I personally didn't find her obnoxious. But anyway, whether or not you found her attitude obnoxious is more about personal preferences, not fact.
I agree, but preaching is, as is bad characterization, even if we draw the lines differently. I hate to be preached to in my fiction, and think that Wheddon is a mite too ideological at times.
Feminism aside, I hate the cynical aspects of the show, mainly in the one-liner, because it's emotional anesthesia. Granted, that show was filled with brilliance, but it still rankled.
But even if you disagree with me and you dislike parts of her personality (like the "obnoxiousness"), I don't see how that makes a statement about feminism. It just means you didn't care for that part of her character. Which, again, is a matter of personal preference.
Literary feminism, subtly, but essentially, premised on gender competition, typically one-sided calibrated in favor of the women, at the expense of the men. That's how, (dare I say most?) shows are built, to a greater or lesser degree, trying consciously, to a state of overkill, to balance things out, and that's aggravating.
Wheddon imagined an empowered cheerleader, which is fine, but all the same, I think the genre does a lot of the talking on Buffy, when the genre does the talking, the that's weak writing, right there.
I don't think the majority of fans believe that about Buffy, and even so, it doesn't make minority opinions any less valid.
So, you think, on a character-to-character basis, Buffy can inspire more analysis than Buffy? I think not, and while we're talking art, I think it's pretty clear. Buffy fans I'd expect to lose with there, but not from fans of the series.
Why is Spike's "greatness" simply an observation, and Buffy's must be inorganic, the fault of bad writing? When you say that it's an "observation" or "recognition", you imply that it's an undeniable fact. Can you give any support to Spike's "greatness" over Buffy's? Because IMO, they are both great characters who face unique challenges and trials.
Buffy starts the series as the Slayer, and the best parts of here story are her love life, gettin' through high school and college, dealing with depression, being a leader, etc. It's well done, dealing with the mundane journey that we most face, and the writing handles brilliantly.
But notice--it's a predictable trajectory she follows, even if sparkles, and that's where Spike's character out shines her.
It's predetermined that BUffy's gonna growup and keep saving the world, but what about Spike? Well, he's a tough vampire gang leader for a villainy arc, but wait--he morphs rising beyond that. What's gonna happen to him?
Crime and Punishment is a about a soul in the balance, and that it could go either way is compelling, and Spike has just a little of that in him. I kept waiting for him to do certain stuff, and he doesn't and that surprised me. Repeatedly.
Personally, Spike fights emasculation, ridicule, crushes, and the like, and comes out stronger, but he does in a was that surprises. There are multiple series series, and often well done ones, dealing with girls growing up in emotionally real ways, to say nothing of heroes saving the day, but but morphing rascals?
That's far more rare, but oh so fun. The most similar character to Spike is Vegeeta In DragonballZ, but that's an anime. More than half the pleasure of Spike's character was seeing
where he'd end up, but Buffy's character was mostly interesting in the how, and that's a substantial difference, if I do say so.
If we are criticizing characterization/plot development on the basis of gender, I have to ask, why is it easier to believe that male characters are strong and female characters are not?
Look up body language. The research pretty clearly states that in mating rituals, the female is essentially hardwired to act more submissive, and the male more aggressive. If it feels easier to believe that male characters to be strong, then maybe genetic programming has something to do with it, and if so, then, no social orthodoxy can fight it, though maybe a geneticist might, or if you're in the Slayerverse, a spell.
That's what it feels like you are implying when you talk about Spike and Angel's "greatness", and discount Buffy's achievements to simply the emasculation/disenfranchisement of others.
Remember Wheddon's original inspiration for Buffy? He felt sorry for scream queens, and empowered one because he felt sorry, and rooted for the underdog. I respect that, and agree, but in subtle ways, the shoe is on the other foot, and I, too, root for the underdog. I didn't grow up watching scream queens, but I did watching loads of masculinity-impaired males, and as a result, I would kinda like to see the scales balanced.
I've thought tons about gender issues in fiction, and while I'm not happy with all the things Wheddon's done, I certainly can see and appreciate his logic, not the least because he's truly smart, and his writing hows it.
That he annoys me so, I guess, equals much of my respect for him.
Isn't the reverse also true? Every damsel in distress Angel or Spike save, all the female characters who are killed off or dismissed to further their respective journeys (and oh, there are many...), etc. those women are also used unfairly to bolster the narratives of male characters.
In the case of Angel, his character peaked early. Angel inspires more analysis in me than Buffy because in him I see the ideological weaknesses in Wheddon positively strangling his story instincts, and now I've thought more, I'd have to say BUffy really is the better character, and not Angel.
Angel thrived in the less-is-more role on Buffy, but in his own series, we saw too much of him for our own good, and that's not getting into the show's gradual loss of moral moorings. Angel was vain, and it did nothing for his coolness, which I think was the point, but it was too much ballast.
