Comics post, part 1

[beer_good_foamy]

I haven't written anything about the comics in a while, so I might as well do a roundup of the latest couple of Season 8 installments. But since #26 is taking its sweet time getting here so I haven't actually read it yet, I'll do it in two parts.

Tales of the Vampires. Now, this wasn't bad in any way, in fact it was pretty damn good as a stand-alone original fic, but just a bit frustrating. It was hinted that this one-shot would finally address the alleged paradigm shift in the Buffyverse - that billions of people now love vampires unconditionally while those fighting them are hated and feared. You know, the thing that's been mentioned 3 or 4 times in passing in the last 5 issues of the comics.

When toothsome vampire Harmony Kendall landed her own reality show the world changed for everyone – humans, demons and Slayers alike. Quite seemlessly, humanity accepted – no, welcomed the existence of supernatural beings in their midst. (...) No one saw this coming.

No one? Funny, considering that the basic plot boils down to a repeat of something that was already firmly established in the TV series years ago ("Lie To Me", "Into The Woods", "Salvage", Gunn's entire pre-s3 arc, etc): that there are outsider groups who are well aware of vampires, that there are bored emo kids on the fringes of society who think vampires are cool and like to get their blood sucked, and that once you're turned into a vampire you basically become an asshole who's usually better off dust lest you kill (and metaphorically rape) your friends and family. There's one or two comments about vampires and humans having become "symbiotic", but it never moves beyond the settings or interactions that we already knew from the TV shows – certainly nothing trying to explain how the overwhelming majority of this not just fairly intelligent, but also inherently suspicious and rather xenophobic race we call humans supposedly immediately accepted one of the most well-known fictional monsters to their collective bosom based only on an MTV reality show. No one saw it coming? It's supposedly here, and I still don't see it. It's nice that the comics use some of the storylines from the TV series, I guess, but it's a weird setup; we're not supposed to wonder too much about the bits where the comics differ quite a lot from the TV series, but we're supposed to believe that some other aspects of the story make up huge "game changers" despite looking remarkably like business as usual. But I suppose we'll just have to accept Allie's comment that "magic of some kind" is involved (does this story make any sense at all to those who don't read blurbs, letter columns and Q&As? Do those readers even know that all of humanity supposedly "welcomed" vampires?) and eventually Willow will do a counterspell and that'll be that.

That said, it was pretty well-written and made good use of the idea - the TV series rarely showed us the voluntary victims' and subsequent vampires' POV, so that was nice even if it's rather bleak. Strip it of its supernatural trappings and the setting is really Clerks (or possibly SubUrbia) with the original ending, where Dante gets shot and killed for no good reason, and without the humour. Even if I'm left wondering (much like the Kenny thing) if we're really supposed to sympathise with this particular monster. Because, y'know, I really don't. As far as I can tell, the message here is "Jay was an idiot, vampires are still as bad as they ever were, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that." If any vampires at all, anywhere in the world, are indeed following Harmony's party line that they don't kill people (which Jay buys into even as he's killing his best friend – self-delusion is an important part of any Jossverse), they seem to be in the minority. We're certainly yet to see any of them trying to go the straight and narrow for real, and this issue makes a pretty big point of why they neither will nor can; as both Jay and May show quite clearly, they don't even understand what it means to not kill people. It's not so much a continued muddling of the post-Spike waters as a return to showing them as monsters - not because they're necessarily evil, but because they cannot tell the difference.

Alex is an interesting, if not very developed character, stressing again (far better than in the dismal #24) that Slayers don't really get to not be Slayers even if they don't want to; and I really don't think it's coincidental that the whole thing ends with her, once again, being turned into something else without getting a say-so. If this were headed towards a conclusion in which Buffy takes back the "Chosen" spell, which I don't for a second think it is, then this comic would seem to be a pretty big indication that that would be a good thing. But of course, as many people pointed out after Scott Allie's recent "what if" scenario, TV!Buffy's strength was always that when faced with the two crappy alternatives A and B, she usually managed to find a C.

The message so far seems to be: no, Slayers don't draw strength from each other. But as we already know from the show, and as this shows, they don't survive in complete isolation either. So what's path C here?

The Dark Horse Myspace Presents was hysterically fun, even if the wedding scene was weird with no groom present. As one of the very few peeks into Buffy's head we've had throughout Season 8, it's definitely interesting. Even if it's mostly played for laughs, it's got some interesting darker themes woven in. Buffy, once again, is disconnected from everything, doesn't draw strength from her army, yada yada yada. Her lovers hook up with each other rather than her (a pretty strong indication that she knows Spike joined the cast of Angel, perhaps), and none of her actual family show up at her dream wedding – not Dawn, not Joyce, not Hank, not Giles; Xander is standing best man for Warren, Willow is being held by Dark Willow, and Tara blames Buffy for being dead. And both the bride's and the groom's sides are full of monsters. Apparently there's some debate as to whether this is a Slayer dream or just a normal dream – who cares? All Jossverse dreams are prophetic to some degree, all of them contain a lot of sneaky character study, and they usually have a dream character who guides and narrates the story for the dreamer. Here, the role previously filled by Tara, or the First Slayer, or Cordelia, or Ethan, is played by... Caleb. Who essentially tells her that she belongs here in the dark dirt, with him. Yeah, Buffy really needs a vacation. Nice to finally see the characters looking like themselves, too. Plus, hey, Buffy knows Angel and Spike better than just about anybody, so her opinion has to count for something, right? ;-)

