elisi | Since people are discussing it anyway... my thoughts on S8!Buffy...

Current Mood: sleepy

Entry tags:

Since people are discussing it anyway... my thoughts on S8!Buffy...

OK this? Is *hugely* subjective. And somewhat tongue-in-cheek. If you love S8!Buffy maybe you should just stay clear... (I'm off to spend the evening snuggled up to Darcy, and then I'm going to bed. Might not answer comments, OK?)

Simply put - I don’t like that castle. Thinking about it a bit, it occurred to me that Voll might be easier to understand that it would at first appear. He’s up against an organisation that:

- Has secret headquarters in remote parts of the world.
- Uses helicopters and various high tech equipment for (secret) missions.
- Has a charimsatic leader (with a few doubles to confuse assassins) and an army of loyal, superpowered girls.

Exchange ‘superpowered girls’ with ‘henchmen’ and you have a *classic* Evil Overlord scenario. I mean - seriously. Just think about it for a minute. Of course Buffy isn’t evil, she’s trying to rid the world of badness, but... Didn’t any number of Evil Overlords claim the same? Just look at Jasmine.

The thing is, I just really, really don’t like the fact that she’s stuck in that castle. Has anyone in the entire comic so far interacted with a person who isn’t a Slayer, Scoobie or demon (except for Underground!Buffy talking to her friends before being called)? Joss’ Slayers are saving the world, but they’re not a part of it.

What happened to the Buffy who didn’t just go slaying, she had to look good too (and no, asking fellow Slayers for fashion tips does *not* count!)? The Buffy who wanted to be prom queen? The Buffy who was always, always reaching out to the ordinary people around her? The Buffy who worried if she needed to buy more cereal? The Buffy who loved dancing?

It’s very simple - she’s in Rome, Italy. A country full of sunshine and warmth and LIFE! A place that is old, from whence the whole world was once ruled. (Interestingly, they got as far as Northern England and then didn’t go any further. Scotland was off the map of Ancient Rome...)

I like Buffy being in Rome - the girl from the New World in the ancient city (there's a lot of nice themes or metaphors wrapped up in that, but I don't have time to delve). Trying to get to grips with a new language, actually living amidst history (which is a subject she enjoys!), a place full of passion and vividness, wonderful food and a wholesome appetite for life, generally.

Because the thing is, in their last moments together, Spike told Buffy:

‘It’s your world up there.’

I don’t care if the line didn’t make it onto screen, this was still his message to her - an echo of his song in OMWF:

‘You have to go on living. So one of us is living.’

The Buffy who’s in Rome understood that. She might be the head of a thousand strong Slayer army, but she also has time for shopping and dancing and snuggling up with her gorgeous immortal lover, who might or might not be evil. She has a type, and she’s finally stopped worrying about it.

Compared to S8!Buffy, living in what is practically a convent, and lusting after/having nightmares about her best friend because he’s the only male within a 50 mile radius... well... I’m reminded of this (from Triangle):

BUFFY: So, um, a-about being a nun... you know, um, with the whole ... abjuring the company of men ... you know, how's that working for you? The... abjuring.
NUN: Um ... good.
BUFFY: Yeah, do you, do you have to be like super-religious?
NUN: Well, uh...
BUFFY: How's the food?

I dunno. It’s not that she can’t be miserable in Rome (or wherever), it’s that she’s so particularly cut off in that castle...

And, to quote shapinglight:

The castle is just silly and what's more, the Queen is getting jolly fed up of living in the gamekeeper's cottage. She wants those strange Americans to move out now.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

Exchange ‘superpowered girls’ with ‘henchmen’ and you have a *classic* Evil Overlord scenario. I mean - seriously. Just think about it for a minute. Of course Buffy isn’t evil, she’s trying to rid the world of badness, but... Didn’t any number of Evil Overlords claim the same? Just look at Jasmine.

Exactly. To me, this is the good thing about s8; that IS a pretty strong arc (potentially). It's obvious that Voll (whom, I suppose, our heroes were sporting enough to leave behind with Ethan's dead body when they left the base rather than, say, kidnap him to get some more information) has done his homework and knows what he's/they're up against. The interesting thing is that Buffy might theoretically be on the path to becoming an evil overlord and not even know it (insert quote from LoTR, Galadriel refusing the ring, "everyone would love me and despair" and all that) - "Buffy, you ARE the dark".

