Buffy the Vampire Slayer and due South

[butterfly]

Recently, I've been thinking about due South and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In a way, the shows are strikingly similar -- each centers around the emotional journey of the main character. Every episode forwards that emotional journey. The end of each series has the hero leaving the place that they spent all of the show time in -- we see the entirety of their existence in that place, because the show is about how that place shapes and changes them.

More than that, Buffy and Fraser are very similar characters, especially in one very important aspect -- both of them inspire and empower others. And both Buffy and Fraser bend the rules of the universe in ways that others of that universe don't. Their power of belief causes shifts in reality. Because they will it, reality bends and the impossible is quite possible. Both of them believe in people as opposed to institutions. Each fell in love with someone on the wrong side of the moral spectrum and took the right steps to stop that person from causing evil.

But they had different emotional journeys -- Buffy's story was one of a girl becoming a strong woman, while Fraser's was of a loner learning to make lasting connections. Still, both shows were a mix of humor and pathos (though dS leaned more towards humor), with BtVS adding the element of horror and dS using the cop show element.

And both did a wonderful job at creating believable people. People that you not only knew but wanted to know. People worth caring about, warts and all. They had relationships with thorns and emotional pains that didn't just disappear. And they had a driving emotional focus. Most shows don't have that, don't have a single emotional journey that resonates above anything else in the series. I really enjoyed Angel, but I've never felt the same kind of continual forward motion from it -- Buffy and Fraser were traveling on a set emotional journey, exploration of person in place. We saw the completion of their journey in that place and we saw them move on from it. Will Angel move on from L.A. when Angel is over? When all is said and done, AtS might end in the same fashion. We don't know that yet.

Comments

[ex-grievous-115.livejournal.com]

Sorry, me again.

Fraser and his quest at the end, looking for the "reaching out" hand is a wonderful end to a series, taking Kowalski with him - these two people who are basically loners, not fitting in with anything around them - heading out into the wilds together, and the vaguely open-ended promise of "If we do find his hand - the 'reaching out' one; we'll let you know". (I think that's what he says - it's been a long time since I saw the episode). More than any other characters I think I've seen on television, Fraser and Kowalski are two halves of a whole; one all open emotions and nerves, the other very restrained, but both feeling things deeply and letting themselves get hurt, they complement each other.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

No apologies -- no regrets.

Repeat business is always welcome -- it's good to talk to like-minded and intelligent people.

Fraser and his quest at the end, looking for the "reaching out" hand is a wonderful end to a series, taking Kowalski with him - these two people who are basically loners, not fitting in with anything around them - heading out into the wilds together, and the vaguely open-ended promise of "If we do find his hand - the 'reaching out' one; we'll let you know". (I think that's what he says - it's been a long time since I saw the episode).

Exactly -- they don't fit anywhere else, but they fit together. It's really beautiful.

More than any other characters I think I've seen on television, Fraser and Kowalski are two halves of a whole; one all open emotions and nerves, the other very restrained, but both feeling things deeply and letting themselves get hurt, they complement each other.

They do. And they slide together so well -- BDtH has that great interrogation scene with Motherwell and even though they barely know each other and Fraser doesn't trust Ray yet, they just click together as a team. A duet, as Ray would say.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Both of them believe in people as opposed to institutions.

Interesting. Because on some levels, Buffy does. But at the end of the series, Buffy believes in the Institution of the Slayer far more then she believes in "people" in general. It is the institution of the Potential that she empowers to full slayerness. The community of Sunnydale and its citizens, she leaves to destruction and refugee-hood. It's a mixed message, and I'm certain one the creator did not intend - but I think rather apparent, nonetheless.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I don't think that Buffy views Slayerhood as an institution in Chosen -- she sees it as a state of being.

And I don't mean that she believes in people in general, though she does, I meant more in the specific. She believe not in 'the people' but in people, the people that she interacts with.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the place of Sunnydale being destroyed -- it was created for the use of demons ('created for demons to feed on' are the exact words, though I can't recall when they were said) and it isn't sound. Plus, they made a big point of the people choosing to leave when before they've always chosen to stay.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

She believe not in 'the people' but in people, the people that she interacts with.

I agree with some of your logic, and were we to stop with "Graduation", I'd not even have raised the debate.

