Giles and the "Wild Woman"

[norwie2010]

Giles and the „Wild Woman“

Preface 1: No fic, sorry. These are some meta-y thoughts about Giles, his role on the TV show and his relationship with different women. It is a bit incoherent, jumping from point to point and not restricted to Giles-thoughts. The Master, Wesley, Angel/us, Caleb, Snyder, … all make a short appearance. Oh, and the women, of

Comments

[local_max]

My long response

[local_max]

On Willow: first off I hope that Willow is counted among the "best" rather than "worst" moments in the show. :P I also want to note that the seven-season story ends with an affirmation of Willow's power and willingness to change the world and reject existing institutions -- even her willingness to change other people's bodies for the better. [[ Second of two comics asides in this post: And I am so excited and scared for what her story will be in the comics I can barely stand it. My feeling is that in the end it will be ambivalent-positive, which suits me fine. ]] But in any case, Dark Willow really does need to be stopped for people who care about whether or not Dawn gets a say in whether she turns back into a Key, whether Jonathan and Andrew really deserve death, or who think genocide needs to be stopped. That said, it is interesting that the last one happens as a result of Giles’ arrival and the accompanying power-up, so that there is in the text perhaps a criticism of Giles’ arrival. But I don’t think it’s just a matter of

[local_max]

As far as Xander, as ever I think you are too harsh on the boy. ;) But regardless, here is my read of Xander at the end of Grave. Well, I have many thoughts about that, as you know. But I think what is IMPORTANT for your analysis here is this. Giles intends to Tame Willow. I don't think Xander does. I think he goes to her because he recognizes that she is in the most pain and needs to be there for her, so that *someone* can be there for her at the end of the world. Buffy has Dawn, he doesn't know what to do with Anya, and Willow is his oldest friend. Does he hope he can talk her down from destroying the world? Yes. But I think he is sincere in expressing his love for her *anyway*. He does block her from firing at the statue, but he opens himself up to her killing him if she wants to. He can’t stop her: all that he can hope to do is to remind her that she is loved and hope that she chooses not to save the world after that. And ultimately, I don't think Willow wants to destroy the world. She wants to live, she wants to be

[local_max]

In vague response to your comment to Emmie above, a few more Willow thoughts! The one other thing worth noting about Dark Willow is that I think, deep down, M.E. are ambivalent about _the world itself_, and recognize that we all on some level are tempted to destroy it or our little corner of it, _ourselves_. Or maybe that’s just me. But more to the point: Willow, in expressing the desire to destroy the world because it is so painful, losing hope that it can bring anything but misery, gives voice to one of the show’s most central questions in a way that Buffy-who on some level, is perhaps *constrained* to be the hero-cannot directly, though she does indirectly in “The Gift,” “Once More, with Feeling” and “Normal Again.” Angel arguably is motivated by some of the same reasons in Becoming, Part 2, but is certainly *not* concerned about anyone but himself (and the woman he can’t destroy). Willow begins with herself, and then extends her own feeling to the whole world, and, interpreting the whole world through her own understanding of

[local_max]

Anyway, back to Giles and “the wild woman” more generally. Giles’ commitment is to “the world.” That is how he states it in _The Gift_. Like Buffy, Giles is given no choice but to fulfill his role in the patriarchal system. And his role is not entirely a bad one. It is perhaps because of the patriarchy that Wild Women are so dangerous -- but ultimately, as articulated before, they are sometimes dangerous. “The world” includes the patriarchal order, and that is probably what the Watchers Council most badly wants to protect. But the world also includes people of both genders, of all walks of life. It includes Buffy. So what is interesting then is that Giles fulfills a role he actually *needs* to fulfill, on some level. Ordinary citizens -- both men and women -- should be protected from any super-powerful individuals. The Watchers Council tells him this part of his mission and he believes that is his entire mission. It isn't. The rest of his mission is to maintain the current order, which is the Patriarchy, as you say. But

[local_max]

A clarification

[norwie2010]

First things first: When i said this would be a story about Giles - i was kidding! I even wrote so much. I thought you of all people would get it. :-P

What i'm writing about is our world, our reality, the human condition: The stories our so-called cultural industry tells us about women, and how men relate to them (and vice versa).

So, the writers writing this play as Willow trying to destroy the world - they unmask themselves. The don't have the courage to tell a story about „wild women“ - they fear the „wild woman“ the same as Travers.

When Willow becomes, realizes herself as „Dark Willow“:

Dark Willow becomes the „negation of the negation“ (→ Adorno), she utterly and completely rejects the patriarchal narrative, she tries to undo what the patriarchy and the male narrative did: She tries to set the key free. And really, the key to all the dams breaking, realities bleeding into each other, creating new and wild worlds* is the Innocent, constructed by the patriarchal order (monks!) to keep the „wild woman“, the femme fatale (Glory

[local_max]

Well, I knew you were talking about our world -- but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with you about what the stories are

[norwie2010]

Well, i actually agree with all of that. It is what's so fantastic about BtVS - whenever you peel off a layer, there's another one beneath. :)

But I don't think Willow can even begin to imagine anything other than destruction at this moment.