So I really do believe we're not meant to think that castle is a good thing, for exactly the reasons you outline. Only thing is... we don't know why they would have thought it is a good thing to begin with. After following them for seven years, suddenly we're missing vital backstory. I'm all for gradual reveals in storytelling, but...

So I really do believe we're not meant to think that castle is a good thing, for exactly the reasons you outline. Only thing is... we don't know why they would have thought it is a good thing to begin with.

I'm honestly not sure that we are meant to see the castle as a bad thing - the past of the series and a whopping lot of genre material would definitely suggest that, but after all the other reversals, how can we be sure? Maybe this is the new world order, and we're meant to think it makes sense, just because it's a "clever" gender-reversal of a Sgt. Rock comic, or who knows? I'd love to see the scenario outlined above, where Buffy had to face her own Galadriel-like challenge, but with so much of the connective tissue of the story missing, I don't really know if that's where things are headed. And, like you said, why did anyone think this was a good plan? Because Slayers holing up in the equivalent of Dracula's castle seemed what, poetic?

And, like you said, why did anyone think this was a good plan?

At it's heart, I think that's the problem with the comics. Sure the castle can be seen as allegorical, but the thing is that it's already been done in the series and actually openly acknowledged by the characters. Isolationism=Bad. Like much of the comics, it seems like we're supposed to forget that the characters already know that.

They really seem like a retread of old storylines, just "remixed" as was said upthread. Harmless enough, I guess, but there's a devaluation of the series going to do it. Buffy and the gang know all good and well that things aren't black and white; their experiences with Faith, Spike, Warren and even Andrew attest to that. They don't need a Big Bad to point it out. While Joss is retconing at will with plot points, he also seems to be removing the character progression of the series for the last few years.

Buffy and the gang know all good and well that things aren't black and white; their experiences with Faith, Spike, Warren and even Andrew attest to that. They don't need a Big Bad to point it out.

Nail, meet head! Exactly. And y'know, this is the sort of thing that BtVS used to deal with all the time, in that Scream sense of characters wandering off alone to a dark garages when there's a killer on the loose, but you were meant to roll your eyes at those people; the Scoobies were the smart ones, because they knew better. And yet the comic plot seems to hang overmuch on the reverse of that, on what Our Herores don't know, and it's stuff that shouldn't be a surprise. It's as if we're suppose to continually reset them in our minds to a sort of callow teenage ignorance, and that bugs me. We don't see them apply what they should've learned often enough.

It's as if we're suppose to continually reset them in our minds to a sort of callow teenage ignorance, and that bugs me.

Me, too. And you know what? I want to say that they're being written in S3 personas, but they weren't even so naive back then. I mean Buffy basically states that she's aware of all the complexities in her speech to Xander and Dawn in S6. The other thing that gets me--and this is absolutely subjective--is how the characters don't have much in the way of individualism. They come off as different facets of an abstract singular character 'Scoobies'. Personally, I LOVED that latter years when they were commonly at odds with each other. When you think of Buffy in S3, you think of the other characters; when you think of Buffy in S6, you think of Buffy. That probably didn't make sense.

Anyway, the characters are guesting in their own comic book. Remember how when XXXX would appear on Angel or vice versa and just be completely out of character and WTFable? That's what this feels like.

I mean Buffy basically states that she's aware of all the complexities in her speech to Xander and Dawn in S6.

Which speech are you thinking of? For some reason, I'm blanking. "Villains"?

The other thing that gets me--and this is absolutely subjective--is how the characters don't have much in the way of individualism. They come off as different facets of an abstract singular character 'Scoobies'.

That's a good point, especially in the early years, when they all spoke the special Jossian joke-speak. It was a good approximation of the way teeangers tend to carbon-copy each other, and it did make sense that they'd grow apart in later years, and stop sounding (and thinking) so much alike.

