has been used a shifting metaphor - it changes in the
context, just as blood has been a shifting metaphor, and
Slaying.
Was magic a metaphor for lesbian sex or addiction when Giles
used it? or Ethan Rayne? or the Master? Actually, I never
saw the Willow/Tara sex allusions to magic-sex as a metaphor
- more of a sly allusion. A bit of a nod and a wink to a
clued in audience. There is always the danger of
misinterpretation, and harmful misinterpretation in art.
Whether being responsible means fencing off whole storylines
(Tara can't die, Willow shouldn't turn dark) is one that I
have yet to be persuaded upon. Being persuaded on one issue
in BtVS would mean a shift in my entire world view, and
that's something I'm reluctant to undertake.
As for over-identification - I think that only becomes a
probem when you white wash the character. I'm a good person.
That character is me! That character shouldn't do anything
bad. I wouldn't do it, so how can he/she?
In real life, we can never truly know what other human
beings think. One of the great attractions of my reading
obsesssion has been the ability to see how other people
think - not only the writers, but the illusion that you are
in someone elses head, someone elses mind. It's kind of
potent. We come to feel that we have an ownership of the
character.
I can understand why the mood is so angry at the
Kittenboard. Quite apart from the Lesbian cliche thing (that
phrase is rapidly turning into a cliche itself) their entire
raison d'etre has gone! How would we feel if Joss turned
around and said "sorry folks, no real meaning. I just made
it up as I go along. The Shakespeare weekends? a little joke
of mine. I don't actually read any books". I'd like to think
that I'd react with extreme hilarity rather than anger, but
who knows?
By the way, Miss Edith, I think the Kittens are free to say
whatever they want. But they are fighting a public campaign,
so I don't think their discussions are a private matter. Why
else would they write a manifesto? Why else seek to persuade
ME and other fans of their perspective? It most assuredly is
not private. I registered there quite some time ago, before
this whole thing blew up.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: I agree cc, sk -- Miss Edith, 09:14:18
07/28/02 Sun
Willow and Tara's love wasn't just a sly allusion to magic.
Joss has admitted on the season 4 DVD that magic was used as
a clear metaphour. E.g in Who Are You the spell was their
first sexual experience (Joss's words). And in Family when
Tara's father was talking about her being into witchcraft
there was a strong subtext. Even in season 6 when making
love in Seeing Red Tara says about the sex "there was plenty
of magic".
And I agree that the Kittens are seeking to educate people
about the lesbian cliche and how it was used. I really meant
that a lot of people talk about the Kitten board and how
terrible it is there as they are so unfair to Joss etc. Not
suggesting anyone on this board has said this but there is a
lot of condemnation of the Kittens discussions on their own
board which is what I was mainly refering to. It is true
that they are fighting a public campign by writing letters
to magazines and articles to show how Joss offended them.
But the insults and name-calling directed at ME are really
confined to their own board from what I can see and it's how
they let off steam (I'm not a member of the Kitten board
BTW, just an occasional lurker). I don't have a problem with
them letting their feelings about the lesbian cliche and how
Joss followed it known. I would still say their discussions
on their own board are private. JMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Yes...I agree Rah and miss edith. -- shadowkat,
13:31:46 07/28/02 Sun
You make some excellent points here.
I agree that the magic metaphor kept shifting. ME shifts all
its metaphors and trusts that it's audience gets that.
Having rewatched all of Season 1 ATs - I've found a new
appreciation for this. In the course of five episodes, the
writers shift and fully explore several aspects of the soul
metaphor for guilt, vampirisim - removal of guilt and desire
for immortality and the whole desire for clarity - with a
soul everything seems more ambiquous. They do the same thing
with magic. Magic is used to symbolize power, sex, control,
drugs, and experimentation. What is fascinating is all five
of these ideas can be entangled. Often sex is used to
control someone, to show power. Often drugs are used to make
someone have sex with you. Often we experiment with drugs
and sex and lose control. In the past the metaphor was used
with Giles and Jenny and Ethan...now Willow. It is a complex
and interesting metaphor. Me's use of metaphor is one of the
many reasons that I am so obsessed with their shows.
Also agree with the over-identification. We all do it. But I
like to think like you...I would laugh if someone revealed
Joss didn't read books. Probably would. I already laughed
when I discovered that Asmodea came from a video game that
Petrie and Fury were playing and Promethea in Primeval came
from Alan Moore's comic books. What I love about writing is
so much of what we create comes from our unconscious...comes
from what we unconsciously pick up around us. When we read
books or watch tv shows - we get to see how someone else's
mind works what their subconscious picks up and it helps us
understand why others do what they do better. Its one of the
reasons I love to read books - being inside another's head
and one of the reasons I love to write.
Agree with you on the Kitten Board as well. I went there
before and after the spoilers on SR were released. I haven't
been back. There were people who wanted to get the epsiode
pulled and change the writers' story. They also bashed the
writers. That bothered me. It still does. I believe in
authorial integrity and am against censorship.
One of the reasons I love Btvs and Ats is they DON'T pay
attention to what fans want - unlike just about every other
show on television. I've stopped watching most of the other
television shows because of this. I may have despised the AR
scene for instance, but I would never tell the writers to
remove it. I don't know what they have planned next. It's
not my story. I'm just lucky enough to be along for the ride
and so far am enjoying it. The nice thing about it, is if
there comes a time that I no longer enjoy the ride, I can
hop off, turn off the tv and move onto something else. Done
it with more tv programs than I can count.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Fictional characters -- Rufus, 23:07:35 07/28/02
Sun
We tend to forget sometimes that Btvs is JUST a
television show. It may be an amazing television show. But
it is still just televison. The characters aren't real and
are often created to serve a plot device or storyline.
That's the nature of fiction. To over-identify with a
fictional character to the extent that they become real and
you'll actually send hate mail to the creator for killing
them - may mean it's time to turn off that tv set, get off
the computer, and go outside for a few walks in the
woods.
Amber Benson was in Toronto recently and mentioned the
fictional nature of the show and for viewers not to take
things too personally. Seeing Red was a great episode and I
can watch it over and over again. Not because they showed
the death of Tara but because it continued on the evolving
nature of Willows relationship with power. The only thing
that could be questionable in any way was the actual timing
of the death close on the heels of the couple having
sex.
It is well within Willows character to react in the vengeful
way she did. It was foreshadowed in Tough Love in Season 5,
where Taras sanity was taken from her in the mind suck from
Glory. Willow immediately went to find what she needed to
get revenge on who had harmed her lover. In this case the
villian was a God and Willow was no match for her(at the
time, I'd have to wonder season six). Willow acted out in a
violent way with Giles, the same as she had with Glory in
Tough Love(scene with the knives). The difference between
season five and six is that in five, Willow was more limited
in her dark powers and Tara survived, but if she could have
killed Glory in Tough Love she would have, just as Giles
would have killed Angel for the murder of Jenny. There was a
shift in the magic metaphor from sex to drugs, but it did
make some sense. At first Willow had posative feedback from
her powers(though she screwed up many of her spells), she
began to find her identity through power, she felt it was
the reason Tara "could" love her, and when she sourced dark
magicks she paid for her arrogance by losing herself to that
darkness she used to get her way. While Willow used magic in
a posative way, the results we saw just that "magic", she
got the girl, got respect, felt good about who she was. As
soon as magic became a way of getting everything she wanted
her way, Willow became corrupted and all her subsequent uses
of power were tainted by the need for self gain.