But while she may claim to view the Slayerhood as a state of being, she's also handling it as an institution. And perpetuating a class system in which, those not in her inteligentsia are ignored. It's the same Caste system the Shadowmen set up, except that she's liberalized the power dynamics within that top caste.

She still self-selects to not interact with people outside of the inteligentsia. People who are not "Chosen". By the end of the series, the non-supernaturals aren't connected to, or representative of society. Their her secretariat.

I would have less of a problem with the desertion and destruction of Sunnydale, if I'd seen Buffy interface meaningfully with any of it's citizens. If I'd seen Buffy lead those citizens out of the town, rather then ignoring them while their problems got so much worse that they fled.

Overtime, it takes on something of a Marxist-Leninist cast for me. The rhetoric of empowerment, I think is wonderful. The facts on the ground, the realities of her behavior and actions within the world, don't support the rhetoric. How much of that is the character - and how much stems from unconcious leanings of the creator, I can't really say. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

But while she may claim to view the Slayerhood as a state of being, she's also handling it as an institution. And perpetuating a class system in which, those not in her inteligentsia are ignored. It's the same Caste system the Shadowmen set up, except that she's liberalized the power dynamics within that top caste.

So, are you saying that's it's unfair of her to empower the Slayers or that's it's against what she claims to believe? I don't that it is -- Buffy has always been about personal choice and she did her best to give as much as she could (not being able to locate and ask every potential before the spell was done -- she had a very short time to work with).

I suppose that it depends on whether you think that Buffy thinks of herself as better because she's a Slayer (which would be... yes and no, from her own mouth). A leader can set a tone for a group (part of why most of the SG were in disarrary for the latter part of S7). She's taking responsibility for the choice they made (they're seeking out and teaching the new slayers).

She still self-selects to not interact with people outside of the inteligentsia. People who are not "Chosen". By the end of the series, the non-supernaturals aren't connected to, or representative of society. Their her secretariat.

By non-supernaturals, do you mean Xander, Andrew, and Giles, or do you have other people in mind?

I would have less of a problem with the desertion and destruction of Sunnydale, if I'd seen Buffy interface meaningfully with any of it's citizens. If I'd seen Buffy lead those citizens out of the town, rather then ignoring them while their problems got so much w

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

So, are you saying that's it's unfair of her to empower the Slayers or that's it's against what she claims to believe?

No. I say that it's unfair and against what she claims to believe (in terms of "the Mission") that she disregarded all those people who weren't potential slayers.

I guess it comes down to what the Mission really is. Is it to defend potential slayers against the social bindings of the Shadowmen. Or is it to protect society as a whole. To a limited extent, the Shadowmen empowered one girl to fight the monsters - but left everybody else weak, and dependent upon that one girl. What about those people the Shadowmen left out? Aren't they Buffy's constituency too?

She just doesn't value them, becuase they aren't "Chosen".
Buffy has always been about personal choice and she did her best to give as much as she could

Only if you are "Chosen" or a Potential, and thus slated to be Chosen. In S7, what does she offer to those not already of that caste?

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

No. I say that it's unfair and against what she claims to believe (in terms of "the Mission") that she disregarded all those people who weren't potential slayers.

I guess it comes down to what the Mission really is. Is it to defend potential slayers against the social bindings of the Shadowmen. Or is it to protect society as a whole. To a limited extent, the Shadowmen empowered one girl to fight the monsters - but left everybody else weak, and dependent upon that one girl. What about those people the Shadowmen left out? Aren't they Buffy's constituency too?

Buffy's fight was always, in part, about protection. Protecting the people (in general) from demons, etc. I don't think that the new slayers will stop doing that part of it.

I doubt that Buffy could have given everyone slayer powers -- there was no suggestion of the possibility. She's not the one who chose the potentials. Maybe they didn't even do that. It may be genetic, it may be some Higher Power. We don't know. But it wasn't up to Buffy.

Do you think that she should have tried to continue what she did in Graduation? I don't think that it would have worked -- not seeing the supernatural is too much a part of the Sunnydale mode. Even at graduation, they fought because they were pretty much already on the front lines. Buffy got her mom out of town. And, of course, Buffy was told from the beginning that it was meant to be secret and she's been going against that.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I doubt that Buffy could have given everyone slayer powers

Of course not. But we've seen that one doesn't have to be a slayer to protect oneself from monsters. Gunn's group were empowered to fight against Vampires, even though none of them were slayers. Buffy could have empowered Sunnydale citizens, simply by telling them to wear a cross, and not to invite strangers into the house after dark...

Buffy, as guardian, was about protecting people. But she went about it, by giving out more Fish. Rather than teaching people how to fish. Unless you were already a potential slayer. Contrasted to that scene where the new slayer stands up to domestic abuse, is the scene where another women still gets hit because she wasn't Chosen.

To say that "Chosen" was about empowering women, is like saying the Bolshevik's led a "Workers Revolution". It empowered a small cadre of elite, but the rest are still outside looking in (they're refugees in Sunnydale) and has very little to say about that.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

She tried that in Graduation. People helped once and then went back to forgetting (of course, quite a few of them probably also left town after, but that's life after high school).

I don't know, I suppose that I just can't get to where you are because slayers and potentials are symbolic of women to me. There was an episode where Andrew actually said that flat-out, about slayerness and becoming a woman.

To me, Chosen isn't about getting superpowers, it's about choosing to be strong.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I suppose that I just can't get to where you are because slayers and potentials are symbolic of women to me. There was an episode where Andrew actually said that flat-out, about slayerness and becoming a woman.

I don't give Andrew all that much creedence.

I can never do that - see slayers as representative of all women. The metaphor explicitly sets up a class system - of Potentials who are better and more capable than other women. Even when they aren't Chosen. And thus, the Potentials are deserving of special attention and treatment that other women don't get. Buffy completely ignores the women who she believes will not be chosen.

BtVS doesn't address those women. Buffy doesn't address those women. Those women are after thoughts, and no more empowered than they were before Buffy came to Sunnydale.

I can't pretend they don't exist. And I can't forget that, come S7, Buffy had nothing to offer those girls who weren't already "Chosen" to be Potentials. When the girl stands up to her abuser because she has been empowered, I wonder what happens to the girl that didn't get empowered. When Baseball slayer displays renewed confidence, I wonder what happens to the girl batting behind her, who doesn't get empowered. And I wonder why those women don't even merit afterthough.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I don't give Andrew all that much creedence.

Andrew himself? No, but he sometimes says things that are very apt, despite his limitations. He's not an idiot, he was just too quick to devote himself to a person.

I can never do that - see slayers as representative of all women. The metaphor explicitly sets up a class system - of Potentials who are better and more capable than other women. Even when they aren't Chosen. And thus, the Potentials are deserving of special attention and treatment that other women don't get. Buffy completely ignores the women who she believes will not be chosen.

Wasn't that the point of Potential? That Dawn, though not a potential slayer, is still capable of being just as important?

I suppose that it helps that, for me, Buffy is completely based off of Buffy's emotional journey. That is the story for me. Show me Buffy and I'm happy, because her emotional growth is why I'm watching the show. This works out well with the show being her story.

I just can't see how empowering some harms others. It's not Buffy's fault that all the women in the world aren't potentials. And if they were, then that would bring the gender imbalance even more into focus. We don't know what makes a girl a potential. Buffy had a choice -- empower some or lose all. There is no fully equal society.

And who's to say that those non-potential women won't be empowered by association? Once a guy runs into one superpowered woman, he may be less likely to hurt others. And I've seen nothing to indict that Buffy ever stopped being willing to help others. Yes, they're going to find and help the new slayers, because those girls are now dealing with a power that they didn't have before. But that doesn't mean that the Dawns and Willows and Anyas of the world will be ignored.

I guess that I just don't see where you can blame Buffy for being unable to magic wand away all of womankind's ills. And yeah, that's a simplification, but at the base of it, that's what it sounds like you're saying -- Buffy is wrong for helping some women because she can't help all. If it isn't, please tell me what it is that you are saying.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Wasn't that the point of Potential? That Dawn, though not a potential slayer, is still capable of being just as important?

But not to Buffy. As you said, this is Buffy's emotional journey, and to Buffy non-slayers don't matter as much as slayers do.

I just can't see how empowering some harms others.

at the base of it, that's what it sounds like you're saying -- Buffy is wrong for helping some women because she can't help all. If it isn't, please tell me what it is that you are saying.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that I find it distasteful to claim Buffy empowered all women, as if it's the most wonderful thing ever.