When you think of Buffy in S3, you think of the other characters; when you think of Buffy in S6, you think of Buffy. That probably didn't make sense.

I think I get it - the early seasons were much more about the ensemble. The later ones focused more on Buffy alone, and there was far less of a group dynamic. Part of that would be because Buffy's activities weren't opened up to the group opinion in the later years like they were in the previous ones, like the way her relationship with Spike was conducted mostly off the table as far as the Scoobies were concerned, even in S7, very different from her relationship with Angel.

Remember how when XXXX would appear on Angel or vice versa and just be completely out of character and WTFable? That's what this feels like.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I remember being very taken aback by Spike's appearance in "In the Dark," because that was the first time he'd been presented as dumb in terms of planning instead of just impatient; that's kind of what I feel like we're getting here. In order for the plot to work, the characters have to be changed.

I'm blanking. "Villains"

Yeah, that's the one. It's not an exact parallel to what we're talking about, but exhibits that the characters actually had brains and could discern things without it being spelled out. There are many examples in the series proper, of course, probably better ones, but that's the one that popped in my head first.

It was a good approximation of the way teeangers tend to carbon-copy each other, and it did make sense that they'd grow apart in later years, and stop sounding (and thinking) so much alike.

Indeed. And to me, that seems to be lost here, like he's trying to go back to that dynamic when the series was most popular. Everyone's happy with each other (save for Buffy/Dawn) and the speech patterns seem to reflect that.

Me, I'm a Buffy fan, first and foremost. I, uh, don't care about the rest of them outside that and would prefer things to focus on her more than the group. That's a personal thing, but, well, I can't say that I feel it's out of line in Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.

In order for the plot to work, the characters have to be changed.

Uh huh. Sad. :( Very sad, because there was SO much opportunity there.

Well, he did that in S6, too, particularly with Xander...

A quick addendum in case that last post sounded too cranky: I'm just grumbling about the comic, it's not directed at you at all. All your observations are great. (Did they really leave the general behind, or imply as much, by not showing him prisoner or whatever? Gah.)

Oh, no worries at all.

I really don't see Joss pushing this into some black and white "almighty Slayers good, military bad" - so much about it is so ambivalent, we see Buffy brood a little too much, a few too many self-doubting prophetic dreams for her to be completely on the right track. Whatever Joss may be, he's not a Nietzschean; any characters of either sex who have tried to argue that might makes right have always lost in the Jossverse - and what Buffy and Willow did was to give might to a LOT of people. So yes, I *do* believe we're supposed to have doubts about where they are and where they're headed; the arc doesn't work at all unless SOME of what Voll says actually rings true (as someone pointed out, his speech is eerily reminiscent of Mal's "they believe they can make humanity better" speech in Serenity). The castle isn't in itself a BAD thing or a GOOD thing - it's all still very much in the balance, all in the choices they make (see 8.05). But yeah... the castle Dracula reference is a good one, and as previously made choices go, it makes little sense.

(Did they really leave the general behind, or imply as much, by not showing him prisoner or whatever? Gah.)

Since Buffy and Xander obviously don't know anything more in 8.06 than they did after 8.04, that would be my guess. If they had brought him back to Scotland, surely they would have been able to squeeze something out of him?

Thanks. Glad I didn't come off too obnoxious. : )

any characters of either sex who have tried to argue that might makes right have always lost in the Jossverse - and what Buffy and Willow did was to give might to a LOT of people.

Hm, those who argue it maybe - and has Buffy made that argument? - but overall there are a number of mixed messages about power use in the Buffyverse that give me pause in terms of an overall philosophy. There seems to be a core idea that people who seek power aren't really worthy to wield it, thus the "Chosen One" being a gig that the girl doesn't sign up for... except now, if the girls in "Chosen" did indeed make that choice, then... okay now? Or maybe not? And then there's Willow, who acquired her power through long study and hard work, but because she sought power instead of it being bequeathed on her from an outside source... bad? But then okay again, as long as she doesn't get too above herself about it? (On that note, there's some very odd undercurrents about leadership in the series, too - the part in "Empty Places" which sort of jeered at the idea of the model U.N. really creeped me out. In general, I'd assign a lot of this to just a general dislike for characters who come off as bossy... except when Buffy comes off that way, which seems okay.)

