Why do some people say Joss Whedon is homophobic?

[Robb Stark]

I've heard this said about Joss several times in a few different articles and essays about him, and it's something I've never quite understood. Usually, if an argument is framed rationally I can see the point even if I don't agree with it, but I'm drawing a blank here. Joss has a lot of flaws about him, but this doesn't strike me as one of them.

Is it just because he killed Tara off? That didn't seem to have anything to do with her being gay. It was done as a plot device to drive Willow's arc. Plus, if anything he makes his lead gay character the single most powerful character in the Buffy/Angel universe (well, except for Illyria).

Does anyone have any insight into this?

 

[EffyStonem]

I believe that people think that Joss is homophobic due to a lot of unfortunate implications that come across in the show. For example:

Larry. The first gay character that we are given on the show, who is shown to be out in Season 3 and completely comfortable with himself. Then he is brutally killed in Graduation Day. Now, yes, a lot of other characters were killed in that fight too and Larry's death would have been shown because the audience knows the character, but there is the first unfortunate implication. Our first gay character and he's killed.

Willow declaring herself as gay when she is actually bisexual. This could be seen as a positive thing, showing that Willow has accepted her sexuality but it smacks of the writer's trying to say "Look! We have a one hundred percent gay character! Look how ok we are with it!" instead of acknowledging that Willow is bisexual. It's almost as if the writer's were pushing too hard to show how alright they are with Willow being gay.

Tara's death. Tara is a strong, well-rounded character, who is gay. Fans loved her. She is one of the most adored characters in the Buffyverse. Then she was killed and her death was used as a plot device. We weren't allowed to grieve, we weren't allowed to see her funeral. No, the lesbian dies to serve the plot, full stop. Another unfortunate implication.

Willow's magic rampage. Unfortunately this plays right into the "Psycho Lesbian" trope. From Tvtropes:

For years, an unfortunate cocktail of censorship and bigotry rendered all lesbian characters on screen exclusively psychotic and villainous. Hays Code-era requirements that villainous and controversial characters be suitably punished meant that such characters would almost inevitably be toast before the credits rolled - and this convention has persisted long after the demise of the Code itself.

What makes Willow's magical rampage even more uncomfortable is the fact that she is saved by Xander telling her he loves her, which completes the trope/cliche and sends the message that all a psycho lesbian needs to be brought back to earth is the love of a man.

I hope this helped some. For the record I don't think Joss is homophobic but I do think that he needs to put more thought and effort into his writing.

 

[fredthe3rd]

If he was homophobic there surely wouldn't be any gay characters. Or if there were they'd be there as camp or butch stereotypes and the butt of jokes.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I think the reasons are exactly as EffyStonem said.

Although I dont believe it, I don't think he'd include gay characters if he thought he was.

People just seem to get defensive when it's a minority character.

Between Gwendolyn Post, Wesley, Season 8 Spoiler:

Spoiler

Giles

, blowing up the council - he's killed more English people than gay characters, so shouldn't people be up in arms about that?

You could also say he has a thing against mothers (Joyce, Amy's Mom, Spike's mom, -can't remember did Angel kill his mom?).

He kills people, all kinds, it's just his thing.

 

[Robb Stark]

Willow declaring herself as gay when she is actually bisexual. This could be seen as a positive thing, showing that Willow has accepted her sexuality but it smacks of the writer's trying to say "Look! We have a one hundred percent gay character! Look how ok we are with it!" instead of acknowledging that Willow is bisexual. It's almost as if the writer's were pushing too hard to show how alright they are with Willow being gay.

What makes Willow's magical rampage even more uncomfortable is the fact that she is saved by Xander telling her he loves her, which completes the trope/cliche and sends the message that all a psycho lesbian needs to be brought back to earth is the love of a man.

I hope this helped some. For the record I don't think Joss is homophobic but I do think that he needs to put more thought and effort into his writing.

Such an awesome post. You brought up a lot of points, especially the one about Willow being bisexual, that I hadn't ever really thought of before but now that it's outlined make perfect sense. That's absolutely the sense that I got from Willow suddenly being attracted to women when there was zero indication of it before. It felt very in your face, especially after two and a half seasons of a very strong and passionate relationship she had with Oz.

I hadn't considered the way S6 ended though. I'm not entirely sure if I agree with it. If it is the case I certainly don't think that was the intended message, and I know I never ever thought of it. However, it may very well be, as with some of the ways Spike was written, a case of Joss getting wrapped up in his characters and not paying attention to the message it sends.