Angel, now that I think about it, was much less real than Spike or BUffy, even if I forlornly kept hoping that the show would improve. He was never more of knight in shining armor than on Buffy, and it was all downhill from there.
Thing about Angel, the more you know about his motives the less they make sense, and I think that Angel's journey on his series was more a stint on a treadmill, than real development.
Feminism isn't about making women look strong.
Well, giving a women a phallic symbol is a start. (After all, what is it our favored Slayer is always holding?) Characters are very image-conscious, and few are as talented as Wheddon, you have copious numbers of female characters in various states of Joan-of-Arc drag. Liv Tyler didn't think Arwen needed a sword to be strong, but Peter Jackson chose to err on the side of conventional wisdom, and the question, typically is, "Is she tough enough?" "Ach, give her an action sequence, and then we'll be good," it seems, is the prevailing psychology, and it ain't pretty.
Frankly a strong woman is a strong state of mind, and I've certainly agonized with that in my own musical I've been working on. Doing that is hard, and in the nature of the story I'm telling, it's even harder, but I think I've balanced it out to at least some degree, but I was, and remains, difficult.
Feminism and strong female characters in pop culture is about showing another facet of reality, one in which women are strong.
Feminism, in literary form, is to me largely an architectural style, denoted by stinging one-liners and women more aggressive than the men, or at least a healthy dose of that in the story.
Feminism's stated goal, to not show, weak, pathetic girls is something I agree with, but without imagination, archetypes are simply cliches, and on the series, the stories flit between the two ad infinitum, but of course, by doing so, by flitting betwixt intellectualism and pop culture, that's much the charm of Buffy.
Buffy's characterization and how she is framed in the show, to me, is natural. She is not made to look strong, she is strong. I see nothing artificial in Buffy's characterization when it comes to feminism.
For sci-fi and fantasy, it
is, but can't you
feel the ideological restraints? Buffy may be natural within a scene, but writers pick the scenes that enter the story, and moral values are reflected in them. As I don't trust feminism, and you do, naturally, I'm going to be more sensitive to this, but an outsider always will.
To me, the show is like a nice bowl of cherries, save for the pits, but nothing is perfect.
Points that I wish were more feminist? Oh boy. How long do you have? 😛 For one, I'm disappointed in how Joss & Co. treated matters of sexual assault and sexual consent issues (not only the attempted rape in Seeing Red, but the many sexual violations and dubious consent issues throughout the series that are ignored or glossed over). I have issues with how the show frames what "empowerment" really is, and I'm disappointed in the lack of representation of women from all different walks of life. The problems that are anti-feminist are generally arguable and open to interpretation, but I think it's safe to say that BtVS's feminism is still very limited in what it tries to show.
Human nature does not change my friend, and I'm sure gender differences are nigh that same level of immutability, if not synonymous. I'd say you've just embodied the central belief that I distrust in feminism, and that's a perfectionist attitude of gender relations, as to management. We can always manage the rough edges better, but at the same time, those same rough edges are not just an irritant, but also an attractant.
Feminism has a drive to make thing into its own image, and having been largely raised by conservative dames, I think I can smell a crusading undertone when I see one.
(Frankly, the whole rape thing shocked me, too, but they used it as a brilliant springboard for Spike, and if Buffy choke to stake him for it, I'd
more than understand, but that's the show at its best, at moments like that, and it's why I don't just throw the baby out with the bath water.)
Honestly, I have more issues with feminism in AtS, which, while it doesn't set out to be the subversive feminist show BtVS tried to be, is still very problematic in its portrayal of women. Most of their female characters are awesome and are some of the most feminist characters of the 'verse, actually, so most of my issues are with story arcs and how those female characters are used.
Fred's revenge on that man that sent her to Pylea forced me to lose all respect for her, but then Gunn by killing him made me wonder what exactly the morality on the show was, but by the time Wesley ah, gunned that dude for efectively using her as a human sacrifice, I think the point was it was pointless.
Somehow, I think feminism, or its impact was more prominent in this series, but more in the idea of torment, guilt, and emasculation, yet then again, I think it merely a contributing factor.
Just because someone likes a character does not mean they ignore their flaws or inconsistencies. Very often, we do acknowledge those flaws and we may even like characters exactly because we take such a look at everything in the story.
I think I understand. Buffy wouldn't have panicked in that episode where she lost her powers, and frankly, when Xander confronted her over her affair with Spike, she was being weak.
And like I said, I do have problems with Joss's feminism. I have no illusions about the brand of feminism Joss subscribes to. I just disagree with you on what feminism means and how its framed in the show.
If it's not feminism, then what would you call it?