Still... it's been about a year since we had any advancement of the semi-titular Twilight plot, and it's been about 6 months since we had any overarching plot involving a major character to speak of at all (and we don't even know the significance of that plot yet). Fortunately, the upcoming arc seems to promise something along those lines, even if the Slayers messing with South Korea's ability to defend itself has some unfortunate RL connotations. Maybe Satsu turns out to be one of Kim Jong Il's spies? Maybe Oz has gone evil along with Riley? Maybe Willow, taking a tip from Dawn, asks Warren's forgiveness? Well, I'm sure most of you already know, but for now I'll have to wait to find out. But Part II of this post will be around eventually.

Comments

[shapinglight]

I agree with you completely about the Tales of the Vampires. It's not a bad story in itself but it does very little to explain why it is that people everywhere are supposed to love vampires now and hate slayers. Instead, it raises more questions, because it leaves you with the impression that this is something that has been going on insidiously for years, and yet Alex specifically links it to Harmony's TV show.

I should stop expecting this comic to make sense, I suppose, but it still irritates me that one of the most major plot points of the series has been set up so badly.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

The problem, for me, is that it's something so huge that's only used as a cheap plot device - and not only is it never actually shown, but it's not even given any proper reason, it doesn't reflect any real underlying issues, it's just smoke and mirrors. If there is no real reason for people to trust vampires, if it's just a glamour, then just break that glamour and the problem is solved. If the only reason humanity is against the Slayers is because they're acting like a bunch of terrorists, then just stop acting like a bunch of terrorists and the problem is solved. There are some very relevant issues being tackled in Season 8, but this entire storyline - so far - is just obscuring and distracting from it.

[shapinglight]

There are some very relevant issues being tackled in Season 8, but this entire storyline - so far - is just obscuring and distracting from it.

Agreed, though that needn't have been the case had the writers remembered what I thought was pretty much the cardinal rule of storytelling, ie. show, not tell.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

ETA, thinking a bit more about it: if the point is to highlight that everyone loves vampires because in our modern society, everyone supposedly feels disconnected (as for instance angearia argues (http://angearia.livejournal.com/29606.html#cutid1)) and wants to escape responsibility for their lives and their actions, all of which is personified by vampires, then by all means; I could kind of sort of buy that even if I don't agree completely. But then do that story. Don't just show us a self-absorbed teenager who's been the embodiment of that idea since The Sorrows Of Young Werther; show everyone feeling that. Change the game if you want a game-changer.

[shapinglight]

Change the game if you want a game-changer.

A good way of putting it. Becoming a vampire may well be a good metaphor for disaffected youth, but it hardly fits society as a whole if vampires continue to behave in the way they've always behaved, which they pretty much do, ie. still killing people. It makes no sense. One would have to believe that humans all over the world are suffering from a collective deathwish, which suggests a spell. And if it's a spell, why can't I-Can-Open-Dimensional-Portals-With-My-Eyes-Shut Willow just breatk it?

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

And if it's a spell, why can't I-Can-Open-Dimensional-Portals-With-My-Eyes-Shut Willow just breatk it?

Duh, for the same reason Buffy couldn't just look up Kenny and let him know it would be in his best interest to stop harrassing her sister. ;-)

[shapinglight]

Darn, I'd forgotten that crazy comic book logic!

[xlivvielockex.livejournal.com]

Count me in as one of the readers that isn't reading all the Q&A and the interviews and any of that. I just don't care enough to bother reading all this supplemental information that is becoming more and more clear people need to be reading. Here is a novel idea, instead of doing interviews and Q&A, put it into the actual story. Wow. I know, it is kind of revolutionary so I doubt it will catch on!

I do love your comics reviews though, if only because I haven't bothered to think of the big questions. I am still buying the comics, reading them, but it feels like beach trash to me, the kind of things you to take on vacation and don't think too much about. It's pretty sad that a tv series that used to make me think and debate now has been reduced to something I read in the car while waiting for my husband.

I think I might be the only person in the world that is pissed off about the Dark Horse Presents. We've been told the whole time that Spike and Angel could only be used sparingly in the Dark Horse line and this is what they chose to do with them? No resolutions, no appearances. Nope, the only time we see Spike and Angel is in Buffy's dreams. I can't jump on the oh! it's so funny! bandwagon because if this is how they are going to use the limited appearances they are allowed, what is the point? It would be nice to have more than that.

Then again, considering the rest of the comics so far, having more has pretty much been my constant complaint.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

We've been told the whole time that Spike and Angel could only be used sparingly in the Dark Horse line and this is what they chose to do with them?

