.....but FREEDOM!!!!

[pocochina]

We talk a lot about the ability of fictional characters to make choices freely. This is good, of course, but sometimes these conversations trip up on the fact that there are a lot of types of/aspects to freedom, and therefore, a lot of ways to be constrained. So I want to talk about the connotations of some words and phrases related to choice and

Comments

[fanspired]

> That is to say, S5 continues and buttresses the classically fatalist arc of S4, and just because you say “team free will!!” a lot does not mean you are actually demonstrating that the characters have free will. IMO it just makes them look even more like pathetically deluded puppets who don’t even know what hand is up their ass

[pocochina]

I agree that this is the most reasonable takeaway of the events of that first mega-arc, but I think it's almost certainly reading against intent. Kripke created an authorial avatar to yammer on about how THEY CHOSE FAMILY, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, IT'S SO BEAUTIFUL BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Sam never had any meaninful autonomy. Everything he, and those who loved him most, did drove him, inexorably, to his final fate in the cage.This is totally an accurate analysis of what happened, but again, when nobody onscreen voices that perspective I don't think we can attribute that to conscious authorial intent. And I certainly think that's an accurate representation of people's reactions to such situations? People want to believe that we have more control than we do. If we're the person whose autonomy was violated, we blame ourselves and/or dig ourselves in deeper just to feel like there's something we can do; if we're looking at the person whose autonomy was violated, we find ways to distance and victim-blame and convince ourselves that we've avoided

[fanspired]

Regarding the issue of "consent" and other moral issues in the first 5 seasons, I think (back then at least) the show was very well aware of the moral ambiguities and was in fact depicting 'heroes' whose moral centres were becoming progressively more corrupted with each successive season by the concept of "jus in bello". The trouble is, much of the fandom seems to accept the pov of "our heroes" as the voice of truth in the story when in fact they are very much unreliable narrators - damaged characters perceiving their story from inside the belly of the beast.

Even now, I think the show may still be waiting for the audience to wake up to the fact that Sam and Dean have long since ceased to be heroes in any meaningful sense and are, in fact, indistinguishable from the monsters they hunt. Or perhaps the show is a social experiment demonstrating that there is no act so morally untenable that the frog won't accept if you boil it slowly enough :P

[pocochina]

This is the thing, though. We can't say, for example, that "Sam doesn't have meaningful autonomy" and also "the number of morally bad actions for which Sam is culpable and the degree of that culpability have increased." Culpability requires meaningful autonomy. So I'd disagree that the characters' actions with regards to monsters* have actually become worse over time. I think that the viewers, through the characters, have gained a more nuanced understanding of when, if ever, they have that meaningful autonomy, and just how thorny the moral stakes are. I think the ability and willingness to examine those things, rather than simplistically say "this makes me feel like a good/bad person" makes them more capable of genuine morality, not less. Maybe it's less pretty, but that doesn't make it evil

[sunclouds33]

Bravo. I particularly like:

AGENCY IS NOT:
-getting what you want all the time
-having good things happen to you.

To add to the Buffyverse examples, I get pretty angry when fans say the Scoobies violated Buffy's agency by resurrecting her. NO! Buffy was dead- she literally had no expressible agency on earth to instruct the Scoobies on what to do. The Scoobies did not rob her of some agency that she didn't have. Rather, all of Buffy's agency rested on her previous statements and actions which were almost entirely of the "I'm sixteen years old. I DON'T WANT TO DIE" variety.

Of course there are times when what people mean by “it’s not CLEAR if THE NARRATIVE holds them RESPONSIBLE!!” is actually “but I REALLY WANNA crap on Xander/Wes/whoever for something that happened after we saw them get roofied and congratulate myself on dealing a crippling blow to rape culture!”

LOL. Accurate.

[pocochina]

I get pretty angry when fans say the Scoobies violated Buffy's agency by resurrecting her. NO! Buffy was dead- she literally had no expressible agency on earth to instruct the Scoobies on what to do. The Scoobies did not rob her of some agency that she didn't have. Rather, all of Buffy's agency rested on her previous statements and actions which were almost entirely of the "I'm sixteen years old. I DON'T WANT TO DIE" variety.

Yeah, that's a good example. I feel as if there's this idea that in order to acknowledge and be ~adequately sympathetic to Buffy's struggles in S6 one must name and scorn an identifiable perpetrator/group of perpetrators. But, you know, there's not one, and so there's lots of co-opting sufficiently amorphous terms like "agency" in order to build a case against someone or other. One would think it'd be easier to acknowledge that sometimes shit just happens and that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not a person receives our compassion.

[local_max]

Yeah, that's a good example. I feel as if there's this idea that in order to acknowledge and be ~adequately sympathetic to Buffy's struggles in S6 one must name and scorn an identifiable perpetrator/group of perpetrators. But, you know, there's not one, and so there's lots of co-opting sufficiently amorphous terms like "agency" in order to build a case against someone or other. One would think it'd be easier to acknowledge that sometimes shit just happens and that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not a person receives our compassion. Yep

[local_max]

Yay, yes

[pocochina]

The Pack especially shows us the dark side of Xander's worship of Buffy's strength and desire to be part of the in crowd, and "maybe" the thing we should take from that is to use it as commentary/foreshadowing on the way Xander actually plays status games within the group later on, in much more ambiguous ways, rather than he's an attempted rapist how dare the show not acknowledge this enough! when he's been roofied

Perfectly said, yeah.

Billy gives some clue about the differences in Wesley and Gunn's dark sides -- Gunn flies off the handle, Wesley simmers and seethes -- but that information is maybe useful for later episodes rather than, you know, this one.

YES, exactly. I think it goes to illustrate how the ways in which they would go dark are the ways in which they are usually heroic. Gunn is decisive and straightforward; Wesley withdraws and intellectualizes. Those are just traits, neither inherently good nor bad.

it mostly comes down to "the use of magic runs on and reinforces emotions," hence why "emotional control" is

[sunclouds33]

Call me biased but I regard Wes's Billy thing and Xander's Hyena's thing as on the same level as Willow and Xander as vampires in the Wishverse. Oh, so this is how it would be if their personalities were twisted and misshapen if some demonic force was squelching their conscience and soul. GOOD TO KNOW

[pocochina]

Darling, the chances of me tiring of the metaphorical sound of my own voice fit comfortably between slim and none. ♥