 

[Mischlings]

However, it may very well be, as with some of the ways Spike was written, a case of Joss getting wrapped up in his characters and not paying attention to the message it sends.

Thing that bugs me about your statement: why does the message matter so much? If a "better" message was sent but the characters were acting out of character, wouldn't that be problematic as well?

To me, if it's in character and makes for a good story, don't care about the "message" and just go ahead with it.

 

[Robb Stark]

Thing that bugs me about your statement: why does the message matter so much? If a "better" message was sent but the characters were acting out of character, wouldn't that be problematic as well?

To me, if it's in character and makes for a good story, don't care about the "message" and just go ahead with it.

Short answer? Because it pisses people off.

Long answer? It's an interesting question. I mean, on the one hand no, I don't want the characters to act out of character, and as I said, I liked that scene a lot and never noticed any underlying "message" to it at all. To me, it made sense and was a great scene. And to be honest, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that scene is an indictment of homosexuality (quite a stretch, actually).

But people do get offended about stuff, especially when they connect to it personally. No T.V. show or movie is ever going to make everyone universally happy, but I do think they have a duty to ensure that what they're producing isn't offensive, or that it doesn't send a negative message that isn't related to the story. You personally may not care, but a lot of people do.

T.V. wants us to emotionally invest in the product they're presenting, to connect with it. They want us to care about the characters and how they end up. Buffy is better than most at that. Well, that's a two way street. When you make the audience care about Buffy, and then have her cuddling in the arms of the man who tried to rape her (soul or not, there were too many similarities between how Spike acted pre and post soul for it to be clearly defined that they were different), that angers people, because it sends the message that if the guy tries really hard to make up for it, everything will just be okay. I think the writers have proven that they're talented enough to avoid those crappy messages and still write compelling and consistent characters.

 

[tkts]

Most likely answer? Because if you try hard enough, you can find a way to be offended by ANYTHING.

And some people love to be offended.

 

[Kean]

I don't think Joss is homophobic but I do think certain elements of the show have revealed his privilege, and perhaps his ignorance, too. The employing of the Fridging trope with Tara and Willow, is particularly problematic.

It isn't often I say this but I want to stick up for Willow here, too. She's isn't bisexual. She self identifies as gay and that is exactly who she is. The fact that one time in her life she was attracted to, even loved men, does not change that fact. While I am very much of the opinion that we are all born who we are, and who we shall be, I also feel that sexuality is something that can take time to mature and develop fully or reveal itself to an individual. Some of my dearest friends have stories the exact same as Willows: having relationships with one sex and then later coming out and publicly self identifying with another orientation.

I have a lot of issues with the writers when it comes to Willow's storyline, but this isn't one of them. This was an incredibly honest arc, at least to my eyes.

 

[SlayerFest]

He kills people, all kinds, it's just his thing.

I agree...and I'm so tired of hearing the "Willow is bisexual" thing. There wasn't any implication of her being a lesbian because maybe:

A. She had those feelings but didn't act on them
B. It is a TELEVISION SHOW. We don't see every single moment of these characters' lives. We knew Willow for three years before she came out. We didn't see her grow up or anything, I don't get why it's so hard for people to accept that she's just gay. We can accept that Dawn can grow to be 15ft tall or whatever the hell but nooooo Willow is NOT gay!

Joss didn't intend for her to be a gay character, but he liked the chemistry that she had with Tara and he decided that she would fall in love with her and learn her true identity. The exact same thing happened to a mutual friend of my mom's, basically. She fell in love with a guy a looong time ago, then met the right woman I guess, and now she identifies as a lesbian and has for years. I remember she used to find it so frustrating when her relatives would say, "But you dated a guy! You're bi! That's how it works!!" and they would not shut up until she and her girlfriend got engaged and adopted a child. She hasn't been with a man in like 15 years and SHE calls herself gay so she is.

Willow's a character, she was created by someone else, so I guess that's why everyone insists that she's bi because yes...Joss made her gay to "prove" just how okay he is with gay people. I'm sorry but that's insanely insulting. He killed gay characters because he kills.every.body. I mean he killed the freaking main character on the first season of the show and people are questioning his view of gay people because he killed some of them? He has killed so many different types of people. Sorry I'm venting I just...don't get this.

---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------

I have a lot of issues with the writers when it comes to Willow's storyline, but this isn't one of them. This was an incredibly honest arc, at least to my eyes.