I have to say, I can't remember reading anything about there being some sort of fixed number on how many times they get to use them. AFAIR, it's been hinted that Joss can use them anytime he wants to, obviously as long as he doesn't mess with any of IDW's many many pseudo-canons. I very much doubt that there'll ever be any true resolution to the Buffy/Angel/Spike triad, except if either of them gets killed off (which seems unlikely). It would be nice to see some sort of reaction from the Season 8 crowd to the events of NFA (though obviously, that would mean Joss would have to choose an ending) or to Spike's return, but I doubt we'll get a full, meaningful crossover; they'll just keep teasing for a few more years, and eventually the comic will be so far removed from the TV series that they'll just drop the subject or something.

[moscow-watcher.livejournal.com]

The Spangel panels were definitely funny, but, plotwise, I saw them as a (pretty lame) wrap-up of what seemed one of the most intriguing secrets - "the betrayal. The closest, the most unexpected". Looks like it's the same time, same place - so, unless it's a mislead, in issue 10 Robyn meant Spike not contacting Buffy after his resurrection.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Good call on the room; it's definitely the same place as in #10. However, I really don't think that it's supposed to be Spike's return that's the betrayal. For one thing, Buffy doesn't end up bleeding and crying on the ground in this. For another, I doubt that that would be the worst possible betrayal - especially since it'll be ancient past by then. I think it's more likely that that place simply stuck in Buffy's mind, and since her subconscious drags it up in a dream about her fears that she's becoming one of the monsters, I'm definitely starting to lean towards the idea that Buffy will end up the betrayer rather than the betrayed.

[moscow-watcher.livejournal.com]

Of course, it may be just a coincidence, but in case Joss can't wrap up the betrayal twist, he has a cop-out now.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying it's a coincidence. I'm saying it's a pretty clear reminder that he is going to wrap it up. The betrayal has been shown as real, something that's actually going to happen; this was just a dream.

[moscow-watcher.livejournal.com]

The betrayal has been shown as real,

Was it?

We see Buffy crying, she is cut, her clothes are torn.

I can imagine a situation in which Twilight repeats his trick from issue 11, beats Buffy, mocks her and then reveals that Spike and Angel work together.

Lame?

Oh, yes.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

We see Buffy crying, she is cut, her clothes are torn.

And by the end of Always Darkest, she's not crying, she's not cut, and her clothes are in one piece. *shrug*

[moscow-watcher.livejournal.com]

Metaphorical cuts and bruises?

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to see you haven't given up sharing your reactions to the comics -- I always look forward to them.

I agree with you that Alex shows that slayers can't not be slayers, but oddly others take her as evidence of the exact opposite conclusion. Your comments make me realize that I've been naively supposing that the slayer spell will have to be undone. But you're right that it was originally meant to be seen as "good" -- which would point us at plan "c". My problem is that I don't see *any* good in the comics. So if it's supposed to be there, it's there the way the "whole world loves vampires" story line is there, i.e. assumed but not shown.

I completely agree that if the comics don't do more to explain/show this world-changing event there's a serious, if not fatal flaw to the whole project. I love doing meta on Joss's material, but if you can't tell the difference between intentional omissions and careless omissions it becomes really hard to know how to read the thing.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

I agree with you that Alex shows that slayers can't not be slayers, but oddly others take her as evidence of the exact opposite conclusion.

Well, that's Jossverse fandom for you. :-) I don't think there's a single scene in any of the series that hasn't been given diametrically opposed interpretations...

But you're right that it was originally meant to be seen as "good" -- which would point us at plan "c".

In fact, the "Chosen" spell is a plan C. As, presumably, are a lot of the decisions Buffy made in the intervening years. And IMO, there has to be a plan C coming here; going back to how things were before would not only completely wreck the intended metaphor of "Chosen" (the message would basically be "women's liberation BAD") but would look like (and be) a defeat within the story as well. And leaving things as they are is just... unthinkable, since they are currently marching straight over a cliff. I still say the needed solution isn't to take away their physical powers, but to grant them ideological power; to turn them from an army where everyone follows orders and trains in unison into a group of individuals who all have the power to fight their own demons their own way. But Joss seems to know how it's going to end already, so I guess we'll see.

if you can't tell the difference between intentional omissions and careless omissions it becomes really hard to know how to read the thing.

Yup, yes, and also uh-huh.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I agree that your solution makes sense. But I guess I'd be vaguely unhappy with it for a couple of reasons:

1. It doesn't get rid of the fundamental problem with the whole metaphor, which you absolutely nail in your reply below to Aycheb (i.e. this is a change in identity that has been forced on some people by other people).

2. I think a women's liberation where the lib is understood as getting the same powers men have is not really women's liberation. I have liked the series because it has often suggested that Buffy's heroism is not that she has physical powers that are more commonly found in guys, but rather that she wields them with a feminine intution and reliance on relationship. The Initiative v. Scooby scenario of season 4 was good at distinguishing between male power and female power, thereby avoiding the notion that in order for women to be free they need only be more like men. Your scenario emphasized individualism and therefore seems to shift us back to the idea that women's empowerment just means being strong like men.

