I did read elisi's blog and commented on it last Sept, and still agree with all of my comments then.- I think except for molly_may most commenters and elisi were more - sympathetic for Riley. Elisi made some terrific points in her meta but the repetition of "Buffy was bad for Riley" - whoa, wait, what? Maggie Walsh is the one who betrayed Riley, who manipulated his blindly trusting "respect authority and don't ask questions" nature and put that chip in his heart. (Imagine if btvs had been set during the 1970's Nixon era, with Buffy & Willow as campus activists.) And he in turns betrays Buffy by attacking her most vunerable spot - her heart - as he did in Doomed.
Again, this COULD have been interesting, but the writers decided to make it ALL ABOUT BUFFY and ALL HER FAULT and just NO. As you say IT'S GROSS, and there is just no other word for it.
And I really appreciate that the genuine article doesn't always need to be romantic in nature.
WORD. In my experience the "genuine article" very rarely is "romantic". Romance is generally sold to us as a feeling that just happens - and if its not there it's not really love - and in our culture you're supposed to just move on. Or fix it. Or stay but wonder why the hell your relationship isn't perfect, and mold yourselves to that. But that "feeling that just happens", effortlessly, in the beginning? That's need and loneliness and lust and just plain old hormonal chemistry. That ain't love, hon. When we put "love" in a box and label it, and demand that it look a certain way, as Riley does to Buffy (and Buffy does with Spike later, because she's also doing it to herself as well) then we miss the love that comes our way, we can't see it when it crosses our paths. But we also forget or don't realize that honest, real love includes some hard damn work and effort. "Committment" doesn't stop at reciting vows. (Ask one of my best friends, two lesbians, whose partner cheated on her after they had a "committment ceremony". I stopped hinting to my partner that I wanted such a ceremony because it reminded me how the ritual itself is an empty one without genuine committment behind it.)
Thanks for the links! I enjoyed reading those metas. Because unjustified Buffy-blaming will never not be a sore spot. And I definitely agree Riley had massive internalized misogyny issues. Like, I think he honestly meant well, but he had all that military/wholesome family/chivalry crap internalized and never really analyzed it. Add to that a good dose of "all girls want bad boys" stereotypes and you've got yourself one ugly breakdown. Which I think is what's uncomfortable about Buffy vs. Dracula -- because I feel it kind of WAS portrayed that way? Hell, that stereotype is associated with Buffy in ways where it is sometimes hard to see that nope, it isn't so simple. And I rewatched the episode a while ago and noticed just how uncomfortable Buffy was with basically all of Dracula's advances. Just. Ugh.
WORD. In my experience the "genuine article" very rarely is "romantic". Romance is generally sold to us as a feeling that just happens - and if its not there it's not really love - and in our culture you're supposed to just move on. Or fix it. Or stay but wonder why the hell your relationship isn't perfect, and mold yourselves to that. But that "feeling that just happens", effortlessly, in the beginning? That's need and loneliness and lust and just plain old hormonal chemistry. That ain't love, hon. When we put "love" in a box and label it, and demand that it look a certain way, as Riley does to Buffy (and Buffy does with Spike later, because she's also doing it to herself as well) then we miss the love that comes our way, we can't see it when it crosses our paths. But we also forget or don't realize that honest, real love includes some hard damn work and effort. "Committment" doesn't stop at reciting vows. (Ask one of my best friends, two lesbians, whose partner cheated on her after they had a "committment ceremony". I stopped hinting to my partner that I wanted such a ceremony because it reminded me how the ritual itself is an empty one without genuine committment behind it.)
Oh, that is excellent. And I completely agree! Humans are way too contrary and complicated for even love to work without, well, working for it.
And I definitely agree Riley had massive internalized misogyny issues. Like, I think he honestly meant well, but he had all that military/wholesome family/chivalry crap internalized and never really analyzed it. Add to that a good dose of "all girls want bad boys" stereotypes and you've got yourself one ugly breakdown.
YES. it was handled well in a lot of ways, whatever my impatience with the "poor Riley" implications pretty early on. But his behavior is IC, and the issue is one that affects women especially: being the "mindreaders" and knowing what everyone else needs, putting aside their own needs for everyone else. then the show just bolloxed it up by indicating that's exactly what Buffy should have done. Hence my issue with the whole thing.
And I rewatched the episode a while ago and noticed just how uncomfortable Buffy was with basically all of Dracula's advances. Just. Ugh.