When Tara was killed, Willow found out who did it and went
and got her bloody revenge. In the cries of "lesbian cliche"
the original villian, Warren was fogotten. Before I knew of
the lesbian cliche, I took the story for what Joss said it
was, the abuse of male power. I saw that Tara died because
some insecure j/a could only feel good when someone,
preferably female, suffered or was humiliated. Most of all,
Willow(who is still gay) is lost in the need to vent about
the loss of Tara.
The characters in BTVS are fictional, and people do get
emotionally invested in them, but when that investment
includes personal attacks on living people I have to wonder
about the people doing the attacking. I've lurked many
places and I can see why ME would be acting in a less than
friendly way to people who say they are fans and proceed to
use insults and profanity to make their point. If some fans
are finding the reaction of Joss and the other writers to be
less than they want, they should look at their original
message....ones with F*ck you
Joss...Steve...Marti.....whoever....puking
emoticons....personal insults and harassing behavior on
message boards when a writer visits...should remember that a
fictional character died, and being cruel to live people and
expecting them to be friendly to you is not going work.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Fictional characters -- Miss Edith, 09:21:20
07/29/02 Mon
If the Kittens feel better by venting on their own messsage
board and swearing at the writers than I will say again I
still think they have every right to do that. It is their
community and no one is forcing the writers to visit a place
where they know they will recieve a hostile reception. As
long as writers aren't receiving personal threats through
the post I believe the Kittens can behave as they wish on
their own board. There are far worse sites on the internet
than a community saying amongst themselves that they hate
the writers of Buffy and feel personally betrayed. More than
one Kitten is so deeply upset they have mentioned being
suicidal. Not becuase of Buffy alone of course. But Joss
assuring them they could trust him to tell a love story
without having it end in suffering for the lesbian as in the
cliche was a betrayel in their minds. They were personally
assured by writers that the lesbian cliche was purposely
going to be avoided and Willow and Tara were a safe ship to
emotionally invest in. T/W were the light in a dark world
and many Kittens want their pain acknowledged.
One young girl is in the hospital with a suspected tumour
waiting and hoping that her grandmother will visit. Her
grandmother (who she lives with) wants nothing to do with
the young girl who has come out as gay and her only support
and way of feeling less alone is on the Kitten board. There
is a lot of pain and betrayel there as well as hate and
anger. If the people there feel like saying Joss is an a-
hole, he screwed us etc whether I agree or not they do have
a right to say it on their own board in my mind.
Joss and ME have cetainly fueled the fire with their own
harsh attitudes. Whether it is a response to the comments or
not no compassion was shown to the Kitten board from the
very beginning of Tara's death way before the bitterness
rose. If having puking emoticons makes them feel better who
am I to disagree. I would speak against intimadation of Joss
through threatening e-mail. That is not what the Kittens are
doing. Maybe a fringe element is personally threatening Joss
as any unpleasant minority will do when pushed but the board
as a whole is not encouraging such behaviour. Someone
mentioned Marti having a gay mother and they were told not
to talk about the writers personal lives. The writers work
and decision to kill Tara and make Willow the sterotypical
vengeful lesbian/evil witch is what is critisiced. Certainly
the Kittens are not going about condemning MEs recent work
kindly or tactfully but again it is their board and they do
have a right to do this if it helps them to feel better. No
writer is forced to read what the Kittens think of them on
that board.
And as for your comment about the real message of the
Tara/Willow arc is a caution against male power I would
disagree. Yes Warren was presented as a hateful character
but the focus is on Willow and how power is corrupting her.
That is the message most viwers are getting from the images
they watch. The end of season 6 will be remembered as the
one where Willow was the big bad, not Warren purely because
we have more of an emotional investment in Willow's
character.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
I can't agree -- Sophist, 09:46:09 07/29/02
Mon
There is some sense to the idea that a Board can serve as a
private place to vent feelings that shouldn't be expressed
elsewhere. BUT. A group hatefest is hardly likely to lead to
calmer, more rational views. Sometimes we let out emotions
on others for cathartic effect, and it's helpful to us
because the other person provides sympathy and
understanding. When the others react with even more venom,
this is not catharsis, it's a mob mentality. ME's behavior
has hardly been ideal, but their reactions are not without
provocation.
If someone is truly suicidal "because" of W/T, I would
politely and sympathetically suggest that that person had
problems pre-dating W/T. I do sympathize with social
outsiders. I do understand that TV role models can be
significant in their personal struggles. But they are just
fictional characters. Real tragedy is the death of Abraham
Lincoln or MLK, Jr.
Notwithstanding what people may assume from my posts here,
the W/T story arc (as distinct from DarkWillow) does not
affect in any way my view of any S6 episode, including SR. A
posting board should provide a way for viewers to come to
terms with the problems they have with a scene or a story.
This Board does that; I gain a great deal from the views of
others even when I argue most strongly against them. The
posters on the Kitten Board are hurting themselves even more
than they are anyone else.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I can't agree -- Miss Edith, 10:29:03
07/29/02 Mon
There really isn't the group hatefest that is assumed by
Buffy fans on the Kitten board. The anger there is clear but
the rep the Kittens are getting on other boards really is
exagerated. There is one thread purely for venting which is
The Angry Rant Thread. Other threads on the board do have
people critisicing the decisions made regarding W/T but it
isn't as much as some would claim. The reputation really
comes from the venem displayed directly after Seeing Red
aired. The board was at that point not a pleasant place to
visit I will admit. But the feelings whilst still there no
longer overwhelm the board in the way that many critics
would like to claim. (Not saying you are BTW.)
On other boards a lot of mocking is aimed at the Kittens and
the board only allows registrated people to post following
the number of trolls who came there to bash them following
what they had heard. The Kittens still have to deal with
trolls who will make the effort to register in order to tell
the Kittens to stop being vengeful lesbians and that Joss is
God and beyong reproach.
The anger directed at Joss is primarily because he is now
saying that he never saw W/T as lesbains and he treated them
like any other couple. He has also said he had no idea of
the impact that killing Tara would have as he never saw her
as a lesbain.
The Kittens are calling him on this because Joss has spoken
in the past of all the letters he has received from gay
people thanking him for giving them a positive role model.
Young people coming out to their families have written to
Joss thanking him for making it easier for them. He has
received so many letters from people relieved that he got it
and is truly interested in making the world a better and
more tolerant place. He is now saying he never realised
killing off Tara would have such an impact? He must have
foreseen some anger following all the letters calling him a
trused friend surely?
He publicly talked about W/T being the most important thing
he had ever done and how much he valued the storytellers
ability to help people. More than one writer discussed the
lesbian cliche and promised viewers they were not interested
in "what we feel is this tired and old cliche". Marti has
spoken of wanting to "push the frontiers" with what could be
shown of the relationship and how important it was to her
that W/T be treated as equal to the straight couples on the
show. Gay viewers trusted in Joss and gave him ratings based
on the comments he was making. In their position I would be
quite happy to condemn his behaviour. There really is a
sense of personal betrayel following the relationship that
Joss had build up with his audience. He did encounter
grateful viewers at conventions and publicly made promises
about Tara and Willow's relationship not ending with the
cliche of one lesbian dying doomed to misery and the other
becoming evil. He followed this cliche to the letter and is
now denying that he owes anything but to the story. He had
spoken of how it makes him proud to have helped society
through his work. He was sent a toaster by one group (based
on Ellen). He has recieved awards from the gay media. He had
encouraged all of this and spoke publicly about pushing the
WB network to allow two lesbians to kiss on his show. He is
now saying his responsibility is purely to the story. It is
not just the way W/T ended their relationship. Joss's
attitude has encouraged their anger and betrayel felt by the
Kittens.