At the end of the day, though, I think I just want Joss to move away from feminism. He's never struck me as insightful on that stuff. I value his work because of the way he challenges our relationship to our stories. He's not going to move away from the feminism, though. And I think that means I have a pretty good chance of being very unhappy with the way this all resolves.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Buffy's heroism is not that she has physical powers that are more commonly found in guys, but rather that she wields them with a feminine intution and reliance on relationship. The Initiative v. Scooby scenario of season 4 was good at distinguishing between male power and female power, thereby avoiding the notion that in order for women to be free they need only be more like men.

Right. Which is why the Slayer Army is such an obviously bad idea, and why I don't think it's a coincidence that we constantly see them training in unison like marines in Bring It On: Full Metal Jacket.

Your scenario emphasized individualism and therefore seems to shift us back to the idea that women's empowerment just means being strong like men.

Oh, that's not what I meant at all. I meant that... well, over the course of the TV series - both TV series - the various characters learned to find their own strengths, their own ways to fight, their own problems to overcome, and like you say, stressing the importance of relationships and intuition. The problem of the Slayer Army is that it flies in the face of that; it requires everyone to fight in the exact same way, and inevitably makes it impossible for everyone to have any sort of relationships at all since it removes them all from the world. What's needed isn't more individualism, but a way for everyone to learn how to use their new physical strength in the course of their own more-or-less normal lives; a global version of Willow's speech in "Choices", if you will. A cultural revolution as opposed to an armed one.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

The not-showing, but telling of humanity turning on the Slayers is a serious problem for Season 8. More serious to me than all the crackilicious targets because it's a problem with the plot, the telling and not showing. We haven't had humans shown as a viable threat since Long Way Home and Safe (which doesn't exist in my mind, really). But even in Safe, it's an isolated event in a crazy town. Not the global movement against Slayers that we should be seeing via newsbroadcasts and even lynchings on the street. Actually having humans attack Slayers, humans that aren't connected to the Watcher's Council or Twilight - that has still yet to be shown.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Maybe because it's not what's envisioned as happening. Twilight's demon hordes seem to be doing the job perfectly well on their own without active human intervention. Some time all it takes is for 'good' people to do nothing. There may also be a more sinister Hanselstadtian Realpolitik attitude from some quarters - if the demons are busy attacking Slayers they're distracted from turning on everyone else.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Yet humanity is supposed to be viewed as a credible threat by Giles and Faith in #26, enough so that they're hiding underground. But why? They've already taken on the villagers in Safe and in the end were working with them, side by side. What other members of humanity would force them underground? So far we've only seen demon attacks and those prompted by Twilight.

Where's the human attacks post-Harmonic Divergence? These fears are directing the characters actions in hiding, but the actual threat of humanity is not being shown. It's being told.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Giles says what's driven them underground isn't ordinary humans per se but the potential danger posed by ordinary humans being afraid of Slayers. Given that we haven't seen any people involved in the attacks it sounds as if he's afraid of provoking yet more fear possibly by attracting demons to the surface. Giles doesn't want to start a war between slayers and humanity and even Buffy was only prepared to go as far as self-defense. Willow says people are reporting supernatural activity and the human authorities have been shown capable and willing to launch attacks given a location (TLWH). However, the more recent demon attacks, Warren's bomb, the Swell are sufficient to drive the characters into hiding without humans being directly involved.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

But even in Safe, it's an isolated event in a crazy town. Not the global movement against Slayers that we should be seeing

I think part of the problem here is that both Buffy and Angel... or hell, any Jossverse series... were always about outsiders. Whedon's main characters, whether good or evil, are never mainstream. They're the weird kids, the lurkers in the dark, the bitter war veterans, the loser rock bands, the disillusioned political activists, etc. In the Whedonverse, and especially in the Buffyverse, things always happened in the dark alleys - whether actual alleys or metaphorical ones; the dark spaces between the well-lit streets. Buffy made a huge deal of the perceived contrast between her life and a "normal" one - exaggerated, yes, but still. And so it's really no big surprise when we're shown in Tales that the same things continue to happen in the same dark spaces between. But when that's been the entire setting of the previous series, it becomes difficult to accept that that same outsider behaviour, the same rules, the same attitudes now suddenly applies everywhere. I can buy Chanterelle or Jay identifying with and loving vampires if they think they are real (though in her defence, Chanterelle/Anne realised how utterly daft it was the second she actually met one). I cannot buy the President of France, the lead editor of the New York Times, or a regular office worker doing it - not to mention the (let's face it, rather numerous) people who still look down on anyone who doesn't have the same skin colour, religion or sexual orientation as themselves. At least not without a very good reason. They just had six issues in which to give us one; they chose not to.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

I really do agree. I don't buy the governments and world leaders go "yay vampires!" It's actually something I'm exploring in my long WIP. The people who are into vampires are the extreme types like Chanterelle or who are being manipulated through back channels.

It still makes me wonder - why the Slayer fear from humanity? Is it paranoia? We have the army that's working with Twilight and clearly are his initiates, but what about the rest of humanity?

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Why the Slayer fear from humanity?