Basically what I said/how I feel about this but...abridged haha. I never questioned Willow's sexuality so it really surprised me to see that so many people do.

 

[Kean]

Thing that bugs me about your statement: why does the message matter so much? If a "better" message was sent but the characters were acting out of character, wouldn't that be problematic as well?

To me, if it's in character and makes for a good story, don't care about the "message" and just go ahead with it.

I don't want to speak for [MENTION=11975]Always Bangel[/MENTION], but for me, the problem isn't that the characters are doing "bad" or reprehensible things, for characters and stories to be fully actualised they must express all shades of fiction. The real problem is irresponsible messages. It's the difference between Spike attempting to rape Buffy and the show not acknowledging that this is a horrific act and playing into every rape culture trope known to man (which is exactly how that plot played out) and Spike attempting to rape Buffy and the show making it clear that this is abhorrent behaviour and inhumane act. In both instances the act still happens, but when the issue of rape is given the due consideration it deserves, well its' the difference between bad TV and great TV.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

I have to say that this thread is making me question whether Joss and co really handle any major issue properly--or at least, to one's satisfaction--whether it has to do with sexuality or anything else.

"You died?" "Just a little," and "You died? You didn't tell me you died!?!" (the latter being a conversation between a mother and her daughter), are played for laughs. Friends are killed and people move on rather quickly, from the very beginning of the series. Vampires attempt to murder and rape and then are forgiven by their would-be victims. If you think about it, it's a complete mess.

I mean I love this series so much but when I think about it in this sort of light there's no doubt that I feel a bit uncomfortable. Sure there are plenty of shows that I enjoy which are deeply troubling, (Shameless, anyone?!) But this show is such a big part of my life, and I'm guessing others can relate. How does everyone else handle it?

And more to the point: is all of this utterly irresponsible of the creators of the show? Or do they have a right to tell a story without worrying about the message it sends? Surely the greatest writers of all time weren't worried about how their audience would feel about their work but...bottom line: how much responsibility does/should an artist have to consider how he/she might affect others? And if the "right" message comes at the cost of a "great" story, is that the preferred path to take?

 

[Mischlings]

Short answer? Because it pisses people off.

Long answer? It's an interesting question. I mean, on the one hand no, I don't want the characters to act out of character, and as I said, I liked that scene a lot and never noticed any underlying "message" to it at all. To me, it made sense and was a great scene. And to be honest, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that scene is an indictment of homosexuality (quite a stretch, actually).

But people do get offended about stuff, especially when they connect to it personally. No T.V. show or movie is ever going to make everyone universally happy, but I do think they have a duty to ensure that what they're producing isn't offensive, or that it doesn't send a negative message that isn't related to the story. You personally may not care, but a lot of people do.

T.V. wants us to emotionally invest in the product they're presenting, to connect with it. They want us to care about the characters and how they end up. Buffy is better than most at that. Well, that's a two way street. When you make the audience care about Buffy, and then have her cuddling in the arms of the man who tried to rape her (soul or not, there were too many similarities between how Spike acted pre and post soul for it to be clearly defined that they were different), that angers people, because it sends the message that if the guy tries really hard to make up for it, everything will just be okay. I think the writers have proven that they're talented enough to avoid those crappy messages and still write compelling and consistent characters.

I don't want to speak for [MENTION=11975]Always Bangel[/MENTION], but for me, the problem isn't that the characters are doing "bad" or reprehensible things, for characters and stories to be fully actualised they must express all shades of fiction. The real problem is irresponsible messages. It's the difference between Spike attempting to rape Buffy and the show not acknowledging that this is a horrific act and playing into every rape culture trope known to man (which is exactly how that plot played out) and Spike attempting to rape Buffy and the show making it clear that this is abhorrent behaviour and inhumane act. In both instances the act still happens, but when the issue of rape is given the due consideration it deserves, well its' the difference between bad TV and great TV.

First thing, not even going near the Spike and Buffy thing. It seems impossible to have a reasonable discussion about it, so no.

As for the rest of it (and let's leave it here, please, and not drag things further off-topic than they already are), though I can see what people are saying, I don't believe that it matters. At all. Perhaps I'm a vacuous shell, devoid of humanity, but to me, it really is story and characters above everything else. What the show gives us are characters and their stories -- sure, we can take things beyond that, but everything that's beyond that is a matter of interpretation. I interpret things differently than other people do (obviously), and all of these other people have different interpretations of, well, everything. And yes, there are differences in how accepted these interpretations are, but that doesn't mean that they're set in stone -- I mean, god forbid someone have an opinion and it doesn't match with other people's.