Right? Again, vampirism has been associated with sexuality and rape since the beginning of the series, and Buffy is clearly under his thrall; she even hangs a lantern on that before she wipes the floor with his undead ass. I can understand that Riley doesn't "get it" - in a sense, he's got this entitlement thing going on. He's a guy and was an exceptional one at that; now he's ordinary and all his shiny toys have been taken away (the patriarchs love their toys) except for Buffy. Hence the jealousy, which is an emotion that I've never been able to access. Envy? Yes. Jealousy? I've been on the receiving end a lot and it's very ugly and based entirely on that other person's insecurities.
ME implying that Buffy was being unfaithful to Riley while under thrall is pretty much the same thing as Dark Horse's claim that Buffy was responsible for her behavior during the spacefrak in S8, even while they showed her under the influence of a metaphorical "rape drug". So she was but she wasn't? That's utterly gross, and it shows where Joss' thinking is on the subject. FYI, you were talking about Kendra in another comment elsewhere, and I feel the same impatience when it's implied that falling under Dru's thrall is proof that Kendra is an inferior Slayer. WTF? Buffy was under the Master's thrall when he killed her in PG. Was that also her fault?
Whatever the problems with Buffy&Spike S6 in terms of in-story, one thing they mostly got right was that both of them had to take responsibility for their OWN actions. No thrall, no "the devil made me do it", no excuses.
Humans are way too contrary and complicated for even love to work without, well, working for it.
Part of the problem is that despite the songs and poems throughout time, most people across the centuries haven't married for love first and foremost. There was a reason for arranged marriages: the parents and the entire clan/tribe vetted the union. It was for financial/political gain, it was a business deal much of the time. Which doesn't exclude the possibility of real love, or people marrying for love, but that wasn't first and foremost. This is possible when women are mostly seen as property to be "bartered away" of course; but I don't think we have centuries of experience in "love" behind us, not the modern-day kind we're "supposed" to feel. And it's supposed to be automatic, easy, like a bag of potato chips, like we're supposed to have perfect Christmas dinners, etc; it's a great big lie guaranteed to keep us anxious and feeling like failures, expecting too much of ourselves and others: Be my spouse, my lover, my best friend, the housekeeper, the breadwinner, the babysitter; read my mind; love me as much as my parents did or you'll disappoint me; give me the love my parents never did or you'll disappoint me. I love you exactly the way your are, now let me fix you.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2003/03/13/buffy-why-riley-is-not-a-nice-jock/
"In a way, season-five Riley was where Buffy writers began seriously examining misogyny among ordinary men..."
Also gabrielleabelle's breakdown of B/R S5: http://gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com/354693.html
mcjulie's no-nonsense meta on ITW & I will forever love her bottom-line: "He cheated on her. Repeatedly. With professionals." http://mcjulie.livejournal.com/42869.html
I did read elisi's blog and commented on it last Sept, and still agree with all of my comments then.- I think except for molly_may most commenters and elisi were more - sympathetic for Riley. Elisi made some terrific points in her meta but the repetition of "Buffy was bad for Riley" - whoa, wait, what? Maggie Walsh is the one who betrayed Riley, who manipulated his blindly trusting "respect authority and don't ask questions" nature and put that chip in his heart. (Imagine if btvs had been set during the 1970's Nixon era, with Buffy & Willow as campus activists.) And he in turns betrays Buffy by attacking her most vunerable spot - her heart - as he did in Doomed.
Again, this COULD have been interesting, but the writers decided to make it ALL ABOUT BUFFY and ALL HER FAULT and just NO. As you say IT'S GROSS, and there is just no other word for it.
And I really appreciate that the genuine article doesn't always need to be romantic in nature.
WORD. In my experience the "genuine article" very rarely is "romantic". Romance is generally sold to us as a feeling that just happens - and if its not there it's not really love - and in our culture you're supposed to just move on. Or fix it. Or stay but wonder why the hell your relationship isn't perfect, and mold yourselves to that. But that "feeling that just happens", effortlessly, in the beginning? That's need and loneliness and lust and just plain old hormonal chemistry. That ain't love, hon. When we put "love" in a box and label it, and demand that it look a certain way, as Riley does to Buffy (and Buffy does with Spike later, because she's also doing it to herself as well) then we miss the love that comes our way, we can't see it when it crosses our paths. But we also forget or don't realize that honest, real love includes some hard damn work and effort. "Committment" doesn't stop at reciting vows. (Ask one of my best friends, two lesbians, whose partner cheated on her after they had a "committment ceremony". I stopped hinting to my partner that I wanted such a ceremony because it reminded me how the ritual itself is an empty one without genuine committment behind it.)