I would agree that no person would commit suicide based on a
tv show only. I mentioned in my post that certain people
were very depressed because of many factors. The behaviour
of ME is just the final kick in the gut for many. ME have
refused to acknowledge the misery they have caused. They
believe the sex shown in Seeing Red and the kissing in
Entropy is all they owed the viewing public. If their
responsibility had been to the story all along perhaps there
would have been less anger. But Joss made specific promises
which the Kittens feel were broken. That is why they feel
Joss owed them more then they got. Because of the writers
own words.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I can't agree -- Rufus, 13:55:45 07/29/02
Mon
I never mentioned a specific board, you did. And the net is
far from private, even if you have to register to get onto a
site. Working fellow members of a board into a continual
hate fest is far from productive. Tara is a fictional
character who serves the storyline of the regular fictional
character Willow. Willow was for those hours in Two to Go
and Grave supposed to be the Big Bad. I have listened to
interviews and read print interviews from Steve DeKnight,
David Fury, Jane Espenson, and Joss Whedon, as well as read
numerous articles with quotes from Joss. My impression is
that they have learned a lesson from what has happened with
the fan reaction from the death of Tara. The writers are
"real" people, not fictional characters, the treatment of
them has been disgusting. Some members will accept nothing
short of the return of Tara and are treating the writers
like they are "real" murderers. If they want a dialogue with
the writers the constant put downs, foul language, harassing
behavior at The Bronze, personal insults..aren't gonna get
the writers to treat anyone like that in a gentle way.
I understand that some people have a personal investment in
a character, but jeeze get a grip! Any character is
expendable on BTVS and it was Tara that got it this time, to
throw away all the good parts of the show including Willow
makes no sense to me.
Bad behavior isn't going to get a posative response, and
shouldn't get a posative response. The writers have a job,
the characters are their creation, they write what Joss
tells them to write. The characters aren't real and the
writers reflect that when they speak. To treat them like
real life criminals for telling their story is like mob
censorship. If people are hurt by the death of Tara the
constructive thing to do is write about the real hurt, the
personal attacks and insults can't be expected to have the
writers treat their attackers with any respect as those
people have proved they don't deserve it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I can't agree -- Miss Edith, 14:31:05
07/29/02 Mon
I never accused anyone on this board of bashing the Kittens.
I was simply saying that other Buffy boards do treat the
Kittens as a joke and indulge in wholescale bashing of a
site that they do not need to visit if they don't wish
to.
I did not say the net was private. I said that the Kitten
board is a community for W/T fans only and I stand by my
comment that the writers do not need to visit if they find
the attitudes offensive. It is considered a haven for W/T
shippers so if they do visit expecting their work to be
praised surely they must know that is not the case and they
will encounter bitterness. Steven DeKnight talking of
fearing ranting lesbians threatening him and implying the
Kittens as a board are involved is a lie. No personal
threats were aimed at the writers on that board. Not all
members are even lesbians anyway.
And I would disagree with your statement that the board is
unproductively "working fellow members of a board into a
continul hate fest". There was fan outrage after SR and I do
agree that the board did have people critisising the writers
work strongly. But the board has calmed down since then
although there is one thread dedicated to ranting and
occasional nasty comments do emerge in other threads. But I
will say again personal insults are not tolerated. The
writing is critisised only, along with occasional comments
about Joss's false promises and how they feel screwed.
Spoiler for Firefly:
Someone called Joss a "comic geek" and made a suggestion on
his sexual preferences based on spoilers that Firefly would
have lines like "they're going to rape us to death, then eat
our flesh" and they were pulled up for it.
End of spoiler.
Personal insults are not hurled at the writers private lives
although people do make comments like f**k ME. But if that
helps them let off steam I cannot see the harm in it. People
are not working others up continuosly. In fact the only time
more anger emerges is following another of MEs tactless
interviews or public comments.
I'm sorry if you disaprove of the board but the writers are
not forced to visit it and as long as such commets are not e-
mailed to the writers the Kittens have a right to condemn ME
when talking amongst themselves on their own website. Maybe
you don't appreciate foul language or the writers being put-
down unkindly. In that case don't visit their website.
As for your comments about harrassing behaviour at the
Bronze in fact the writers themselves commented on their
dismay at the attitude in the Bronze from a significant
minority which was basically "the fat ugly lesbian got what
she deserved" etc. Some Kittens tried to challenge such
attitudes but gave up in the end as the mocking of their
grief over Tara was so widespread.
And I am not denying that some Kittens are not just sticking
to their private forum in which to challenge Joss. There
have been articles on the lesbian cliche appearing in on-
line magazines for instance. But I personally have only seen
the Kittens swear and insult ME on their own board in which
people visiting are almost always expecting unpleasant
attitudes based on the reputation the board has gained.
If I were Joss I would be hurt by the strength of feeling on
that board. But then again if I were Joss I would not waste
my time visiting that board in the first place knowing what
reception ME can expect.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I can't agree -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:20:19
07/29/02 Mon
Come on! Have you ever doubted that Joss Whedon enjoys
torturing, not only his characters, but his fans as well?
Therefore, complaining about unsentimental comments from him
is kinda hypocritical, since any BtVS watcher should be
clued into the fact that he's an enormous sadist, but not
bothered complaining about it when he's done it in the
past.
(Take post with a grain of salt)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I can't agree -- Miss Edith, 16:15:34
07/29/02 Mon
I know the writers joke and wind up fans a lot. But the
Kittens don't feel such an attitude is appropriate at the
moment and were actually half-hoping for some compassion to
be shown towards their feelings. It really was interviews
like Steven DeKnight's mocking of fans that got them so
riled up in the first place. Yes to the majority of fans the
comments from the writers may not seem particularly
objective but the Kittens were feeling sensitive and hoped
the writers would take that into consideration. The
perceived belittling of their feelings was certainly not
expected and caught them so unawares that following certain
interviews with the writers many Kittens were indeed
literally spitting with rage.
I am not a Kitten as I have said but I will defend their
right to condemn ME on their board providing it doesn't get
personally offensive to the writers in question. I do not
count insults of their work as personally offensive any more
than I would if reading an episode guide saying the writer
had produced crap/what were they thinking etc. As long as
the comments don't get personal they have not crossed any
lines in my eyes.
It really is easy to joke that Tara is just a fictional
character and we should take the writers comments in a light-
hearted manner as that is the spirit in which they are
given. That is just not how some viewers are feeling at the
moment and they are seeing the recent events from a entirely
different perspective from most fans.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I can't agree -- Rufus, 16:37:28 07/29/02
Mon
I said that the Kitten board is a community for W/T fans
only and I stand by my comment that the writers do not need
to visit if they find the attitudes offensive. It is
considered a haven for W/T shippers so if they do visit
expecting their work to be praised surely they must know
that is not the case and they will encounter
bitterness.
If the Kitten Board want Joss and other writers to be
responsible for every word they write, then they have to be
prepared to be responsible for every word they write on the
very public internet. People tend to mirror those they are
talking to and how can you expect compassion and
understanding from someone as a group when there is open
hostility? The writers have been invited to join the board
but I understand how they would be hesitant to join a
virtual bashing. I don't think this issue will be resolved
by puking emoticons and Death to ME rants. What I do think
will get attention is honest feelings and words that reflect
the pain Kittens and others feel instead of attacks. Someone
has to give at this point and at long as the bitterness is
encouraged I don't see anyone getting past it. I belong to
the Kitten Board and understood a few weeks of rants but not
this continual loop of anger. It's too bad because I fear
that other writers will take from this situation the idea
that it's not worth writing gay characters which I think
would be a great loss.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well said Rufus. -- Rahael, 16:39:55 07/29/02
Mon
Another must read post from you today!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I can't agree -- Miss Edith, 16:55:24
07/29/02 Mon
Surely there is a difference for a website for W/T shippers
specifically joing for common ground and a television series
and the message it may inadvertently send out? The internet
is alomst impossible to regulate anyway but I do think
television shows need to be called on what they write and
that the kittens have a right to do so on a product that ME
are offering to the public.