I do hope you're right that there's a real critique coming. Otherwise, I'm really at a loss. I'm not really a Firefly watcher, so I have to trust your assessment there.

Since Buffy and Xander obviously don't know anything more in 8.06 than they did after 8.04, that would be my guess. If they had brought him back to Scotland, surely they would have been able to squeeze something out of him?

*holds head* And all it would've taken is one panel showing the guy escaping.

This is really an issue that deserves a very long meta (

stormwreath has written a few on the subject) and it's really late over here, but as far as I can tell, the question isn't so much about how you come about power but how you use it. Willow got smacked down hard by karma, not because she was powerful but because she didn't use that power responsibly (and, indeed, has trouble with the concept as far back as in s1). The same would apply to Faith, who got her powers the exact same way Buffy did. Joss in on record as saying that Angel's "if nothing we do matters, all that matters is what we do" speech is his own philosophy; his ethical perspective is on actions, not consequences. Heroes or champions or whatever you want to call them are people who do the right thing regardless, not the ones who are most powerful. The people who live as if the ends justify the means - Wesley, Willow, to a lesser extent Giles in s7, and obviously most villains - invariably get in trouble. So the question is, what sort of decision was that spell in "Chosen"? Was it the right thing to do, or simply the best weapon to win a war with, which they are now paying the cost for... or both, or neither? I'm rambling. Sorry.

*holds head* And all it would've taken is one panel showing the guy escaping.

And another thing that puzzles me - why is Voll talking in 8.04, anyway? If he truly believes his own spiel, why is he showing his hand? I thought soldiers were trained to only reveal name and rank; instead, he immediately tells them everything.

as far as I can tell, the question isn't so much about how you come about power but how you use it.

I'd agree this is one of those long-meta issues, and as much I'd love to agree that it's all about the use of power, in all honesty, I don't think the series is really that consistent on the subject. I'd have to read some of the essays in question to respond to specific points, but especially the later seasons seemed very keen on graying things up to the point where I had a hard time telling if Joss really does have a weakness for authoritarianism, or whether it just looks like it. But, yeah, that's a discussion for another day.

So the question is, what sort of decision was that spell in "Chosen"? Was it the right thing to do, or simply the best weapon to win a war with, which they are now paying the cost for... or both, or neither? I'm rambling. Sorry.

No, really, that IS the big question, and I'd love to see it addressed, I do find it kind of odd that it's taking so long to get around to that point, though - you'd think that establishing whether the heroes are, in actuality, heroic or heading down a tragically wrong path would be something you'd want to get on the table quickly.

And another thing that puzzles me - why is Voll talking in 8.04, anyway? If he truly believes his own spiel, why is he showing his hand? I thought soldiers were trained to only reveal name and rank; instead, he immediately tells them everything.

It's a bit serial villain, isn't it? As a stylistic device, this kind of thing was clever and cheeky on demons or W&H employees of the I'm-evil-ask-me-how! variety, but coming from a guy who sees himself as the good one, much less a professional solider? Doesn't make sense. There's a part of me that almost wants to call dream sequence on the whole thing, since there are so many little spots like that, of the kind of illogic that would work best in a dream.

you'd think that establishing whether the heroes are, in actuality, heroic or heading down a tragically wrong path would be something you'd want to get on the table quickly.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there; if this is where it's going, then the story is basically a variation on "power corrupts" - and IMO, it's much more interesting to see how that happens than it would be to come in after it's happened. (There's been quite enough of "a lot of stuff happened that we're note telling you" in the comics already.) I don't want simple black/white hero/villain good/evil demarcations set up in the first paragraph; and I certainly wouldn't want it to start off with "Those people you thought were the heroes for 7 years? Yeah, they're now the bad guys. Deal with it." Them trying to figure out what side they're on (or what side they could potentially be on) is not the foundation of the story; it IS the story. It needs to be ambiguous, and it needs to be a gradual thing. It's just a pity that comics - five minutes of story a month - isn't exactly the best format for that kind of storytelling...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject