Buffy, Riley (yes, Riley) and Spike (1/2): Not-Entirely Random (Feminist) Ramblings
When it comes to BtVS, I'd promised myself that I would not write on my own journal here about subjects that are generally quite well-worn and have been discussed at length - and with great intellegence - by other people. Nevermind that I'll rant or blather at length about a variety of subjects (the comics, the episode AYW, etc etc) on other people's LJ convos. When I write more metas I'll want to focus on topics that are not generally discussed (at least in the few corners of fandom I've seen).
But - BUT - every now and again the random thought does pop in:
[Random musings and rants after the cut - consider yourselves forewarned]1) AYW: First off, I hate that episode in general. (I can name a hundred reasons, but other people already have discussed at length and more coherently than I can.) But I do love Buffy's apology - I love that she is taking responsibility for her own actions and treating Spike "like a man" who deserves to be treated better and deserves an apology. I personally don't need her to grovel and beg for forgiveness (she's done enough self-flagellation to last a lifetime IMO); and in S7 she demonstrates care and forgiveness in her actions time and again.
There's something very particular in her phrase "I'm using you": if we are meant to see Spike as a metaphor for Buffy's dark side, the demon within, her "death wish" ( gabrielleabelle writes about this brilliantly in her "Buffy Came Back Wrong" meta series), as well as a character in his own right, and if I watch the scene through a Buffy-oriented lens, rather than a Spike-oriented lens, it occurs to me that the sentence can also be interpreted to imply that Buffy is "using" herself, not unlike the way Faith used her body in "Who's That Girl". And it ties in with the sense of having "come back wrong": whether she can consciously vocalize it or not, that she has only been using the body she was inserted when Willow resurrected her in Bargaining, that neither her body or her life have belonged to her since then, and she's been unable to fully inhabit them until she takes back full possession of herself, of the space called "Buffy". I'm not negating the sincerity of the apology to Spike, but she is apologizing to herself at the same time.
But I'm sure I'm thinking about this too much and fanwanking to high heaven and unholy hell here. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Or I'm retreading VERY old ground.
2) I love the Buffy/Spike arc, the relationship in all it's phases, even if I regret some of the decisions made by the writers/M.E. and the way certain things were handled, or mishandled as the case may be. Balls were dropped, so I'm not intending a huge discussion on that right now.
However, when I read comments by the writers and the time and within fandom that S6 - S7, from SR to Chosen, was really "all about Spike" and his journey, does it bother me? Yes, yes it does. When it feels as though Buffy, the titular hero, is no longer the center of her OWN story, I have issues. They don't keep me from loving Buffy & Spike in all their messy glory, but I''ve always been a bit of a contrarian.
It's not the first time it's happened, either: When I watched S2, I thought the Angel/us arc was some of the best television I'd ever seen - and I only watched it for the first time this year. So I'm a grown adult, and S2 had me laughing outloud and sobbing (*Oh, Jenny, I miss you*) in ways that no other TV show ever has. But I was puzzled when some of the key episodes - featured voice-overs by David Borezanz as Angel, and flashbacks to key moments in his history. It made for fantastic television and character-building, but it made Angel the center of the tale, even if very briefly - I was watching his story, not Buffy's.
Now, in literature of course this happens all the time, the shifts in POV from one character to another, but feels very different on a TV episode, particularly one like Buffy. And all through S3, there were many times as though the season were really just a set-up to get Angel onto his own show; Buffy and the show were essentially being kept in a holding pattern because of that, outside of her relationships with Faith and the Watcher's Council. I didn't feel that I really discovered much more about Buffy in S3 that I hadn't already learned in S2.
I want the people in Buffy's life to be part of her story, but not to take it over. Unfortunately, I think the trend continued on TGiQ (based on what I have read - I will admit I haven't watched it) and on some level, even in the comics. The story is no longer "about" Buffy: whereas on her own show she was a presence, on AtS she becomes an absence, a symbol; her only importance is what she means to Angel and Spike. Buffy herself is both a prize to be fought over, and the battleground on which the contest is played out. (To a draw, apparently; although it's clear from the "shipper wars" that each faction has chosen their own champion.)
And this is nothing new, and certainly part of a cultural pattern: men at the center of not just stories but THE STORY, the central story of existence, of meaning, around which all other stories are shaped and retold. Even when women are protagonists, men are often central to their lives and their stories, in a way that occurs far less often than in reverse. Hence the existence of - and the need for - the Bechdel-Wallace test.
With the comics, I get the sense that this Buffy is a changeling, not the one from the show at all, or barely so; and that the story is, again, not about "Buffy" but about Joss's regard for the character who has become both his meal ticket and the albatross around his neck; about his true feelings towards fans - which may or may not be conscious on his part, but has rather ugly implications nonetheless; and the feelings of the mostly-male writers of the comics in general toward the notion of "strong", "opinionated" or "empowered women" or Buffy in particular and perhaps even of SMG. A way to get back at her perhaps, for insisting on a certain view of the character she was playing? No more "Buffy wouldn't do that" to hold them back, no real life actor who has some say in how the character and her own very real body were used, and willing at times to vocalize it?
I'm reminded of the time I took an undergraduate women's studies class in college that I had to drop out of because of a too-heavy classload; the class was made up of 20 female students and perhaps 3 male undergrads. A few weeks later a former classmate approached me and said that ever since I had left "the guys have been dominating the discussions."
"Why do you let them?" That was what I wanted to say to her...and what I'm certain I didn't say. My memory is fuzzy on this point, but more likely I held my tongue, not wanting to give offense; I'm sorry now that I didn't say it.
And I certainly don't want to offend anyone here now, or seems sexist: I've experienced that in my relationships with other women: being talked down, silenced, interrupted as though I weren't already speaking, dominated in conversation, etc. It's not a "male" thing in terms of individual men, it's really about power and control, personality issues, and who is the "dominant" person in the relationship (sometimes from moment to moment).
3) I've read that the writers "needed" to get Riley out of the story in S5, that Buffy needed to be alone for the Glory/Dawn storyline to occur. And in some ways it makes sense: Buffy has already been painted as self-absorbed (which is a different thing than self-centered, IMO) and tends to put all of her focus on whomever is most important in her life, usually her lovers/partners: Angel, Riley Spike. So, Dawn needed to be Buffy's focus that season, so get rid of the boyfriend (and get rid of Joyce) so Buffy has no one to distract her focus.
I think that is selling Buffy short as a character, but moreso selling women short in general. And yes, I am fully on board with the arguement that whatever happens on BtVS has to be interpreted in context, and isn't meant to be a comment on RL issues in general. (Except, of course, when it is, and who gets to decide when it is and when it isn't? YMMV) But nonetheless, there is something somewhat uncomfortable in the notion that the writers of BtVS, which set itself up as a show that subverts cultural tropes, that originally presented Bangel as a parody of romantic tropes - again, that's the conclusion gabrielleabelle came to, and I'm more than happy to go with that - actually do believe in the trope itself, or rather, that naturally a woman's life will revolve around her man as played out in the character of Buffy.
I'm not sure where I'm going with all of this - if anywhere except in circles - and I suppose I'm as guilty as the writers of taking Buffy out of the center of her own story, and making it all about me.
But - BUT - every now and again the random thought does pop in:
[Random musings and rants after the cut - consider yourselves forewarned]1) AYW: First off, I hate that episode in general. (I can name a hundred reasons, but other people already have discussed at length and more coherently than I can.) But I do love Buffy's apology - I love that she is taking responsibility for her own actions and treating Spike "like a man" who deserves to be treated better and deserves an apology. I personally don't need her to grovel and beg for forgiveness (she's done enough self-flagellation to last a lifetime IMO); and in S7 she demonstrates care and forgiveness in her actions time and again.
There's something very particular in her phrase "I'm using you": if we are meant to see Spike as a metaphor for Buffy's dark side, the demon within, her "death wish" ( gabrielleabelle writes about this brilliantly in her "Buffy Came Back Wrong" meta series), as well as a character in his own right, and if I watch the scene through a Buffy-oriented lens, rather than a Spike-oriented lens, it occurs to me that the sentence can also be interpreted to imply that Buffy is "using" herself, not unlike the way Faith used her body in "Who's That Girl". And it ties in with the sense of having "come back wrong": whether she can consciously vocalize it or not, that she has only been using the body she was inserted when Willow resurrected her in Bargaining, that neither her body or her life have belonged to her since then, and she's been unable to fully inhabit them until she takes back full possession of herself, of the space called "Buffy". I'm not negating the sincerity of the apology to Spike, but she is apologizing to herself at the same time.
But I'm sure I'm thinking about this too much and fanwanking to high heaven and unholy hell here. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Or I'm retreading VERY old ground.
2) I love the Buffy/Spike arc, the relationship in all it's phases, even if I regret some of the decisions made by the writers/M.E. and the way certain things were handled, or mishandled as the case may be. Balls were dropped, so I'm not intending a huge discussion on that right now.
However, when I read comments by the writers and the time and within fandom that S6 - S7, from SR to Chosen, was really "all about Spike" and his journey, does it bother me? Yes, yes it does. When it feels as though Buffy, the titular hero, is no longer the center of her OWN story, I have issues. They don't keep me from loving Buffy & Spike in all their messy glory, but I''ve always been a bit of a contrarian.
It's not the first time it's happened, either: When I watched S2, I thought the Angel/us arc was some of the best television I'd ever seen - and I only watched it for the first time this year. So I'm a grown adult, and S2 had me laughing outloud and sobbing (*Oh, Jenny, I miss you*) in ways that no other TV show ever has. But I was puzzled when some of the key episodes - featured voice-overs by David Borezanz as Angel, and flashbacks to key moments in his history. It made for fantastic television and character-building, but it made Angel the center of the tale, even if very briefly - I was watching his story, not Buffy's.
Now, in literature of course this happens all the time, the shifts in POV from one character to another, but feels very different on a TV episode, particularly one like Buffy. And all through S3, there were many times as though the season were really just a set-up to get Angel onto his own show; Buffy and the show were essentially being kept in a holding pattern because of that, outside of her relationships with Faith and the Watcher's Council. I didn't feel that I really discovered much more about Buffy in S3 that I hadn't already learned in S2.
I want the people in Buffy's life to be part of her story, but not to take it over. Unfortunately, I think the trend continued on TGiQ (based on what I have read - I will admit I haven't watched it) and on some level, even in the comics. The story is no longer "about" Buffy: whereas on her own show she was a presence, on AtS she becomes an absence, a symbol; her only importance is what she means to Angel and Spike. Buffy herself is both a prize to be fought over, and the battleground on which the contest is played out. (To a draw, apparently; although it's clear from the "shipper wars" that each faction has chosen their own champion.)
And this is nothing new, and certainly part of a cultural pattern: men at the center of not just stories but THE STORY, the central story of existence, of meaning, around which all other stories are shaped and retold. Even when women are protagonists, men are often central to their lives and their stories, in a way that occurs far less often than in reverse. Hence the existence of - and the need for - the Bechdel-Wallace test.
With the comics, I get the sense that this Buffy is a changeling, not the one from the show at all, or barely so; and that the story is, again, not about "Buffy" but about Joss's regard for the character who has become both his meal ticket and the albatross around his neck; about his true feelings towards fans - which may or may not be conscious on his part, but has rather ugly implications nonetheless; and the feelings of the mostly-male writers of the comics in general toward the notion of "strong", "opinionated" or "empowered women" or Buffy in particular and perhaps even of SMG. A way to get back at her perhaps, for insisting on a certain view of the character she was playing? No more "Buffy wouldn't do that" to hold them back, no real life actor who has some say in how the character and her own very real body were used, and willing at times to vocalize it?
I'm reminded of the time I took an undergraduate women's studies class in college that I had to drop out of because of a too-heavy classload; the class was made up of 20 female students and perhaps 3 male undergrads. A few weeks later a former classmate approached me and said that ever since I had left "the guys have been dominating the discussions."
"Why do you let them?" That was what I wanted to say to her...and what I'm certain I didn't say. My memory is fuzzy on this point, but more likely I held my tongue, not wanting to give offense; I'm sorry now that I didn't say it.
And I certainly don't want to offend anyone here now, or seems sexist: I've experienced that in my relationships with other women: being talked down, silenced, interrupted as though I weren't already speaking, dominated in conversation, etc. It's not a "male" thing in terms of individual men, it's really about power and control, personality issues, and who is the "dominant" person in the relationship (sometimes from moment to moment).
3) I've read that the writers "needed" to get Riley out of the story in S5, that Buffy needed to be alone for the Glory/Dawn storyline to occur. And in some ways it makes sense: Buffy has already been painted as self-absorbed (which is a different thing than self-centered, IMO) and tends to put all of her focus on whomever is most important in her life, usually her lovers/partners: Angel, Riley Spike. So, Dawn needed to be Buffy's focus that season, so get rid of the boyfriend (and get rid of Joyce) so Buffy has no one to distract her focus.
I think that is selling Buffy short as a character, but moreso selling women short in general. And yes, I am fully on board with the arguement that whatever happens on BtVS has to be interpreted in context, and isn't meant to be a comment on RL issues in general. (Except, of course, when it is, and who gets to decide when it is and when it isn't? YMMV) But nonetheless, there is something somewhat uncomfortable in the notion that the writers of BtVS, which set itself up as a show that subverts cultural tropes, that originally presented Bangel as a parody of romantic tropes - again, that's the conclusion gabrielleabelle came to, and I'm more than happy to go with that - actually do believe in the trope itself, or rather, that naturally a woman's life will revolve around her man as played out in the character of Buffy.
I'm not sure where I'm going with all of this - if anywhere except in circles - and I suppose I'm as guilty as the writers of taking Buffy out of the center of her own story, and making it all about me.