I take your point that the rage expressed is often self-
defeating and their cause will get more attention if they
behave courteously at all times. The Kittens do try to do so
when calling attention to their cause through letters to the
media etc. They only rant on their own board as I have said
and perhaps this can be used against them which I agree is a
shame.
The bitterness has lasted for a long time, it can certainly
be argued too long, and no it really doesn't help the
Kittens cause. I have often felt the need to speak up when
the Kittens are dismissed as ranting, irrational lesbians
(again I am not accusing anyone at this board of doing so).
It is a shame that the Kittens have created a situation in
which it is possible for people to dismiss them as such. But
I still feel the Kittens have a right to rant on their own
board without being critisised and told to get over it. If
they start infaltrating all Buffy boards and spreading their
bitterness I would not agree with that. I guess I just feel
sympathy for them needing to vent regardless of whether it
can be considered health or beneficial.
I just think if the Kittens do feel the need to express
anger it is fair enough as long as it is confined to their
own board.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I can't agree -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:27:01
07/29/02 Mon
If the Kittens can rant about Mutant Enemy on their board,
can't people of a dissenting opinion rant about the Kittens
on a different board?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: I can't agree -- Miss Edith, 18:39:52
07/29/02 Mon
Lol good question I guess you've got me there. But again the
Kittens are really ranting about the writers work, rather
than attacking individuals. Although I suppose calling
someone an a-hole when talking of the episode they wrote is
a personal attack really and now I'm starting to get a
headache. I really am feeling like a broken record at the
moment. I'm not even a Kitten, just sympathetic to the
cause. It's 2:30 over here in Englans so I just feel like
giving the whole thing a rest and signing off.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Actually No -- Dochawk, 18:54:55 07/29/02
Mon
If there were a board where the major theme was anti-lesbian
or anti-Kitten I guess you have a point. Noone likes to be
called names or spat on figuaratively let alone literally.
But pent up emotions need to have a place to be relieved. I
agree with Rufus that noone should have to see "Death to
Joss", kinda inane and there may be some maladjusted person
who takes it literally. The interesting thing is what was
the response on the kitten board to the "Amber Benson is
Fat" brouhaha (one of the most ridiculous and hurtful
statements a person could make) or that "Mark Blucas is
boring". This isn't the first time that the internet has
been used to condemn in a hurtful way something that ME was
doing. The difference is that people had and apparantly
still have truly painful feelings. And to disparage them
for their feelings is just wrong. To say "get over it" or
"your just misinterpeting what happened" which apparantly
many people here seem to be saying totally demeans a whole
group of people's feelings. Now how they act about those
feelings, does have some element to criticize, but people
feel what they feel and "convincing them otherwise" just
makes their sense of isolation and frutration greater.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Clarifying Myself -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:15:48
07/29/02 Mon
Did I give the impression that I don't think the Kittens
should say what they have? If I did, I'm afraid I didn't
explain myself thoroughly.
I would be incredibly shocked if any W/T shipper who saw
Seeing Red wasn't surprised, hurt, and outraged. I have no
problems with this. Nor do I have problems with them
posting angry and occassionally insulting comments on the
Internet about this. Nor do I think that they shouldn't
talk about the "dead/evil lesbian cliche" if they believe it
is true. I don't have issues with any of these. Damn right
they should be able to feel what they feel and say what they
say!
But, what happens when someone who is a supporter of Joss
and/or a fan of Seeing Red wanders across some of these
Kittenish comments while surfing the Net? They'd probably
be angry and maybe even upset at how a writer and/or episode
they admire was, and still is, to a certain extent, being
bashed. These people have just as much right to feel this
way, and just as much right to post emotional messages about
it, as any of the Kittens do about their views.
I have no problem with people getting loud, upset, and angry
on or off the Internet. But, the louder someone yells and
the more biting their comments become, the backlash can be
expected to only get fiercer.
As for those things about "misinterpreting what happened"
and "convincing them otherwise", most of those have been
from people arguing against the "dead/evil lesbian cliche".
Unofortunately, grief over the loss of Tara and the end of
W/T has become horribly intertwined with this "cliche"
theory. There is a big difference between scoffing at the
grief of W/T shippers and saying that the "evil/dead lesbian
cliche" doesn't apply to BtVS. However, for people on both
sides of the arguement, the two become increasingly hard to
separate.
As for those who just say "get over it", that is a very mean
comment, and deserves whatever snarky remarks it gets in
return.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Clarifying Myself -- Miss Edith, 12:28:06
07/30/02 Tue
In responce to Dochawks comment maybe I missed it but I have
never seen any Kitten say "death to ME". If such words were
posted I have no doubt they were deleted by the mods. Death
threats against any individual is completely inappropriate
and I think I can safely say we can all agree on that. The
Kittens do have slogans like "Just Say No To ME" and they
say amongst themselves that they feel betrayed and will not
watch any product produced by ME ever again. That is about
as bad as the bashing gets. Well with the occasional naughty
word. But certainly personal threats are not tolerated on
any board that I would post or lurk at. If the Kittens were
planning to go round Joss's house and infringe on his
personal liberty for instance I would not visit that board
or support it in any way.
And the response to the Kittens pain has sadly been "get
over it" all too frequently. I have not seen such an
attitude on this board but often when a Kitten does publish
an article on the Lesbian cliche the responses are pretty
infantile and do not encourage good debate. I would agree
that they themselves have encouraged a backlash by the harsh
criticism of ME on their own board meaning ME supporters
often have a knee-jerk reaction to any article written by a
Kitten. It's a shame as they really do keep the rage and
bitterness confined to their own board. When they write
letters publicly it would be more helpful if the people
opposing the Kittens views ignored the reputation of the
Kitten board and just concentrated on how the Kittens behave
in a sensible debate with them. I would say again that as
long as they keep what could be termed unreasnable ranting
on their own board that I don't see that it should be an
issue for others. As ever JMHO.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: the problem with selective fandoms... -- Miss
Edith, 06:23:13 07/28/02 Sun
The Kitten board is a private community where you have to
register to post. I can't really see a problem with what
they discuss on their own board. As you say it is their own
private community where they are free to behave as they
wish. I'll come right out and say that even though I love
Bts I have lost a lot of love for it in season 6 which
disapoints me greatly. I will stop watching if James
Marsters leaves and people can mock that if they wish. But
the fact is the show doesn't have enough left to interest me
as they have made characters I once liked (Xander, Dawn)
unpleasant for me to watch. The writers can say we were
never true fans and over-identify with one character. But it
was primarily the writers who killed off my interest in the
show this season. I don't like saying I am only hanging
around as long as James Marsters is there but it's just how
I feel.
Spoiler:
The confirmed spoilers of Dawn having a bigger role in
season 6 and a lot of time spend in the high school worries
me. I really don't want to see Dawn's scrappy gang as I had
enough trouble getting through ATW when Dawn and Janice
discussed peeing their pants over boys.
End of spoiler.
I want a focus on Buffy, Spike and the core scoobies and I'm
afraid Joss will have to work hard next year to convince me
Buffy will be worth watching on it's own merits. I am
primarily focused on Spike's story at the moment just as I
am on Wesley in Angel.
