Notes on Buffy 3.15: Consequences

May 16, 2011 00:07

Standard disclaimer: I'll often speak of foreshadowing, but that doesn't mean I'm at all committing to the idea that there was some fixed design from the word go -- it's a short hand for talking about the resonances that end up in the text as it unspools.

Standard spoiler warning: The notes are written for folks who have seen all of BtVS and AtS.  ( Read more... )

season 3, notes

Leave a comment

strudel2 May 17 2011, 06:08:53 UTC
My point wasn't that Buffy was intrinsically different from Faith, but that the way this episode is told is designed to make it easy for us to draw distinctions between them. I agree that these characters aren't so easily reduced to simple cautious/reckless dichotomies. Buffy has the reckless in her, and Faith does come through with the responsibility, but for some reason, the writers very carefully framed Bad Girls to make it make sense that it was Faith, not Buffy, driving the stake into Finch's heart. It would have been more true to the characters and the difficulty of the situation, to make it more ambiguous, to raise the possibility that it was just Faith's bad luck to be the one who had to react when Finch popped out of the shadows. Writing Bad Girls that way would have made Buffy's ultimate reaction to Faith (Faith bad, me good) exponentially more problematic.

As for your comment that we fail to deal with the Faith of it, I honestly thought we had. The problem with Faith in this episode is that she is in such a chaotic, full-on downward spiral, she's not even sure who she is anymore. She lets herself be defined by others here. She was predisposed to these reactions for the reasons Maggie laid out. Unfortunately, that is the Faith of it, as far as I can tell.

And for Faith's responsibility, notwithstanding her poor resources to deal with this crisis, in choosing the black hat, Mephistopheles has a pertinent comment above.

Reply

aycheb May 17 2011, 07:45:24 UTC
for some reason, the writers very carefully framed Bad Girls to make it make sense that it was Faith, not Buffy, driving the stake into Finch's heart.
I disagree. What I saw was the writers very carefully framing Bad Girls to make it make sense that it was Faith driving the stake into Finch's heart. That it wasn't just something that happened , it was something she did. Legally she may not be culpable for her friendly fire but BtVS was never about legalities. It's about emotionalities, how would Faith feel?

Why did Faith go back to the body, Why did she weight it and dump it and effectively try to erase it, make it as if the killing never happened? Faith may be able to rationalise away her feelings, say she doesn't care (which she says before saying it wasn't her fault) but she does. She was there. She knows how it felt as the stake hit muscle, she saw the man's final gasp, his look of peace. She also knew that up until that moment she wasn't just doing her job, she was having fun. She wanted to kill things. Faith's overall arc has her recognise that killing things, the war, is not her vocation or not one she can ultimately live with. She opts out of slaying to become a counsellor. So while Buffy and Angel are projecting their own responses to having made death, I think it diminishes Faith to treat her as a tabula rasa to be "defined by others". The things they say are things she recognises in herself, they hit home.

She does feel dirty, she does want to have killed and be clean, to not feel remorse. She wasn't intending to go to the mayor, she was just going to run away until she killed Trick. Trick didn't have to feel remorse or be shipped off to England for judgement. Aside from being a vampire he was just the hired gun. The protected hired gun. She goes to find someone who will never judge her so she can stop judging herself.

Reply

strudel2 May 17 2011, 18:51:58 UTC
I'm genuinely confused. You are saying you disagree with me, but what you write immediately after saying you disagree is exactly what I was trying to convey (at some length in the Bad Girls notes). So, good news! We agree! Bad news! I completely failed to get my point of view across! Well, I'll keep trying...

As for the Faith of it, we can see Faith trying to work out her response to the killing, but she is doing it alone, and every time she comes in contact with someone else, it seems to throw her off and push her to adopt an attitude that we have reason to see is not true to her. Her feelings are complex, but her surface attitude is defiant. I agree that she is not simply a tabula rasa, but I think we have a pretty good view that she doesn't know who she is either, which makes these observations of others have such a strong effect on her.

As for the decision to join the mayor, we'll have better opportunities to look at this more closely in the next few episodes. What's interesting to me is that, at this juncture, Faith thinks the mayor is a pure black hat. It's a complete bonus that he turns into such a paternal figure for her. I think she thinks she is judging herself at this stage (basically, I'm a black hat, so screw it), and instead she'll find someone who gives her a measure of non-judgmental peace, even as he tries to seal her in her choice of the black hat.

Reply

aycheb May 17 2011, 21:54:39 UTC
We agree on several points about how Faith was portrayed but judge the overall point of her story differently. Keeping to specifics, however, I do think her “recklessness” or more particularly her getting a thrill out of slaying is less innocent than either you or Maggie seem to. Faith gets her rocks off by killing things. Something you don’t discuss is the possibility that Faith gets spun by what happened to Finch because she can’t be certain she didn’t get a kick out of killing him too. When she tells Buffy she dug Angel even when he was evil I think that’s what she’s talking about.