Well, given how they've been acting so far, I can kind of see how people would find them highly suspicious at least.

SUIT: You don’t think that’s overstating it, General Voll? Our intel says they’re too loosely affiliated to... I mean, they’re scattered in those –
VOLL: "Squads," right. Terrorists call 'em "cells."

Add the bank robbing, the stealing of naval vessels from friendly nations, the wrecking of downtown Tokyo etc to that, and coupled with their lack of a PR officer which means their side never gets told, I can see why Joe Public wouldn't trust them implicitly. From there to going "Awww, how cute Harmony was when she ate that girl, vampires rule" is a pretty big step, though. And an unnecessary one, IMO; the story doesn't need it.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

There's one or two comments about vampires and humans having become "symbiotic",
Maybe you read a different version of the comic than me. There’s one comment that vampires and humans are symbiotic but it’s attached to May’s explanation that vampires can live openly as long as humans trust them mot to kill. Turning isn’t counted as killing by ordinary humans like Jacob’s mother – as far as she’s concerned vampire Jacob is still her little boy. We see vampire’s feed, we see them sire but by what we’ve been shown is that by the ordinary human definition of killing (see previous sentence) no humans are killed in the course of this issue. It could be that these attitudes aren’t representative but it’s a story. Why tell it if it doesn’t tell us anything about the world? Moreover, the world actually makes sense if you assume that Jacob’s town is typical. The difference between this and Lie to Me is that the world has changed enough for Chanterele and Co to have real evidence for their view that vampires are no more dangerous than drunk drivers and a cleaner safer alternative to drugs.

Certainly nothing trying to explain how the overwhelming majority of this not just fairly intelligent, but also inherently suspicious and rather xenophobic race we call humans supposedly immediately accepted one of the most well-known fictional monsters to their collective bosom based only on an MTV reality show.
In the real world sure but the Buffyverse ain’t real. In the real world it’s simply not credible that humanity could ignore the existence of vampires and demons if they were real and as depicted on the show. If you can accept that fiction for the sake of the story, then the idea that most people have shifted from convincing themselves that demons aren’t real (in the face of all the evidence we’ve seen to the contrary) to convincing themselves that vampires are harmless hardly seems a problem.

Alex is an interesting, if not very developed character, stressing again (far better than in the dismal #24) that Slayers don't really get to not be Slayers even if they don't want to; and I really don't think it's coincidental that the whole thing ends with her, once again, being turned into something else without getting a say-so.
In #24 (which I agree was dismal) the Slayer who says she never wanted to be Slayer turns out only to be saying it because her fight wasn’t going so well and there in the first place because she wanted to get out there andfight the good fight. Alex wasn’t a Slayer to all intents and purposes until she staked May in a very human fit of jealous rage and regretted it only because she didn’t want to fight Jacob. Identity’s a complicated thing. I’d guess most of us have wanted not to be who we are at some point but it’s rarely a long term solution to anything.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Maybe you read a different version of the comic than me.

There seems to be a lot of that lately, doesn't it? ;-)

Turning isn’t counted as killing by ordinary humans like Jacob’s mother – as far as she’s concerned vampire Jacob is still her little boy.

So she's even further removed from reality than even William's mother or Liam's father were. And they both lived in a world predating Dracula.

It could be that these attitudes aren’t representative but it’s a story. Why tell it if it doesn’t tell us anything about the world?

Why claim that it constitutes a change from the old ways when it looks exactly like the old ways? Also, re: Jacob's town being typical, see my response to angearia above.

The difference between this and Lie to Me is that the world has changed enough for Chanterele and Co to have real evidence for their view that vampires are no more dangerous than drunk drivers and a cleaner safer alternative to drugs.

If by "evidence for" you mean "evidence against", since even Chanterelle was smart enough to immediately see that she was in deep deep shit the second she laid eyes on a vampire. Surely someone would pick up on the fact that the people killed by vampires are actually, y'know, killed? As in no heart rate, blood lust, tendency to kill others who in turn... etc?

If you can accept that fiction for the sake of the story, then the idea that most people have shifted from convincing themselves that demons aren’t real (in the face of all the evidence we’ve seen to the contrary) to convincing themselves that vampires are harmless hardly seems a problem.

I really disagree - I don't think that's comparable at all. I always thought that whatever the different rules, human psychology in the Buffyverse had at least a passing similarity to that in our world. It's a fantastical 'verse, not a surrealist one. And in TV canon, admitting that monsters existed almost always led - if not immediately - to a realisation that they were a problem. Especially among the groups that actually met them face to face on a regular basis (Gunn's crew, for instance).

Identity’s a complicated thing. I’d guess most of us have wanted not to be who we are at some point but it’s rarely a long term solution to anything.

Very true, but not all of us want to be who someone else has unilaterally decided that we need to be.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

And they both lived in a world predating Dracula.

But did they live in a world predating 'Twilight', 'Anita Blake' and 'True Blood'? Vampires as sympathetic, glamorous and just-dangerous-enough-to-be-cool are a modern concept far removed from the traditional view of a blood-drinking corpse.