I am usually at the spoiler board the cross and stake so
hope I've marked out spoilers correctly? That is how you do
it right?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: the problem with selective fandoms... -- Finn
Mac Cool, 06:35:50 07/28/02 Sun
Usually, you're supposed to lable spoilers in the title
line, but this works good, too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Okay thanks for letting me know. -- Miss Edith,
08:53:50 07/28/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ummm...yeah! -- Darby, 12:43:59 07/27/02 Sat
I'm afraid that I can't divorce plotting from writing. Good
writing, even when collaborative, is the whole package. To
me, a roomful of writers as sophisticated as ME's should
have seen the inherent cliche in the scene they were
suggesting and responded in one of three ways:
- They should have seen the distracting nature of it and
made something different carry the story. As I said, the
original concept seemed to have distanced the sex from the
death - maybe it would have avoided the cliche claims.
- They should have decided that the classic subtext that had
repeatedly been glued to this particular cliche be spun in a
new light to subvert that message. The examples Rahael
gives, I think, are mostly legitimate examples of ME doing
this: vamp w/ a soul, lame but not really cliched, and they
promise to spin Spike differently than Angel; Cordelia, the
bitchy airhead was never really an airhead and remained
bitchy after repeated "lessons" (and I'd like to see a bit
more of that preserved where she is now!) but was never
quite the cliche anymore than Buffy was; Angel ---> Angelus
taking a romance/sex cliche and extending it to operatic
heights to deal with it metaphorically; Maggie Walsh - who
knows?, that story was played out off-set and how much did
she piss everyone off to come back a corpse with no real
dialogue? I would add from this season the successful
addressing of the left-at-the-altar cliche, the amnesia
cliche, the everything's-a-dream cliche, the kid-sister-
makes-the-same-mistakes cliche, etc., etc. These people can
do it, the evidence screams it. I just don't think they
pulled it off in this instance.
- They could have figured it would slide by and then, when
it oh-so-obviously didn't, respectfully acknowledged the
goof and apologized to the offended parties. If two years
ago, ME had written demon Forrest in a way that called up
classic "Negro" stereotypes - the Forrest-Adam dynamic
turned out a bit too slave-master, or his attack on Buffy
smacked of old sexual cliches, I don't think there would
have been any hesitation in taking this option, as they did
with the gun-in-school scene that really was much further
from an actual Columbine image than SR was from the cliche
we're discussing. I still don't know why they've circled
the wagons on this particular issue, unless they had
recognized what they were doing, did it anyway because it
was easier, and just are too embarrassed to admit it. When
it comes down to it, Joss does hate to lie directly, it
seems.
I know that people are getting sick of this issue,
especially since it doesn't really involve Spike, the
immortal topic. I can't absolutely promise this, but my
current intent is that once this thread zips to the
archives, this is the last I'm going to discuss it. I hope
by now that everyone finally understands the gist of my (and
Sophist's, if I can be so bold) feelings on the matter. If
not, it's time for me to admit I can't adequately explain
it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The function of criticism -- Arethusa,
14:29:48 07/27/02 Sat
"The function of criticism is to deconstruct (yeah, I'm
deliberately using a loaded word) and expose hidden
assumptions and attitudes expressed in the show."
Is the function of criticism really to expose hidden
assumptions and attitudes expressed in the show? I think
the function of criticism is to help people understand what
they are viewing or listening to. All creators and viewers
have assumptions and attitudes. Exposing them can help the
audience understand the creator and his work of art, or can
also become an excuse for criticizing the creator for
whatever one disagrees with.
The problem with the W/T story arc was that it wasn't a W/T
story arc-it was a Willow story arc. Therefore, Wedon
didn't feel responsible for the audiences' sexual fantasies
about and emotional investment in W/T. Foolish of him, but
he's been distracted this year. Wedon wanted to show that
even in the best of us are dark places and terrible
violence, and he was successful. It seems the assumptions
and attitudes that are being exposed are those of the
viewers, not necessarily the creators.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The function of criticism -- Sophist,
15:18:55 07/27/02 Sat
All creators and viewers have assumptions and attitudes.
Exposing them can help the audience understand the creator
and his work of art, or can also become an excuse for
criticizing the creator for whatever one disagrees
with.
Of course. That's why it's important to evaluate the quality
of the evidence presented by the critic. It's perfectly fair
to deconstruct the deconstruction, but it has to be done
with evidence.
It seems the assumptions and attitudes that are being
exposed are those of the viewers, not necessarily the
creators.
Ok, suppose I agree with you about this. Do you mean this is
true of all the posts on this issue? If so, what's
the evidence for that? If not, then you still have to
face the merits of the points being made by those who
don't fall into this category.
This is clearly a hot-button issue. Geez, you'd think Spike
was involved. :) The best way to deal with such issues is to
focus narrowly on the evidence. That's what I'm advocating
in this thread.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The function of criticism -- Arethusa,
18:42:36 07/27/02 Sat
The reason I'm bringing up attitudes and assumptions instead
of evidence is because that is what the W/T critics are
doing. Few people disagree on the facts, but many disagree
on the interpretation of the facts. The only fact needing
determination is: did ME use the Evil Dead Lesbian cliche?
ME says no-and that can be accurate because they wanted
Willow evil and gay and Tara dead, but only to further the
developments they had planned for Willow over the course of
years. That is a fact-ME said they did not see it as the
EDL cliche because they did not write it as the EDL cliche.
It is also a fact that many critics did see W/T as the EDL
cliche, because the events in SR and Grave fulfilled their
criteria for the EDL cliche. So how do you weigh the
evidence when it it totally based on the two sides'
perceptions of the event? The articles I saw written a
while after the furor died down conceded the EDL cliche was
used accidently and/or carelessly, but some critics are
still are upset because their feelings were hurt by certain
writers' attitudes in interviews and the loss of a couple on
tv they identify with. At this point, there is no use
arguing further, because one can't argue that someone needs
evidence to have certain emotions-emotions are based on gut
responses, not facts. No one wins the argument unless ME
apologizes for callousness and the critics accept ME told
the truth when they said the EDL cliche was a thoughtless
mistake.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: The function of criticism -- mundusmundi,
08:40:50 07/28/02 Sun
Good, sensible post, Arethusa, one that takes us off the
slippery garden path of "objective" analysis (e.g., "If we
accept points A, B, and C, then we must accept
conclusion D.") and gets to the heart of the matter.
Criticism is not an entirely objective enterprise, and there
are ultimately limits to the "evidence" one can use to
support one's point. Then again, maybe it's the opposite --
that evidence regarding artistic interpretation is
limitless and can be used to support or justify just
about any opinion one wishes to make. (It helps explain why
Pauline Kael used to lavish praise on near-universally
regarded stinkers like Casualties of War.)
The point I am poorly making is that criticism is intensely
personal. A good critic may helpfully cite examples, make
comparisons, and interpret hidden motifs, but it really
boils down to a gut reaction. My own gut reaction (which in
no way nullifies anyone else's, so that's clear) was that
"Seeing Red" was a phenomenal episode, maybe the best and
truest Buffy of the season. That the competition is
appallingly thin may have made it seem even more powerful
than it is. "Once More, with Feeling" is an endlessly
pleasurable, instant TV-classic, but IMO never really
capitalized on its central metaphor of song as unbridled
passion or emotion. (Joss really should have given it 2
hours and scrapped something like "Gone" or "Doublemeat
Palace.") "Normal Again" was a thought-provoking mind-screw
that works as a great example of a "gimmick episode," but a
gimmick nonetheless. "Seeing Red," OTOH, marks a return to
what I will deem "classic" Buffy -- a watershed that, as
darrenK might opine, makes you stand up and say, "They fit
all that in one episode?"