Where we also differ is that I don’t see the story setting up the bad Slayer/good Slayer dichotomy you and Maggie seem so determined to reverse. I fundamentally disagree that the story shies away from the the idea that “Buffy was lucky she wasn’t the one with human blood on her conscience.”. On the contrary it seems to me (and to Noxon) that the whole point of this storyline is to introduce the concept that killing a human could very easily happen to Buffy, that a Slayer is a trained killer. As Buffy will much later tell the Shadowmen
You made her kill for you because you're weak.

I think she thinks she is judging herself at this stage (basically, I'm a black hat, so screw it)
She jokingly calls the mayor a black hat at the beginning of the episode but by the end I think she believes she’s moved beyond good and evil and into amorality. The mayor can protect her as he protected Trick, it’s a business relationship, a job. He’ll be her boss not her Watcher.

Reply

2maggie2 May 17 2011, 22:25:13 UTC
Just for the record, my aim is to undermine the good/bad slayer dichotomy, not to reverse it. That's always been my aim no matter how often you want to accuse me of trying to reverse it. It's possible I'm a terrible writer. But they're just words. I mean well.

Reply

aycheb May 19 2011, 10:47:57 UTC
I don't naturally cope well with serial storytelling (as a child I always had to skip to the ending of books) and although I've made my peace with stories (I'm reading plot free), with analysis I'm still the worse kind of spoiler hound. So I shouldn't use your NFFY comments as spoilers for this argument and I probably shouldn't comment on these notes until the very end.

Reply

2maggie2 May 19 2011, 15:53:35 UTC
I'm also a spoiler hound. I don't get the spoiler phobia thing at all.

Look -- the problem that happens is that when people argue about something in which they both hold complex views they polarize and end up sounding like they believe something they don't. You come across to me as thinking Buffy walks on water and has never once farted. I assume your views are actually more nuanced. I assume that because I see that you are an intelligent woman. I wish you could offer me the same courtesy; I wish you and I could move to a conversational tone. You have a lot of interesting insights and I learn from you. I have enough hubris to think you could learn from me. But it always feels like a wrestling match. I've already fled from Slay Alive because I find it so unpleasant, and now it's to the point where I dread coming to my own comment section.

Re: Faith and Buffy in NFFY. The surface positions are inverted. At least I think they are obviously so, and I will not re-engage that topic with you here. But they've never been polar opposites which means that the layers are as nuanced as ever. I am not the simple-minded idiot you want to argue with (or if I am, I've fooled a hell of a lot of really smart people for years now).

Reply

strudel2 May 18 2011, 17:55:55 UTC
I don't think the series shies away from the possibility that Buffy could have killed a human, and indeed Buffy will get there later this very season. What I found remarkable was the lengths the writers went to in these episodes to draw the distinction -- to allow the audience to make that distinction and to help us view Faith as the dark slayer and Buffy as the light slayer. (And for what it's worth, they continue this theme with the rather gratuitous moment in Doppelganger when Buffy stops herself from staking Wish!Willow -- what reflexes!).

So, yes, they will pursue these complications later, but for now, they are steering the conversation, and I think it's worth wondering why.

Reply

aycheb May 19 2011, 10:41:31 UTC
Dark (slayer) and light (slayer) are opposites. Reckless and not-quite-so-reckless are not, so on that issue I see the writers making a comparison rather than drawing the a distinction. Where there is a much clearer distinction is in how Faith and Buffy respond to an unintended killing. Faith buries the body, Buffy consistently wants to turn herself in to the highest possible authority (in Ted and Dead Things her reaction is the same). However rather than indicating that Faith's way is bad and Buffy's good this episode has Giles criticise both as unnecessarily extreme. Faith is unable to accept any responsibility, Buffy wants to accept far to much - it was an accident, these things happen.

Moreover (and throughout the episode) Faith is described as unstable, out of control, out of reach not as bad. The surface story, repeatedly laid out for the viewer, is that Faith is a essentially a victim of circumstances and failed interventions. Most obviously Wesley's, as I think Angel is being written as beginning to get through to Faith (he will be her end game in Five by Five). Still it's Buffy's show and her final judgement here, with which Giles concurs, is that Faith can be reached. In the event it proves much more complicated than that but Faith, although she makes many bad choices, never becomes a Warren.

Reply

strudel2 May 19 2011, 16:50:25 UTC
Judging from the back and forth between you and Maggie, I see there is a history and a tension here that's much deeper. I don't want to wade into that myself, but I do have to say that I have a hard time following what you are disagreeing with, for I cannot recognize what we wrote from what you oppose. Nor do I see exactly where you're going. There's a lot of interesting stuff in what you say, and I would love to be able to engage with it, but very quickly I find I don't even know what we're debating or why.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up