I think there are a lot of people underestimating the effect it would have on society if we suddenly discovered a way to live forever. Stay beautiful and young and strong, and the only catch was that you couldn't stand in direct sunlight, and you'd need to adopt a different diet.

Sure, I wish S8 went into more detail on what's actually going on; the pace did seem to slow down a lot over the last five issues. I suspect there's a big reveal/plot twist coming up to show Twilight is behind it all, which explains the lack of detail now.

even Chanterelle was smart enough to immediately see that she was in deep deep shit the second she laid eyes on a vampire

Don't you mean "the second she was grabbed by a vampire who buried his teeth in her throat"? Because the first was pretty much simultaneous with the second.


And in TV canon, admitting that monsters existed almost always led - if not immediately - to a realisation that they were a problem

I thought that particular conceit had been dropped by the time of 'The Prom', pretty much. After that demons and the supernatural seemed more like an open secret that everybody knew about but nobody talked about. Willy's Bar and Caritas operated quite openly. Clem could drive his car down the middle of Main Street. The Los Angeles DA kept shamans on call.

Oh, and:

Slayers don't really get to not be Slayers even if they don't want to

How do you reach that conclusion from Alex's story?

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I think there are a lot of people underestimating the effect it would have on society if we suddenly discovered a way to live forever.

Absolutely. For starters, every religious leader would be dead set against it. ;-)

I suspect there's a big reveal/plot twist coming up to show Twilight is behind it all, which explains the lack of detail now.

In which case, like I said, they only need to break that spell. No harm, no foul.

Don't you mean "the second she was grabbed by a vampire who buried his teeth in her throat"? Because the first was pretty much simultaneous with the second.

Fine. So Jay should have realised it then.

I thought that particular conceit had been dropped by the time of 'The Prom', pretty much.

Not really. I thought it was pretty much the central conceit of Angel, funnily enough; yes, people look the other way and not all demons are evil, but the ones that are evil are treated as a problem. Kate's arc was about what?

How do you reach that conclusion from Alex's story?

She couldn't not be a Slayer when she saw how it was impacting her life. She saw that demons were real and they were killing people she cared about. She did what she had to. She died.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

She couldn't not be a Slayer when she saw how it was impacting her life. She saw that demons were real and they were killing people she cared about. She did what she had to. She died.

She knew that demons were real all along. She didn't like Jay letting Sebastian drink his blood, but she didn't do anything about it. She didn't try to kill Sebastian. She didn't try to kill any of the vampires, except for the one who stole her boyfriend.

She attacked May in a fit of jealous rage - no noble motives to defend humanity here - then basically gave up and let Alex kill her.

I don't see how any of that shows "being a Slayer" impacted her life in any way until the very end.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I don't see how any of that shows "being a Slayer" impacted her life in any way until the very end.

True, but that one impact is pretty significant in that she's killed as a result. As the saying goes, you can't just be a little pregnant.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

But she wasn't killed because she was a Slayer. She was killed because she murdered Jay's girlfriend in a fit of jealous rage. She'd have been just as dead if she'd been a normal girl.

In fact, being a Slayer gave her the chance to not die at the end, but she chose not to use it. She could have saved herself by accepting her power as a Slayer and fighting Jay: but she preferred to remain a normal girl and die.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

She was killed because she murdered Jay's girlfriend in a fit of jealous rage. She'd have been just as dead if she'd been a normal girl.

She slayed a vampire who'd killed her best friend, you mean. And had she been a normal girl, she most likely wouldn't have thought herself able to.

In fact, being a Slayer gave her the chance to not die at the end

True. I'm not one of those saying the "Chosen" was a Very Bad Thing. I'm not saying that being a Slayer in and of itself inevitably got her killed. But since she was a normal girl at heart, she wasn't able to be that cold. (Much like Buffy couldn't in "Innocence", for instance.) She had the physical strength, the bare bones of the mission, but not the wisdom required to guide her hand, to tackle her own demons.

And don't tell me you don't see any parallel, any significance in her first saying that she never wanted to be a Slayer, only to then yet again be turned into something we know she doesn't want to be? "Here's where you make a choice", Buffy told two dozen girls out of 1800, having already made the decision to turn them into Slayers. "This isn't about her choice. It's about my choice", says Jay and turns Alex into a monster. "This isn't real, but I just wanna..." "...having the courage to feel something." Where do we go from here?

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

If by "evidence for" you mean "evidence against", since even Chanterelle was smart enough to immediately see that she was in deep deep shit the second she laid eyes on a vampire. Surely someone would pick up on the fact that the people killed by vampires are actually, y'know, killed? As in no heart rate, blood lust, tendency to kill others who in turn... etc?
And yet still walking and talking and annoying. Life is more than a muscle reflex. Harmony looks pretty lively (and on TV). Chanterelle saw the vampires killing people as in ripping their throats out and leaving the bodies to rot. This comic tells us they don't do that anymore. They suck but they don't inhale. They tidy up after themselves. Sure it's misinformation as far as we the audience know but the general populace only know what they see on MTV.