She empowered a tiny subset of women, who were already more powerful than other women. And I want to know what she's going to do for all those women who don't have power? What she's going to do for men who don't have power? If Buffy's role is to protect society, I want to know if I'm part of that society - or if she only stands for slayers.

And who's to say that those non-potential women won't be empowered by association?

Empowerment by association, by continued dependence on the Slayer to solve your ills, isn't really empowerment. Willow and Xander weren't empowered because Buffy was in Sunnydale - they were empowered because they were allowed into the fight, and encouraged to take part in their own defense. That still leaves a large number of non-empowered. We call them refugees.

I'd have done the empowerment for that alone. But I'm not going to pretend that Buffy was empowering "everybody", because she wasn't. She wasn't thinking about "everybody" - she was only thinking about that caste and she's not spoken about non-slayers at all.

I want to believe that it's going to trickle down and help the rest of society. But I don't know that it'll happen, because at no point does Buffy reinforce that as part of her plank. It's supply-side economics. We talk as though Buffy cut taxes for everyone, thus making us all wealthier. That's hardly what happened.

Essentially, I'm saying that the positive propaganda regarding the good Buffy did with the empowerment spell, is wholly out of step with the reality of the act. Symbolically, she has broken the chattel system that the Watchers held slayers under. And that's very good. As to the chattel system that the watcher/slayer unit holds society to - she's done nothing to address that. There's no indication that she will, that she's even thought about it. And I think she should.

What Buffy did was good. It's just been vastly inflated as to how much good she did witht that spell. There's a ton of work to be done to make sure those new slayers actually become competent and good slayers, and probably a course in ethics wouldn't be such a bad idea either. And then at some point, Buffy might want to think about them folks who don't have superpowers as something more than just sheep. Nothing in the text of S7 says she won't do that - but nothing in the text of S7 says she will. That's what pisses me off.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

But not to Buffy. As you said, this is Buffy's emotional journey, and to Buffy non-slayers don't matter as much as slayers do.

That's a very confident statement. I think that feeling was something that Buffy fought with in S7, but I definitely think that she didn't end up feeling that way.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that I find it distasteful to claim Buffy empowered all women, as if it's the most wonderful thing ever.

Buffy didn't, definitely not. She symbolically empowered all women and she definitely has empowered me through example and inspiration, but no, she didn't empower all women in the Buffyverse -- she took an action that resulted in the potential power inherent in certain women to switch on. But she's always reached out to non-Slayer types in the past, and I just don't see why she'd stop.

It doens't make sense to me to assume that she would stop trying to help people in general just because she was too stressed out and afraid most of Season Seven to do it much then. And even in S7, we saw her reach out to people -- she embraced being a counselor, regardless of her qualifications.

And I want to know what she's going to do for all those women who don't have power? What she's going to do for men who don't have power? If Buffy's role is to protect society, I want to know if I'm part of that society - or if she only stands for slayers.

Are you asking about protection? Because Buffy has and is doing that. I think, from reading over your stuff, that you think Buffy should have kept on in a Graduation-type way. Knowledg

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

And even in S7, we saw her reach out to people -- she embraced being a counselor, regardless of her qualifications.

This again, is where I think propaganda divergers from reality. Buffy held the job of counselor. She did not fulfil the job of counselor. There is a significant distinction.

The position underlied how terrible Buffy was, in actuality, at empathizing with those she was meant to be helping. And underlining how much she needed to learn it, in order to make a positive difference in their lives. True - she saved the lives of the citizens in Sunnydale. But she didn't make a difference. They're no more empowered now, than they were before.

Buffy was a terrible counselor. And she was terrible at empowering.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Propaganda is a strong word. Well, strong more in the implications than the definition, but sometimes that's enough. I haven't seen much, if any, propaganda about Buffy in S7. Mostly, I see people who hate her and the season and therefore dismiss it as without value. There are some exceptions, but they have seemed exceptions to me.

And was Buffy such a bad counselor? Amusing, yeah, but I didn't see her being bad at it. She was new at it, Robin Wood hired her to keep an eye on her and therefore gave nor requested training, but she could have grown into the role if given a chance. She was great with Cassie.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I should separate between Buffy and Joss Whedon, here. I despise the message Whedon used Buffy to put forward in S7. Not the character, herself. It's not what I would have done with the character. The Propaganda I refer to, is the message Whedon claims the story was about. A story I would have altered, if I wanted it to actually succeed in sending the message Whedon claims it was to send.

And was Buffy such a bad counselor?

Yeah. It;s not just that Robin didn't give her the training. She also didn't seem to seek it out herself. We criticize the community for not being more active in its own defense, but it's not like we ever saw Buffy crack a book to learn about doing her job either.

And perhaps she might have been a better counselor if she'd thrown herself into helping students that didn't remind her of her own life the way Cassie was such a clear echo of Buffy in "Prophecy Girl". But in the end - I don't stick this to Buffy Summers becoming a lousy person. I stick it on ME doing an awful job of writing.

We're told by Whedon that Buffy cares and is empowering people, and so on. We're not exactly shown that. I still remember Billy from "nightmares" - Buffy actually did empower him to take care of himself. She did the same for Debbie in S3.

That's the Buffy Summers I want to see stories about. But ME doesn't portray her that way, and I'm not going to accept that she's still that person, if I don't see evidence of it. Even if ME tries to claim otherwise in interviews.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I really need to rewatch Season Seven. It's been too long and I just can't remember the specifics of the early episodes. Once I have, I totally plan to post more about this, because I really am enjoying talking this out with you -- you have very strong opinions with textual back-up.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. I appreciate your comments as well. We both come at the shows from such different perspectives. In my case, mine is so heavily informed by my academic and professional career in public service and political theory, as opposed to a more literary inflected background. And it's a background that basically leads me to see S7 as doing wrong, virtually everything S3 did right in terms of storytelling.

But it helps to talk to people who have a more artistic or literary prespective.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Once again, my browser is evil. But this time I was prepared and saved my stuff before I tried to post it.

And I want to know what she's going to do for all those women who don't have power? What she's going to do for men who don't have power? If Buffy's role is to protect society, I want to know if I'm part of that society - or if she only stands for slayers.

Are you asking about protection? Because Buffy has and is doing that. I think, from reading over your stuff, that you think Buffy should have kept on in a Graduation-type way. Knowledge and not just protection. But Buffy has expressed a belief that it's better for the people she's saving the world for to enjoy that world without knowing the price it takes to keep it. I don't know whether or not I agree with her, but feeling that way is a far cry from not caring about the population at large.

Empowerment by association, by continued dependence on the Slayer to solve your ills, isn't really empowerment. Willow and Xander weren't empowered because Buffy was in Sunnydale - they were empowered because they were allowed into the fight, and encouraged to take part in their own defense. That still leaves a large number of non-empowered. We call them refugees.

They weren't empowered by her move, but they were saved. Remember The Wish -- the town was a hellhole and couldn't even be cleansed by fire as it was in Chosen. Buffy's mere arrival in Sunnydale saved lives and it saved people from living in fear. That's not nothing, though it isn't empowerment, true. But it's a step. Not living in fear makes it easier to do things that are more likely to get you empowered.

She wasn't thinking about "everybody" - she was only thinking about that caste and she's not spoken about non-slayers at all.

I don't think she was thinking of the potentials too terribly much either. More than she had before, yeah, but she was still mostly thinking of the monsters and the evil and what she needed to do to fight it back.

Essentially, I'm saying that the positive propaganda regarding the good Buffy did with the empowerment spell, is wholly out of step with the reality of the act. Symbolically, she has broken the chattel system that the Watchers held slayers under. And that's very good. As to the chattel system that the watcher/slayer unit holds society to - she's done nothing to address that. There's no indication that she will, that she's even thought about it. And I think she should.

I don't know -- I suppose I see a difference between keeping a young girl ignorant, afraid, alone, and doomed to die young as opposed to keeping the general population ignorant. The Watcher's Council didn't have little blinking sticks to erase memory -- people chose not to remember the monsters. If the population wants to, it could rally, but for the most part, it doesn't want to -- look at Nina on Angel, unwilling to tell her family that she's become a werewolf. Monsters are the great unspoken for the vast majority of the unseen Buffyverse members. Buffy would like to keep it that way because she doesn't want people to live in fear. Perhaps, like Angel with Connor, this is another wrong decision for the right reason, but I personally do not doubt that Buffy has the right reasons in her heart.

There's a ton of work to be done to make sure those new slayers actually become competent and good slayers, and probably a course in ethics wouldn't be such a bad idea either. And then at some point, Buffy might want to think about them folks who don't have superpowers as something more than just sheep.

I've never seen a suggestion in the text or outside that Buffy sees non-superpowereds that way. She risked her life nightly to save people. She gave up a lot to save the world, especially as often as she did. Whenever her life has intersected with those outside the slayer circle, she has never treated them as lesser (all the counseling scenes especially point this out to me -- she wants to help.).

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I think, from reading over your stuff, that you think Buffy should have kept on in a Graduation-type way. Knowledge and not just protection. But Buffy has expressed a belief that it's better for the people she's saving the world for to enjoy that world without knowing the price it takes to keep it. I don't know whether or not I agree with her, but feeling that way is a far cry from not caring about the population at large.

While we always focus on how Buffy didn't get to choose to be the slayer (though she did choose to fulfill the role) - neither did society choose to have Buffy be it's protector.

Buffy reinforces a circumstance wherein society has no say in it's own defense, in the manner of it's own protection. I did expect, and hope for Buffy to continue something along the lines of what "Graduation" started.

Maybe not going compeltely public, for some obvious reasons. But at least going to elected representatives of the public. How well do you trust the US Military? Would you trust the military more, or less, if there were no accountability - in the form of a Civillian Commander-in-Chief, and an elected governing authority (Congress) with budgetary oversight?

That's where Buffy's at. She stands for the defense of community, yet that population has no representation or say in it's own defense. To be honest, while Buffy might be a nicer and more caring person than the typical Council Flunky - she's just as much of a Paramilitary Elitist. Functionally, her attitudes toward the public are no different.

Buffy believes that we can't have National Security and Democracy - that what she does is too important for the people (or their elected representatives) to know about. She's wrong.

If the population wants to, it could rally, but for the most part, it doesn't want to

And before Buffy got a hold of the Potential Slayers, neither did they. But she invested time and effort into rallying them to fight back. Not because empowering people is good - but becuase these people were Chosen. Buffy doesn't empower women, who happen to be slayers. She empowers Slayers, who happen to be women. She doesn't empower women who don't happen to be slayers. She doesn't empower men either. She empowers an elite, and disregards the population.

Whenever her life has intersected with those outside the slayer circle, she has never treated them as lesser (all the counseling scenes especially point this out to me -- she wants to help.).

I would like to believe that. And if the series ended in S3, I would. But it's not true. Buffy did risk a lot, and she kept fighting. But she fought the fight, because she had to. She didn't fight for the people. She gave up on the world in S5. I think she wants to believe that she's fighting for community, and people, and those who don't fight for themselves.

But when was the last time Buffy put in effort to really empower someone? Dawn, whom she no longer included once the Potentials showed up. She ignored Xander's gut wound, because Spike had power, and thus mattered. Does anything Buffy offered to the students she couseled in S7 even remotely compare to her conversations with Debbie in S3? That's empowerment.

S7, is supposed to be about empowerment. The metaphor is Buffy empowering women. I'd even like to believe Buffy does stand for empowering people. It's just that the metaphor doesn't work. It's broken. How can one really make a statement about empowerment, when it's coupled with such a consistent denouciation of democratic principles?

Cont'd.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I would have less of a problem with the desertion and destruction of Sunnydale, if I'd seen Buffy interface meaningfully with any of it's citizens. If I'd seen Buffy lead those citizens out of the town, rather then ignoring them while their problems got so much worse that they fled.

I suppose that it depends on what you feel Buffy owes the community.

Overtime, it takes on something of a Marxist-Leninist cast for me. The rhetoric of empowerment, I think is wonderful. The facts on the ground, the realities of her behavior and actions within the world, don't support the rhetoric. How much of that is the character - and how much stems from unconcious leanings of the creator, I can't really say. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

First off, I had something intelligent here and I got cut off in my previous post and I can't remember what I said. But it was intelligent and I hate my computer for screwing it up.

That said, I think I said something about how the way we view the world is very different and... something. Damn. I really can't remember.

*kicks hotmail and internet explorer*

Aha!

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

This was some of what I remembered I said (though probably in different words):

Part of my problem, my issues, part of why I identify with Buffy, is that I do not have that strong attachment to the community of place. A place is just a place. A community of like-minded people is something that I can understand and support. A community that exists because people all live in the same place is a bit foreign to me, because, when I was young, I never really lived in any one place long enough to form that sort of community.

Re: Aha!

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

A community that exists because people all live in the same place is a bit foreign to me

What about a community that exists because we are all people, no matter how diverse or uniform our demographics actually are?

Buffy chooses to limit her definition of community to people like her (the Potential Slayers) and those of like mind to serve in her secretariat (Xander, Willow, Giles, Dawn, et al - who become her bureaucratic staff).

And it bothers me, because in S1-3, Buffy stood up for everybody. Like in "Gingerbread", when she's fighting for those kids, their parents, et cetera. Those are the people she disregards. Who she seems to show no sense of responsibility towards come S7. When the FE comes to town, it doesn't just kill Potential Slayers. The potentials aren't the only ones in need of Guardians. But they are the only ones Buffy et al (read Whedon) seems to prioritize or value. It's a reading I would prefer not to take, but one I do hold.

Re: Aha!

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

What about a community that exists because we are all people, no matter how diverse or uniform our demographics actually are?

Is that a community? I've always thought of that as the whole -- communities are sections of the whole that are grouped together. Regardless of terminology, I do agree that the wider world can't be ignored.

Buffy chooses to limit her definition of community to people like her (the Potential Slayers) and those of like mind to serve in her secretariat (Xander, Willow, Giles, Dawn, et al - who become her bureaucratic staff).

Well, to me, it looked like she took everyone who was willing to stay. The community of Sunnydale chose to leave. Now, Buffy could have tried to deal with that sooner, but she was in a haze of total fear and insecurity, which I related with.

And it bothers me, because in S1-3, Buffy stood up for everybody. Like in "Gingerbread", when she's fighting for those kids, their parents, et cetera. Those are the people she disregards. Who she seems to show no sense of responsibility towards come S7. When the FE comes to town, it doesn't just kill Potential Slayers. The potentials aren't the only ones in need of Guardians. But they are the only ones Buffy et al (read Whedon) seems to prioritize or value. It's a reading I would prefer not to take, but one I do hold.

Buffy mostly started protecting the potentials in particular because, well, Giles brought them. Giles is someone who definitely views Slayerhood as an institution, I would say. She trained them because they were there and she could understand what they were going through and wanted to prepare them.

But I don't think that she stopped protecting the population at large at this time -- she was still going out on patrols in Dirty Girls.

Re: Aha!

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Well, to me, it looked like she took everyone who was willing to stay.

I thought she kicked the last inhabitant of Sunnydale out in "Touched". Buffy has no idea what the citizens of Sunnydale were willing to do. She didn't reach out to them. The only population Buffy really proactively sought out to help were the Potential Slayers, and only because Giles brought them to her attention.

By the end of the series, I have to wonder whether she's patrolling because there are monsters to be killed - or because there are people to be protected from those monsters. The only form of protection she seems to have in mind, is raw physical power. Which, sadly, is hardly the only source of strength we humans have.

Re: Aha!

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

It's easier for me to understand Buffy accidentally kicking someone out because I've done that. Yeah, wrong thing, but she was in lots of pain, so I get it. But that's me.

Sunnydale left. There were people in the town who knew she was the Slayer and those people left -- they didn't go to Buffy.

By the end of the series, I have to wonder whether she's patrolling because there are monsters to be killed - or because there are people to be protected from those monsters. The only form of protection she seems to have in mind, is raw physical power. Which, sadly, is hardly the only source of strength we humans have.

That's why she was doing it at the beginning of S5 -- well, actually, she was doing it because she felt compelled to, she needed the release.

Protection-wise, she was concerned with raw power because (though they may have fallen down on the execution) I thought the point of the season was Buffy falling into the trap of believing she needed as much power as possible and that's all that mattered. I do think that they didn't have enough time to show much of a change, though I do think that she did experience that moment of understanding -- that's what lead her to the scythe -- she could reach it when she remembered the importance of things other than strength.