Especially this. While i twisted the words a bit to make Willow's actions seem more, hm, just and "good" (yes, i'm mean and devious like that ;-)) - i actually think that "the negation of the negation" is fighting Warren with Warren, so to speak. Willow, without Giles interference, would probably not destroy the whole world - but she would flex her muscles, try that power. It is reasonable to assume that this wouldn't be very pretty. Possibly lots of destruction and death.

[local_max]

Yay! Of course, I'm sure you can peel another layer back and reveal why what I said shows the writers' failure even more deeply, but, you know. I prefer to be optimistic

[beer_good_foamy]

A thought: Willow's actions at the end of s6 cross a form of metaphysical Godzilla Threshold. If the story is kyriarchal order vs chaos, then anything that disrupts the order is a solution. It may not be a constructive solution, but that doesn't mean it isn't one. If the world itself is oppressive, existence within a (metafictional) narrative focusing on new ways to destroy you, then nothing remains but to destroy that narrative - and this is the finale in which "Life is the big bad" and there's (supposedly) no more metaphor. Fine: so destroy life, and have the sole remaining metaphor - the mere fact that this is still a story - be the thing that must be overcome. When high school was hell, they had to end by blowing it up. At the start of s6, Buffy looks out at the world and declares it hell. So...

[local_max]

ITA. Though....

The difference, of course, being that there were no people in the high school when they blew it up! OK, so there are no PEOPLE in the storyworld either -- there are just characters. So in a sense, I think that Willow is actually *right* in a certain unassailable way, and no argument is really convincing. If the world is hell, then destroy it! But Xander's counterargument is, "Well, I love you anyway!" which isn't an argument, but makes the world bearable enough to give it a try another day. Season six ends with the affirmation that maybe existence is better than non-existence, even if problems can't be solved, and I am pretty fine with that. I'm not entirely sure I'd blame Willow for choosing the other path, either.

[beer_good_foamy]

Yup. Meant to ETA this just before you replied:

If the story ITSELF is the tamer, and if Willow is aware of this (this is the season where we get "Normal Again", where we get "Dawn's in trouble, must be Tuesday", where Anya comments on there only being three walls in their apartment, where writers appear on-screen several times, where Dark!Willow explicitly comments on what the character of Willow would do (and pretty much calls her tamed)), then it follows that she can only be free by breaking the story.

And if we add another level of metafiction, though I'm not entirely sure this one works - almost all heroes' tales, at least from the last 2,500 years or so, rotate around self-sacrifice and catharsis. Willow explicitly rejects that. She breaks not only the Buffy story, she breaks (or tries to) the very purpose of the story is supposed to do (the Slayer cannot stop her). In a sense, though as a BtVS fan I'm glad she could come back from it, I'm a little disappointed that she did - but there's only so much deconstruction you can do

[local_max]

And if we add another level of metafiction, though I'm not entirely sure this one works - almost all heroes' tales, at least from the last 2,500 years or so, rotate around self-sacrifice and catharsis. Willow explicitly rejects that. She breaks not only the Buffy story, she breaks (or tries to) the very purpose of the story is supposed to do (the Slayer cannot stop her). In a sense, though as a BtVS fan I'm glad she could come back from it, I'm a little disappointed that she did - but there's only so much deconstruction you can do within (!) this type of story, I guess.Yeah, I mean, I'm not quite sure what I want to have happened. With BtVS, and this is perhaps intellectually bankrupt, but I go with it anyway, I sometimes just decide that the story I like best is the one that happened, so that I save myself sleepless nights. So, there's a lot of story breaking going on. Because Buffy is not only sidelined- but super-sidelined in the finale. (Post-s6, I jokingly think of Buffy Xander and Willow as rock, paper and scissors: Buffy

[beer_good_foamy]

Yeah. Briefly, I guess the problem - and my problem with this reading of the story, as brilliant as it is, so I'm using the word "problem" very loosely - is that in order for us to care about the story in the first place, the characters must be more than mere representations of one of two sides. Ie: how do you write a story that breaks the very story it tells, while still telling it (and not alienating or boring the audience)? Especially if you're postmodern enough to think that the story exists in the reading (or in this case viewing) of it rather than as an immutable object.

But that's a slightly different question, I guess (not to mention a massively analytical lot-of-filing-and-giving-things-names take on it) and it's late. Will sleep on it.

[local_max]

I just ETA'd on an earlier comment. (Well, I don't have editing capabilities, so just added a new comment