Yeah, though I'd like to think there's room for both. IMO, if a story doesn't get you emotionally involved, it's rarely worth looking at the framework behind it.
Agreed. After all you wouldn't have written that analysis, and I wouldn't have written all of mine...if the show didn't affect us on an emotional level.
I think it's like everything else - when taken to extremes, things get dicey. Also, it's usually when someone posts from a "socio-political or socially indignant" stance that things get problematic.
Your post is playing with my head. I've started to pick up something in Whedon's writing that hadn't occurred to me before..a pattern. I interpreted this pattern in a negative socio-political manner that put me off of Whedon's writing, but after reading your post, I realized maybe I missed something regarding the underlying structure of his narrative. It's hard to put into words...since it's an idea that's just on the tip of my tongue, so to speak.
But...it's, well, what you said about the importance of Andrew in the story. The fact that he's the narrator. And that got me to thinking - in the horror, specifically the gothic horror and comic book world - the female protagonist is trapped in the male narrative. "HE" is telling "HER" story as it applies to "HIM". Which makes sense actually, because isn't that what we all do? Tell the story as it applies to us? Or how it relates back to what we know? Yet there are pitfalls in this. And I think that's what fascinates Whedon, what he is playing with in his stories. It's a very post-modernist thing to do.
Buffy questions Andrew the narrator in Storyteller, she breaks through his fiction and subverts it. She flips the camera on him. And in Seeing Red, when Spike attacks her and makes the "rape" of humongous importance, she shrugs it off, and forgives him. So what, she seems to finally state. You didn't rape me. I kicked you off. You have no power over me. You aren't writing my story. I'm writing yours. She changes him, he doesn't change her. He tries to, he tries to pull her into the darkness with him, tries to force himself on her, but he fails. Just as Angel failed. She changed Angel, Angel didn't change her. She changes Giles, she changes what Watchers do.
IT's fascinating, particularly if you've ever read or tried to read Dracula or know the genre. He deconstructs. In Dracula - the Count, Jonathan Harker, Van Heisling - all take possession of, protect, entrap, or control Mina and Lucy's stories. In Whedon's tale - they don't.
I'd think I was reading more into this than there is...but I'm seeing a pattern in other works. River who subverts what the Corporation attempts to do to her. Echo who redefines what the Dollhouse does to her.
I think Whedon is questioning the trope, and gender roles within it. The title as you state is a play on words. Buffy...The Vampire Slayer. He picks the most feminine name he can find.
It's not neatly done and I think he is struggling to convey it. Just as I am struggling to explain it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-09-01 02:38 am (UTC)Agreed. After all you wouldn't have written that analysis, and I wouldn't have written all of mine...if the show didn't affect us on an emotional level.
I think it's like everything else - when taken to extremes, things get dicey. Also, it's usually when someone posts from a "socio-political or socially indignant" stance that things get problematic.
Your post is playing with my head. I've started to pick up something in Whedon's writing that hadn't occurred to me before..a pattern. I interpreted this pattern in a negative socio-political manner that put me off of Whedon's writing, but after reading your post, I realized maybe I missed something regarding the underlying structure of his narrative.
It's hard to put into words...since it's an idea that's just on the tip of my tongue, so to speak.
But...it's, well, what you said about the importance of Andrew in the story. The fact that he's the narrator. And that got me to thinking - in the horror, specifically the gothic horror and comic book world - the female protagonist is trapped in the male narrative. "HE" is telling "HER" story as it applies to "HIM". Which makes sense actually, because isn't that what we all do? Tell the story as it applies to us? Or how it relates back to what we know? Yet there are pitfalls in this. And I think that's what fascinates Whedon, what he is playing with in his stories. It's a very post-modernist thing to do.
Buffy questions Andrew the narrator in Storyteller, she breaks through his fiction and subverts it. She flips the camera on him. And in Seeing Red, when Spike attacks her and makes the "rape" of humongous importance, she shrugs it off, and forgives him. So what, she seems to finally state.
You didn't rape me. I kicked you off. You have no power over me. You aren't writing my story. I'm writing yours. She changes him, he doesn't change her. He tries to, he tries to pull her into the darkness with him, tries to force himself on her, but he fails. Just as Angel failed. She changed Angel, Angel didn't change her. She changes Giles, she changes what Watchers do.
IT's fascinating, particularly if you've ever read or tried to read Dracula or know the genre. He deconstructs. In Dracula - the Count, Jonathan Harker, Van Heisling - all take possession of, protect, entrap, or
control Mina and Lucy's stories. In Whedon's tale - they don't.
I'd think I was reading more into this than there is...but I'm seeing a pattern in other works. River who subverts what the Corporation attempts to do to her. Echo who redefines what the Dollhouse does to her.
I think Whedon is questioning the trope, and gender roles within it.
The title as you state is a play on words. Buffy...The Vampire Slayer.
He picks the most feminine name he can find.
It's not neatly done and I think he is struggling to convey it. Just as I am struggling to explain it.