I think one reason why "Seeing Red" provoked such a heated
reaction was, to paraphrase shadowkat and others, it took
characters that had been largely stripped of their metaphors
all season, causing some viewers to identify more directly
with them, and then tried to reinsert the metaphors back.
For me, this worked brilliantly with the Troika. The sexual
metaphors (the orbs, Warren's orgasmic "ejaculation" with
the jetpack) were sharp and funny, and they served to make
Warren more terrifying and Jonathan and Andrew much more
touching than they ever were before or after.
However, it also appears that the ingenious sexual motifs of
the episode gave the explicit W/T bedroom scenes, including
Tara's murder, even more impact. I can see why it would be
upsetting. It's supposed to be upsetting, albeit in a
dramatic sense (which ME intended) and not in an overly
personal and/or socio-political context. Maybe they were
naive, disingenuous, or too preoccupied with SpikeSexFest
2002, but I'm willing to give Joss & Co. the benefit of the
doubt and say that they didn't intend it as such.
I'm not explaining myself as clearly as I would like --
that's the trouble with gut reactions -- so I'll stop here.
I'll only add that the Willow/Tara story hasn't necessarily
stopped (no spoilers here, just a hunch), so it's difficult
for either side on this issue to use evidence that seems, at
the moment anyway, inconclusive. We don't know yet what the
fallout will be. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if Joss
addresses this issue next season as he often does, within
the context of the show.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
The purpose of evidence -- Sophist, 10:25:22
07/28/02 Sun
I do agree that our reactions to a given episode are largely
subjective, gut reactions. As they are to any work of
art.
That being said, my point was that if we take this to an
extreme, there is nothing for us to discuss. I like fish,
you like steak. End of discussion. If that were the extent
of the postings here, I doubt any of us would spend the time
we do.
JMHO, but a good critical discussion should be able to
isolate specific points of intertwined fact and judgment.
For example, if I claim that Spike's behavior in SR was OOC
(which I did), then I feel obligated to support that claim
with some detailed explanation of fact and interpretation of
his behavior on the show over the preceeding 4 years (which
I did). Doesn't mean anyone has to agree with my conclusion,
but it does give everyone the opportunity to say "Hey, you
forgot X" or "Why not look at Y this way?".
It seems to me that some of the most contentious discussions
(Spike, W/T) have departed from this track, to the point
where people are talking past each other ("Spike is noble";
no "Spike is eeeevil"). If we focus a little more on the
evidence and a little less on the ultimate conclusion, we
can have a discussion instead of an opinionfest.
Several of the posters did this: Rob challenged the
relationship between W/T sex and bad consequences; Mal the
existence of a double standard; dH the existence of the
"cliche" under discussion. I don't happen to agree with
them, but we can talk about the facts in order to establish
a common ground for further interpretation (such as Rah did
in her discussion about The Merchant of Venice).
In contrast, a post which says (paraphrasing) "this argument
says more about the critics than it does about ME" is not
very useful. Aside from the implausibility of this when
directed at Darby, it's merely an ultimate conclusion, an
opinion. It shuts off discussion instead of encouraging
it.
One of the things I value most on this Board is that the
posters are actually willing to change their minds. I have
(despite my apparent stubbornness), and I've seen others do
so. It's the presentation of supporting evidence (and
argument) that creates that possibility.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Hey, I love fish! -- mundusmundi, 12:47:49
07/28/02 Sun
I just don't want to eat it every day. But, I digress:
That being said, my point was that if we take this to an
extreme, there is nothing for us to discuss. I like fish,
you like steak. End of discussion. If that were the extent
of the postings here, I doubt any of us would spend the time
we do.
Well, this is actually a good example of why I'm skeptical
of the "If A, then B" method of presenting evidence (though
maybe I've just read too many of Philip Johnson's anti-
evolutionary screeds, which employ a similar tack, and have
grown cynical). The "A" being presented in your argument
seems to be that I am against using evidence in our
discussions. While this conveniently supports your
concluding "B," (which I will address momentarily), it's
skewing (another word for "taking to extremes") what I
actually wrote.
JMHO, but a good critical discussion should be able to
isolate specific points of intertwined fact and
judgment.
I guess I agree with this, though it seems a little fuzzy.
I'd add that critical discussion, at its best, will relate
its points to the larger context of the topic – which some
of the W/T critiques have done and some haven't, for example
-- rather than leaving them isolated, hanging or
threadbare.
It seems to me that some of the most contentious
discussions (Spike, W/T) have departed from this track, to
the point where people are talking past each other ("Spike
is noble"; no "Spike is eeeevil"). If we focus a little more
on the evidence and a little less on the ultimate
conclusion, we can have a discussion instead of an
opinionfest.
Regardless how thoughtful or clever we may be, our responses
are ultimately limited to the quality of the subject matter.
Hardly an ME apologist, I've taken them to task all year and
in my above post for overliteralizing the characters and
themes of this season. The evidence is admittedly
circumstantial and speculative, but I do think that, perhaps
unconsciously, we've taken our cue from the characters and
engaged in these discussions in a more blatant, "Tastes
great, less filling" fashion. Compared to past seasons,
there's been little filet mignon on the table to chew
over.
In contrast, a post which says (paraphrasing) "this
argument says more about the critics than it does about ME"
is not very useful. Aside from the implausibility of this
when directed at Darby, it's merely an ultimate conclusion,
an opinion. It shuts off discussion instead of encouraging
it.
Aside from the fact that this subthread is directly
about the nature of criticism, this "then B" of your
argument, building on the aformentioned "If A," seems to be
accusing me of wanting to stifle discussion. While my
fascist tendencies are admittedly well-known on this board,
the point I was trying to make (and which supported
Arethusa's post and didn't even mention Darby) was that
evidence alone does not a compelling argument make. It's
how that evidence is presented, whether it's
selective or acknowledges any counterpoints, if it's open
and unguarded or cleverly couched, that maters. We can't
force discussion to happen; it has to flow naturally. That's
the difference between a courtroom cross-examination and an
open and honest exchange of ideas.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Me too. And it's good for you. -- Sophist,
13:16:51 07/28/02 Sun
this "then B" of your argument, building on the
aformentioned "If A," seems to be accusing me of wanting to
stifle discussion.
Not directed to you at all. Someone else in this thread made
a comment of which this is (I think) a fair paraphrase. I
was merely using that as an example, not pointing a finger
at you. Sorry for the implication that you were meant.
My original suggestion for evidence was actually evidence on
this point, i.e., whether the critics were merely exposing
their own assumptions -- what is there about the critics
that would make one say this (and what is there about Darby
in particular that would bring up this comment in a thread
involving his posts)?
evidence alone does not a compelling argument make. It's
how that evidence is presented, whether it's selective or
acknowledges any counterpoints, if it's open and unguarded
or cleverly couched, that maters.
I couldn't agree more.
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but Philip Johnson was my
Criminal Law professor in law school. He actually was a good
professor. His arguments about evolution are either
dishonest or ignorant beyond belief in someone of his
apparent intelligence. I'm not sure, though, that I'd reject
all of Aristotelian logic because of his abuses. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Objective and subjective -- Rahael, 14:18:49
07/28/02 Sun
This is just a view prompted by this very interesting
discussion. I've never, whether in studying history or
commenting on Buffy wanted to espouse an objective opinion.