I always thought that whatever the different rules, human psychology in the Buffyverse had at least a passing similarity to that in our world.
Then what happened to all the journalists, the scientists, the historians, the police anyone who's friends or family were victims of inexplicable and unsolved neck related crimes? The irredeemably stupid explanation may work for Sunnydale but worldwide? It's not credible that so many people would refuse to admit that something as pervasive and lethal as demonic activity simply never happened.

Very true, but not all of us want to be who someone else has unilaterally decided that we need to be.
Buffy didn't make anyone a potential. She gave them access to power they already had.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Life is more than a muscle reflex.

Well, exactly. And someone would pick up on that if it became common knowledge that vampires were killing people and turning them into more vampires.

Chanterelle saw the vampires killing people as in ripping their throats out and leaving the bodies to rot.

Actually, she realised it before then. In fact, thanks to Buffy, she never even had to see that. In fact, the only one who got killed in the end of "Lie to me" was turned.

the general populace only know what they see on MTV.

Which is a well-made point as satire on today's media world goes, but... c'mon. Even in the Season 8-verse, it's established that that's not the only medium there is. I'd be happy to accept that there's a large minority of morons who think vampires are cool, but everyone? What happened to all the journalists, the scientists, the historians, the police? ;-)

The irredeemably stupid explanation may work for Sunnydale but worldwide?

Which is why I thought it was an excellent idea for Buffy to never stray outside Sunnydale. Also, it was pretty heavily implied... make that outright stated that the hellmouth meant the supernatural activity was a lot more pervasive there than elsewhere.

She gave them access to power they already had.

And yet it's been clearly stated twice now that Slayers who try to not work as Slayers end up dead, and that those who try to do it on their own end up dead. Why tell it if it doesn’t tell us anything about the world? Also, the entire world are now hunting them for what they are, supposedly based on actions Buffy has taken since. She gave them access to power, yes, but she also gave them a ticket to persecution.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

And someone would pick up on that if it became common knowledge that vampires were killing people and turning them into more vampires.
If (and this was my original point) they equated turning with killing, rather than simply changing, and if they had decided that vampire demonstrably were not the people they used to be despite looking and sounding and, in large part, acting entirely like them. Tales of the Vampires explicitly shows ordinary humans taking the opposite view. We as the audience can arbitrarily decide to ignore those people and call them morons but that’s not what’s presented in the text.

I'd be happy to accept that there's a large minority of morons who think vampires are cool, but everyone? What happened to all the journalists, the scientists, the historians, the police?
☺Exactly whatever’s happened to them in all the years of supernatural denial. Sure it takes a little suspension of disbelief but not of a kind we haven’t always had to make to follow the story. For me BtVS only ever made sense as magic realism never as straight fantasy – as I prefer magic realism that worked out just fine. That said the comic isn’t saying that literally everyone thinks vampires are cool. Jacob’s mother doesn’t seem to feel that way and Alex definitely didn’t.

Which is why I thought it was an excellent idea for Buffy to never stray outside Sunnydale. Also, it was pretty heavily implied... make that outright stated that the hellmouth meant the supernatural activity was a lot more pervasive there than elsewhere.
If supernatural goings on are rare outside of Sunnydale (and LA and New York and Tokyo and South Korean naval territory and Italy…) isn’t it more excusable that people are taking the word of serious American journalists (Anderson Cooper and Keith Olberman) as their best guide to what vampires are really like?

Alternatively, the world (or its significant uban areas, LA, New York , Tokyo etc) is more like Sunnydale writ large and in Sunnydale we found out that public ignorance was in fact actively cultivated by those in charge. Which would fit with what Lindsey told Angel about the soaky apocalypse and the contacts in high places that Twilight clearly has. Is it so difficult to accept that what we have here – what ‘s been shown here is a combination of general apathy (vampires exist but they don’t matter), an increase in active interest by the disaffected and sufficient of the media powers that be in Twilight’s pocket to spin critical focus away from vampires and onto Slayers? It’s the oldest trick in the political book. Scapegoat the external ‘terrorist’ threat and divert attention from the internal discontents that drive young men to drink being drunk from.

And yet it's been clearly stated twice now that Slayers who try to not work as Slayers end up dead, and that those who try to do it on their own end up dead. Why tell it if it doesn’t tell us anything about the world?
Everybody dies. It tells us exactly what not!Buffy said in The Chain. “The real questions run deeper. Can I fight? Did I help? There is a chain between each and every one of us. You either feel its tug or you ignore it.” As times grow hard ignoring it gets harder. Eventually sleepwalking your life away in a Pleasantville dream stops being an option.

She gave them access to power, yes, but she also gave them a ticket to persecution.
Isn’t that blaming the Jews for the pogrom?

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Isn’t that blaming the Jews for the pogrom?

It really isn't.

[candleanfeather.livejournal.com]

Not following the comics, apart reading the reviews, makes it hard to comment on anything, but from what I've seen here and there even their physical representation confirms this "return to showing them as monsters": their bestial/demonic traits seem greatly accentuated in regard to how they appeared in the show.