Grow up, get real or go home IOW.
Reply
WORD. In my experience the "genuine article" very rarely is "romantic". Romance is generally sold to us as a feeling that just happens - and if its not there it's not really love - and in our culture you're supposed to just move on. Or fix it. Or stay but wonder why the hell your relationship isn't perfect, and mold yourselves to that. But that "feeling that just happens", effortlessly, in the beginning? That's need and loneliness and lust and just plain old hormonal chemistry. That ain't love, hon. When we put "love" in a box and label it, and demand that it look a certain way, as Riley does to Buffy (and Buffy does with Spike later, because she's also doing it to herself as well) then we miss the love that comes our way, we can't see it when it crosses our paths. But we also forget or don't realize that honest, real love includes some hard damn work and effort. "Committment" doesn't stop at reciting vows. (Ask one of my best friends, two lesbians, whose partner cheated on her after they had a "committment ceremony". I stopped hinting to my partner that I wanted such a ceremony because it reminded me how the ritual itself is an empty one without genuine committment behind it.)
Oh, that is excellent. And I completely agree! Humans are way too contrary and complicated for even love to work without, well, working for it.
Reply
YES. it was handled well in a lot of ways, whatever my impatience with the "poor Riley" implications pretty early on. But his behavior is IC, and the issue is one that affects women especially: being the "mindreaders" and knowing what everyone else needs, putting aside their own needs for everyone else. then the show just bolloxed it up by indicating that's exactly what Buffy should have done. Hence my issue with the whole thing.
And I rewatched the episode a while ago and noticed just how uncomfortable Buffy was with basically all of Dracula's advances. Just. Ugh.
Right? Again, vampirism has been associated with sexuality and rape since the beginning of the series, and Buffy is clearly under his thrall; she even hangs a lantern on that before she wipes the floor with his undead ass. I can understand that Riley doesn't "get it" - in a sense, he's got this entitlement thing going on. He's a guy and was an exceptional one at that; now he's ordinary and all his shiny toys have been taken away (the patriarchs love their toys) except for Buffy. Hence the jealousy, which is an emotion that I've never been able to access. Envy? Yes. Jealousy? I've been on the receiving end a lot and it's very ugly and based entirely on that other person's insecurities.
ME implying that Buffy was being unfaithful to Riley while under thrall is pretty much the same thing as Dark Horse's claim that Buffy was responsible for her behavior during the spacefrak in S8, even while they showed her under the influence of a metaphorical "rape drug". So she was but she wasn't? That's utterly gross, and it shows where Joss' thinking is on the subject. FYI, you were talking about Kendra in another comment elsewhere, and I feel the same impatience when it's implied that falling under Dru's thrall is proof that Kendra is an inferior Slayer. WTF? Buffy was under the Master's thrall when he killed her in PG. Was that also her fault?
Whatever the problems with Buffy&Spike S6 in terms of in-story, one thing they mostly got right was that both of them had to take responsibility for their OWN actions. No thrall, no "the devil made me do it", no excuses.
Humans are way too contrary and complicated for even love to work without, well, working for it.
Part of the problem is that despite the songs and poems throughout time, most people across the centuries haven't married for love first and foremost. There was a reason for arranged marriages: the parents and the entire clan/tribe vetted the union. It was for financial/political gain, it was a business deal much of the time. Which doesn't exclude the possibility of real love, or people marrying for love, but that wasn't first and foremost. This is possible when women are mostly seen as property to be "bartered away" of course; but I don't think we have centuries of experience in "love" behind us, not the modern-day kind we're "supposed" to feel. And it's supposed to be automatic, easy, like a bag of potato chips, like we're supposed to have perfect Christmas dinners, etc; it's a great big lie guaranteed to keep us anxious and feeling like failures, expecting too much of ourselves and others: Be my spouse, my lover, my best friend, the housekeeper, the breadwinner, the babysitter; read my mind; love me as much as my parents did or you'll disappoint me; give me the love my parents never did or you'll disappoint me. I love you exactly the way your are, now let me fix you.
Reply
Leave a comment