I recognise that I am subjective, and glad of that
subjectivity. It gives me more freedom - to say just how
things appear to me. It's not based on any carefully thought
out philosophical position, but from my own knowledge that I
am not capable of what I would consider a properly objective
opinion. It allows me make connections and advocate view
points safe in the knowledge that I am not saying that what
I see is the final, authoritative picture. That other
readings are possible, and truer.
I know, as I sit and read a particular memoir, that I find
the writer of that memoir fascinating and engaging - and I
know that as I read a particular historian that I find him
particularly annoying and it's hard for me not to react
instinctively to try and question everything he says.
When I try to comment on Buffy I know perfectly well that I
look for the good. I can't muster a similarly critical
opinion on BtVS as I do on Merchant of Venice, because I
only have one point of view, the BtVS point of view, and
critiques here to work on. While for Merchant, I gain a
degree of confidence of 3 years studying both writers
working in that period, and all nearly all aspects of that
particular society.
So my view of Buffy is even more subjective.
(Also it's pretty uncontentious regarding everything
Shakespeare wrote as incredibly important, while to regard
BtVS as worthy of discussion and thought is a pretty
laughable one in the real world. Perhaps even here, because
I find myself making constant apologies for 'reading too
much into things', or being fanwankery.)
So I agree with Arethusa, essentially. My critiques of Buffy
tell everyone else here more about me, than about Buffy.
Because, come on, I take quite a different view from lots of
people here. I don't like Spuffy, a view that Sophist (one
of many!) takes a diametrical opinion on, and yet I love
Season 6, a view which separates me from Mundus, dH and Masq
among others. I love Seeing Red, and it's probably one of
the eps from Season 6 I'll watch regularly and that
separates me from a huge section of the fandom.
This is why I usually always reveal something of myself when
stating my opinion. Not because I personalise everything,
and imagine the discussion is always somehow about me, but
because my opinion is always about me, and I feel more
comfortable acknowledging this, and whatever may influence
me to that view.
So how can I claim to have any kind of objective view? I
know I have good reasons for my views, but that does not and
should not make them universal. In essence, my attitude to
all these come from me, and do tell you more about me than
about BtVS.
Just as my fascination for certain areas of history will
tell you more about me than I'd care to think. The troubling
question, for instance of why someone so politically aware,
and so angry about certain injustices has done nothing to
study the dark history of her own country. Why do I confine
myself to a past that is away from me, not part of me, of
which I am an outsider? I'm still thinking about that
one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Objective and subjective -- Sophist,
15:32:12 07/28/02 Sun
Oh goodness, I would never claim objectivity. We're all
subjective in our judgments and our opinions, and even in
our facts perhaps (don't let's get into that discussion this
far out on the edge of this thread!).
I would modify what you said in 2 small ways: First,
agreement on "facts" allows us to constrain the
subjectivity of our conclusions. It certainly doesn't
eliminate it. I'm in favor of that constraint as opposed to
a let-it-all-hang-out expression of opinion. I think you
agree with this, since your posts always give a "why" for
your view.
Second, I was reacting to a statement that the W/T issue
said more about the critics than about ME. In a
purely subjective world, of course, this is not possible.
Any issue would say no more about one side than the other.
Such a conclusion would be possible in a constrained view,
but then it requires evidence/logic to support it (which was
not given).
As for Aristotle and Plato (mundus's post below), well, I'll
just say that Aristotle may have a few moments, but Plato is
the source of more evil and confusion in the world than
anyone else in history. How's that for throwing a few coals
onto the fire?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Plato's Republic -- Rahael, 15:36:29 07/28/02
Sun
Pretty scary place huh? I'd agree with you!
I do have a soft spot for Aristotle, however!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Let's see here, Plato begat Augustine and Rousseau . .
. -- d'Herblay, 16:17:07 07/28/02 Sun
. . . and that's pretty much everything that's wrong with
modern European civilization right there.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL. And don't forget Allan Bloom -- Sophist,
16:44:47 07/28/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Me too. And it's good for you. -- mundusmundi,
15:09:29 07/28/02 Sun
Not directed to you at all. Someone else in this thread
made a comment of which this is (I think) a fair paraphrase.
I was merely using that as an example, not pointing a finger
at you. Sorry for the implication that you were
meant.
S'ok, thanks for clarifying though. The hot weather's making
me edgy.
My original suggestion for evidence was actually evidence
on this point, i.e., whether the critics were merely
exposing their own assumptions -- what is there about the
critics that would make one say this (and what is there
about Darby in particular that would bring up this comment
in a thread involving his posts)?
Apparently I haven't read the post you're referring to.
Whether I agree with him or not, I'll take Darby's
viewpoints over most anybody else's -- including Phil
Johnson's -- any day.
I'm not sure, though, that I'd reject all of Aristotelian
logic because of his abuses. :)
Mwahaha. Well, this will undoubtedly be an unpopular notion
on a philosophy board, but I think Aristotle's pretty
overrated anyway. Greek science and thought were coming
along nicely with the Pre-Socratics before Plato and
Aristotle set everything back 2,000 years. (Is that sweeping
enough of a statement to provoke discussion? FLAME
AWAY!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Me too. And it's good for you. -- Darby,
15:46:56 07/28/02 Sun
Thanks. It's probably the heat stroke talkin', but I'll
take what affirmation I can get.
And I didn't take the critics statement personally. I'm
more likely to take statements like that with a Costellian
(as in Abbott and) "I don't know what we're talkin' about!"
Occasionally I think that some posters assume I'm a lesbian
and react accordingly.
I do prefer to follow at least a pseudo-logical evidentiary
argument, but that's my own training and preferences mostly
- it's easier to follow someone else's train of thought
through the fog if you know how the tracks were laid. Most
of the people who present opinions that way here (and I
count Rahael among them, even if she doesn't) are easier to
respond to - if I disagree, I just have to pick at the
premises.
That's what has been frustrating in this discussion,
possibly because of the strong personal investment people
have in W/T (I don't, incidentally): I keep trying to
clarify my premises so as to find out why people disagree
with me, but it doesn't seem to affect a lot of the
responses. It certainly has clarified my thinking, and
shifted my focus from the writing of the scene to the
response by ME to criticism about it - I hadn't quite
realized that their insensitivity before and mostly after
the fact is what had gotten me invested in this.
Heck, I figure if you learn something about yourself or your
own motivations, an exchange has definitely been worthwhile.
It is the only good thing about the rare fights I
have with my wife (this personal detail as a service to Rah.
Just kidding - I can't keep personal details out of the mix
either!).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL -- Rahael, 16:01:39 07/28/02 Sun
I guess it's my conciousness of my subjectivity which makes
me lay out as good a reason as I have for any viewpoint.
Sometimes though it just comes down to:
Cordy has such great outfits! She's just great!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: The purpose of evidence -- Arethusa,
09:51:28 07/30/02 Tue
"In contrast, a post which says (paraphrasing) "this
argument says more about the critics than it does about ME"
is not very useful. Aside from the implausibility of this
when directed at Darby, it's merely an ultimate conclusion,
an opinion. It shuts off discussion instead of encouraging
it."
I wasn't responding to Darby, I was responding to your
statement that critics need to provide evidence for their
criticisms. I even quoted you! I meant to say that the
Kittens were not providing evidence because their
criticisims were based on their emotional reactions, not
facts. And no, I didn't provide any facts to back that
statement. My later post explained my reasoning behind that
statement. I was not even arguing the W/T Evil Dead Lesbian
cliche-I was saying that the same evidence in the case was
interpreted two different ways by two different groups-ME
and these critics. Their feelings *were* their evidence-and
I actually agree with you that is necessary to argue facts,
not opinions. But it's pretty obvious that expressing an
opinion here, no matter how badly stated, does not stifle
debate-it furthers it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Well, that's certainly true -- Sophist, 10:18:41
07/30/02 Tue
But it's pretty obvious that expressing an opinion here,
no matter how badly stated, does not stifle debate-it
furthers it.