And once again you put your finger on something that doesn't make feel at ease in JW work : being unable to tell the difference between good and bad makes you a monster who by all means has to be staked. When the show aired I loved how they slowly changed Spike's approach from an "oh, he's baddy, bad, bad" vilain to a much more subtil view of him : that in spite of all the changes he was going through, in spite of all his efforts at being good he was still lacking something fundamental (the soul) that made him able to have a real grasp on moral questions. The way they used it gave a tragic dimension to his character and to his efforts. Now the way they use this inabilaty seems to be more like a condamnation, which feels to me like blaming someone for a handicap. What I don't like either is how easy it is to relate this to RL situation (even though it's not the author's intent)and certain political ideologies : if you want to go with the most evident, sociopaths too are unable to feel any empathy towards others but if they can be condemned for crimes they committed, they can't be condemned for who they are: it's not something they choose. What I want to say, is that JW, and the authors who participate in S8, by showing morally impaired monsters are,whether they want it or not asking morally complicated questions about these monsters but that their refusal to acknowledge this complexity (because that's not the story they are telling)leaves the door open to interpretations that couldn't be called, er, let's say, "humanist".

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I should probably point out that that's my interpretation of it. On the one hand, it looks like Joss is indeed trying to make the killing of vampires a morally grey area. On the other hand, I think he's failing miserably since every time we see vampires in the comic, they're killing people. Spike and Angel were unique in that he actually tried to change; theirs were pretty huge arcs where nothing came easily. The vampires of Season 8 just got a better reputation somehow, without actually having to do anything differently, without actually trying to change.

being unable to tell the difference between good and bad makes you a monster who by all means has to be staked.

No, being unable to tell the difference between good and bad and killing people as a result of it makes you a monster. That's no different from how it was always presented in the TV series.

[candleanfeather.livejournal.com]

"that that's my interpretation of it." Fair enough. But, reading what you say about the appearant contradiction between intent and means, and thinking JW is a skilled writer (even if he can fail sometimes,see Warren for that ;-) ) I'd like to ask : is it a real attempt at making the killing of vampires a morally grey area or is it an attempt at making it appear like a morally grey area, all the killings being there to point at it only being only an appearance ; after all it could be read as part of Twighlight's plan to make Buffy doubt of her moral certainty?

"No, being unable to tell the difference between good and bad and killing people as a result of it makes you a monster. " I agree on Btvs being unable to make the difference between good and bad isn't enough to make you a stakeable monster as a general principle but in the case of vampires I respectfully disagree, you'll find in the show several examples of newly risen vampires staked on the spot. And isn't Buffy shown at least one time waiting near a grave for a vampire to rise? They are considered as monsters whether they do anything or not. It seems to me they are condemned for their very nature. But perhaps you consider the rare examples of ambiguous "death" of vampires (the vampire prostitute comes to mind) as a questionning of this trope by the writers?

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

I'd like to ask : is it a real attempt at making the killing of vampires a morally grey area or is it an attempt at making it appear like a morally grey area, all the killings being there to point at it only being only an appearance

I'm honestly not sure. The entire "everyone loves vampires" arc has been set up so badly that it's very difficult to tell what's fuzzy on purpose and what's just bad storytelling.

you'll find in the show several examples of newly risen vampires staked on the spot. And isn't Buffy shown at least one time waiting near a grave for a vampire to rise?

Absolutely, which makes perfect sense since we see exactly 0 vampires being able to not kill people without outside help (soul, chip, stake through the heart). It's what they do: they live by killing the living, and there's very little they can (or want to) do to change that. "Spike didn't have free will and you did." "You betrayed me. You are betraying me now, even as we are talking. ...No, because you have no soul."

[candleanfeather.livejournal.com]

"we see exactly 0 vampires being able to not kill people without outside help (soul, chip, stake through the heart). " Well, the vampire whores do, as Giles explains though there can be some accidental deaths.

As for the "Spike didn't have free will" I always thought it didn't make much sense. He had enough free will to go looking for his soul, to help Buffy : nobody obliged him, the chip didn't made him do it. Granted he had reasons to do it, but still he chose to do it. Now if "Spike didn't have free will" means he didn't have any choice about being a vampire, that's another thing. But whatever, what's precisely making me ill at ease, is this idea of your nature making you evil, with vampires soulessness and evilness are intrisically linked : they aren't responsible for their evilness. Can you condemn someone for what he is, that's the problem I have? The same way, what's left of the notion of evil if there's isn't any component of personnal choice to do evil and knowing what it means? How could vampires be really evil if they don't know and more than that can't know the difference between good and bad? In catholic theology (I'm an atheist, but intellectualy it's interesting) demons are irredemable, not because they are demons but because they are hardened in their sins : they don't renounce and don't want to renounce to their sins.

And now I'll shut up. Sorry for spamming your LJ.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Oh no, please don't stop on my account. It's a very interesting subject, it's just that I think it's one where at some point you have to accept that canon is, quite simply, flawed. The concept of souls came up too early in the show and was too integral, but never really rhymed with the later grey scales. I think it can be fanwanked within the show, but once you start transcribing it to RL situations, it's always going to be iffy.