How much responsibility does/should an artist have to consider how he/she might affect others? And if the "right" message comes at the cost of a "great" story, is that the preferred path to take?

Have to consider? I don't think they should have to -- they're free to, but I don't think that it's required of them. As for the second question, no, do not sacrifice story for sending the "right" message -- tell the best story you possibly can, leave the "message" behind.

 

[Robb Stark]

I have to say that this thread is making me question whether Joss and co really handle any major issue properly--or at least, to one's satisfaction--whether it has to do with sexuality or anything else.

"You died?" "Just a little," and "You died? You didn't tell me you died!?!" (the latter being a conversation between a mother and her daughter), are played for laughs. Friends are killed and people move on rather quickly, from the very beginning of the series. Vampires attempt to murder and rape and then are forgiven by their would-be victims. If you think about it, it's a complete mess.

I mean I love this series so much but when I think about it in this sort of light there's no doubt that I feel a bit uncomfortable. Sure there are plenty of shows that I enjoy which are deeply troubling, (Shameless, anyone?!) But this show is such a big part of my life, and I'm guessing others can relate. How does everyone else handle it?

And more to the point: is all of this utterly irresponsible of the creators of the show? Or do they have a right to tell a story without worrying about the message it sends? Surely the greatest writers of all time weren't worried about how their audience would feel about their work but...bottom line: how much responsibility does/should an artist have to consider how he/she might affect others? And if the "right" message comes at the cost of a "great" story, is that the preferred path to take?

Most of the messages from the show I don't have a problem with. The reason the same ones keep coming up all the time on here is because there's no discussion if all we do is agree with one another all the time and with a series that ended a decade ago, the amount of new content to discuss is limited. I only have some real issues with a select few of the storylines in BTVS/Angel. The vast majority I enjoy and can rationalize with.

The few that DO bother me are ones that are written insensitively (and, for the record, I don't think Willow's sexuality is one of them. I've said, a few times now, that I don't think Joss is homophobic at all), with no care as to how they're perceived. I suggest reading [MENTION=7585]Kean[/MENTION] 's post above, because it was a great one. Why should sending a good message come at the expense of the story? That doesn't make any sense to me. If you can't write a good story and get across that sexual assault is a serious issue (that's just an example, let's now dwell on it here), then you're not a very good writer. If they'd done the exact same storyline with more care and thought, it could have been just fine. I think that's what Kean was trying to say.

[MENTION=11753]Fredikins[/MENTION], it should be noted that in the context of the sexuality of the characters, T.V. and real life aren't the same thing. When a character we've followed for three seasons has shown zero interest in women whatsoever and has been in a loving relationship with another beloved character for most of that time, and a triangle with one of the other male leads, it's not surprising that a lot of fans were surprised that half a season later Willow gets a girlfriend. That's not homophobic. It's just a bit perplexing that one of the main characters has such a major arc shift with no foreshadowing whatsoever. I don't think that's insulting to say.

---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ----------

First thing, not even going near the Spike and Buffy thing. It seems impossible to have a reasonable discussion about it, so no.

I can't speak for anyone else, but have I said a single thing in that area that hasn't been balanced? I've always listened to what people have had to say and responded cordially.

As for the rest of it (and let's leave it here, please, and not drag things further off-topic than they already are), though I can see what people are saying, I don't believe that it matters. At all. Perhaps I'm a vacuous shell, devoid of humanity, but to me, it really is story and characters above everything else. What the show gives us are characters and their stories -- sure, we can take things beyond that, but everything that's beyond that is a matter of interpretation. I interpret things differently than other people do (obviously), and all of these other people have different interpretations of, well, everything. And yes, there are differences in how accepted these interpretations are, but that doesn't mean that they're set in stone -- I mean, god forbid someone have an opinion and it doesn't match with other people's.

Have to consider? I don't think they should have to -- they're free to, but I don't think that it's required of them. As for the second question, no, do not sacrifice story for sending the "right" message -- tell the best story you possibly can, leave the "message" behind.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's fair to ask the audience to care about the characters and the story you're telling and then throw an insulting message into their face. I know this has branched out a bit, but I'm fine talking about it. I'm not fired up or pissed off. We're discussing. Kind of the purpose of a discussion board...