LOL. It certainly seems to.
My difficulty with your original statement -- and my
expression did come out harsher than I really meant; one of
the disadvantages of posting instead of conversation -- was
that the Kittens are not posting here. Only Darby was. In
context, therefore, I understood your post as directed at
him.
But even where the Kittens are concerned, I don't know that
it's fair to say their reaction was exclusively
emotional. They did have reasons; those reasons just "got so
lost" in all the screaming.....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Well, that's certainly true -- Arethusa,
10:42:01 07/30/02 Tue
I don't believe their reaction was exclusively emotional.
That's why I stated that the events of SR and Grave, by
their definitions, did conform to the EDL cliche.
Is needing to have the last word a communicable disease?-
because I think I've caught it!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Only if you fit the stereotype for lawyers --
Sophist, with multiple irony, 11:02:56 07/30/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
um, yeah, shylock did -- anom, 23:33:07 07/27/02
Sat
"He [Shakespeare] didn't subvert the cliche (did Shylock
somehow turn round and confront society's prejudices?)"
Isn't that exactly what he did in the "Hath not a Jew eyes?"
speech?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yes, in the subtle context -- Rahael, 03:50:41
07/28/02 Sun
I was only arguing against reductive face value
condemnations of art. Shylock is a human being, but still a
bad human being, and bad in the way that fitted societies
preconceptions. But Shakespeare still gives him power.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? --
Rahael, 05:03:01 07/28/02 Sun
Let me change that answer somewhat. The lead up to that
affecting speech by Shylock is simply an excuse for revenge.
It's a justification for him heartlessly demanding the death
of daughter not very soon after.
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer,
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you
poison us, shall we not die
And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? "
Does Shakespeare subvert antisemitism? or does he subvert
Shylock's call for a recognition of his humanity? Doesn't he
subvert the very humanity of Jews by expressing it and then
cutting it under from Shylock as he becomes more and more a
caricature?
I don't really see how Shylock combats antisemitism in
Elizabethan England - the key word is revenge - a great deal
of antisemitism in contemporary England was fired by the
notion that the Jews had killed Christ - therefore Shylock's
call for revenge, his desire for his pound of flesh and his
unfeeling unfatherly attitude toward his daughter simply
confirms Jews as treacherous and murderous. In the
heightened religious climate of late 16th C England this is
not a moot point.
I think that this play, along with Marlowe's Jew of Malta
simply confirms, and gives new power to antisemitism. Every
mention of 'Shylock' in England in the following centuries
(apart from the late 20th) is derogatory. And he later
morphs into Fagin as well.
I have no problem with the fact that artists can be
prejudiced and express terrible, harmful sentiments. Let's
not excuse them simply because they are gifted (without
having to deny their giftedness). I have trouble with this
play and I have never seen it staged. There are so many
other great plays by Shakespeare, I choose not to go watch
this one.
Hmmmm. I seem to have shifted my place in this debate.
If I were convinced that there was a terrible and prejudiced
logic that ended with Tara dying I wouldn't shilly shally
about saying "but I'm not saying Joss is homophobic". To me,
if you perpetuate terrible ideas/stereotypes without
thinking, then you carry the germ of prejudice and be held
up for criticism for it. That doesn't diminish the art. But
as far as I can see, the fact that people are so attached to
Tara and Willow and so angry about their storyline is the
best defense that ME can mount. They did it - they created
two real human beings we cared about. How many people in
Elizabethan England cheered when Marlowe had Barabbas boiled
to death in oil in the 'Jew of Malta'? How many of them shed
a tear for Shylock?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Take it a couple of lines on -- KdS, 05:13:04
07/29/02 Mon
Rahael, I don't think that Merchant is as antisemitic as you
claim, (and I've seen a lot of productions, including one
shocking occasion when a section of the audience laughed at
"That he presently become a Christian"). The next line
after the section you quote is "The villainy that you teach
me I shall execute, And it shall go hard but that I better
the instruction." To me, that's the key line of the speech,
showing how hatred creates hatred back. Yes, Shylock is in
many ways an evil man, but a great deal of it is the result
of the lifelong abuse he's received.
(More of this when the Season 1 annotations get to "Out of
sight, Out of Mind")
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Let's take the play as a whole -- Rahael,
07:07:50 07/29/02 Mon
Because it’s that very presence of that damning and true
point of view that makes the play even more difficult for
me. Shakespeare seems to understand what it is like to be
made a villain, to lose one’s humanity. But does he fall
back on terrible and destructive stereotypes? yes. Does he
use the existing vocabulary of prejudice? yes. Does he
successfully subvert these prejudices? no. Shylock demands
his pound of flesh, rejects the quality of mercy, goes for
vengeance over 'turning the other cheek'. Shylock is greedy.
He is grasping. He talks constantly of money. He is
coldhearted. He has a littleness which all of Shakespeare's
other great anti-heros don't have. He is also a little
ridiculous. Just compare the nobility of Othello, and the
subtle process by which his mind is poisoned, to that one
speech Shakespeare gives Shylock. I find it even more
disturbing, the concatenation of every Jewish stereotype
current being piled on Shylock – why does Shakespeare load
all of that onto him? Why not just make him a Jew who
demands his pound of flesh?
One of Shakespeare's greatest gifts is that he understands
that part of the play's power is the dialogue it sets up
with the audience. A late 20th Century audience's reactions
to Merchant is going to be very different from the
Elizabethan one.
I don't think Merchant, by any means at all, is the most
antisemetic thing out there. It is however antisemitic, and
it does confirm antisemetic prejudices in Elizabethan
England, even if it gives Shylock an excuse for his hatred
and his villainy.
When his daughter runs away, he is reported as being more
concerned about the money she take with her than her,
because of course, the stereotype goes that Jews only care
about money.
Shylock is never mentioned without his Jewishness being
reinforced. He’s ‘the Jew’, the ‘fiend’, ‘the dog Jew’
Jessica says:
“Alack, what heinous sin is it in me
To be ashamed to be my father's child!
But though I am a daughter to his blood,
I am not to his manners. O Lorenzo,
If thou keep promise, I shall end this strife,
Become a Christian and thy loving wife”
Then later, Salerio refers to him as
“ creature, that did bear the shape of man,
So keen and greedy to confound a man:”
To our modern ears this sounds like profund and terrible
prejudice. But, would it have done so in Elizabethan
England? Remember some of the most tolerant opinions of
Jews in that time were motivated by the idea that only and
when the Jews converted to Christianity would Christ be able
to make his second coming. This was an age which went to
civil war over the idea of the end of the world, and the
idea of Antichrists. This was an age which suspected Jews of
slaughtering Christian children (that pound of flesh).
Shylock confirms your earlier point by saying:
“But, since I am a dog, beware my fangs”
Yes, he finds excuses. But he’s still ‘a dog’ who revels in
hatred and spite. How many other Shakesperian characters
react with more nobility to the slings and arrows of
misfortune?
Another exchange about Jewishness in the play:
Launcelot
Marry, you may partly hope that your father got you
not, that you are not the Jew's daughter.
Jessica
That were a kind of bastard hope, indeed: so the
sins of my mother should be visited upon me.
Launcelot
Trul