And I get so tired of the "I never signed up to raise your kids..." escapist crap whenever shows screw up. The fact is, millions of people watch shows like BTVS. A large portion of their audience was kids. So call me crazy, but I do believe that when a show has that large of an audience, an audience they're seeking out, then yes, they have a duty to act responsibly. Of course we don't have to agree on everything or all have the same views, no one said otherwise. But there's a difference between disagreeing on a subject and tacitly implying that clearly evil things are okay if everyone makes up at the end. There's a difference there.

And no one, not one person, has given me a single reason why sending a good/positive message gets in the way of telling a good story. I mean hell, look at Game of Thrones. The main characters on that show go through more than any series ever and the message is still always a positive one.

 

[SlayerFest]

[MENTION=11753]Fredikins[/MENTION], it should be noted that in the context of the sexuality of the characters, T.V. and real life aren't the same thing. When a character we've followed for three seasons has shown zero interest in women whatsoever and has been in a loving relationship with another beloved character for most of that time, and a triangle with one of the other male leads, it's not surprising that a lot of fans were surprised that half a season later Willow gets a girlfriend. That's not homophobic. It's just a bit perplexing that one of the main characters has such a major arc shift with no foreshadowing whatsoever. I don't think that's insulting to say.

I meant that it's insulting to say that Joss only made Willow gay to appeal to a gay audience. I mean if I decided to make a character gay, or to have a character discover their true sexuality, I would be so ticked off if some people accused me of doing it solely to appeal to a particular audience.

Also, Joss didn't intend for her to be gay...so there wouldn't be any foreshadowing. I can look past that because it's a television show. Although the, ''I think I'm kind of gay" comment could be considered slight foreshadowing, seeing as Angel tries to dispute Buffy's whole "Vampires are nothing like the people they were before" comment.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

I don't think the sexuality of Willow is all that unusual. One person that used to visit our company was Sally Ride, payload operator on the Space Shuttle. She was married for a few years to another (male) astronaut and finally split and joined with her female partner that she stayed with until her death last year. If you saw the movie "The Right Stuff", many astronauts were obnoxious blowhards, just as they were depicted. Sally was the opposite - patient, quiet, the kind of person you wouldn't notice unless you tripped over her. She could have been the invisible girl in "Out of Sight, Out of Mind".

BTW, I tried operating the Shuttle Arm simulator once. Some equipment is nice to use. The Shuttle Arm is the opposite - it is like moving a bowling ball in three dimensions using something as flexible as a fishing rod and not having any firm ground to stand on and not being able to make any fast movements. No wonder they needed someone as patient as her.

I also know another very good-looking woman who left her husband of eight years and paired up with another woman. It seems Joss got the sexual evolution of Willow right, as confusing as it may be.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Why should sending a good message come at the expense of the story? That doesn't make any sense to me. If you can't write a good story and get across that sexual assault is a serious issue (that's just an example, let's now dwell on it here), then you're not a very good writer. If they'd done the exact same storyline with more care and thought, it could have been just fine.

I agree with you; I mean I do think that Seeing Red in its entirety was handled in the most absurd way possible. Tara's murder and Buffy's assault were brushed aside for the sake of time; the writers wanted to use both events as plot devices and then be somewhere else in season 7 so that Willow would be ready to be the Good Fairy with White Hair all of a sudden, and Buffy and Spike would be fighting side by side again. And as you've said, that's all well and good if it were handled better. I really do agree.

To add to that: I can think of an example of Joss and co sending out a message that really didn't sit well with me, which was ultimately good for the story. I wonder if it's because it was handled well that I was able to accept it, and continue enjoying the show,(after a pause of course?) In another thread, 🙄, I did refer to this--I had a very difficult time with Buffy forgiving Angel and resuming a relationship with him. Somehow the storytelling in season 3 was so brilliant--a mixture of comedy, heartache, love, family above all--that I became ok with it.
The other BIG thing that I think the writers did back then which really helped people like me,(maybe everyone): they made it so that Angel forgot everything he'd done as Angelus. It's a lot easier to justify forgiveness of a person who literally doesn't remember anything but loving you with all of his soul. I mean of course he comes to know what he did, but that is so much further removed from being aware of it in a physical, chemical, emotional way. Adding that bit of information--Angel's initial unawareness of his deeds--might have been the device that made for more responsible storytelling. Just off the top of my head. What do you guys think??

All of that being said, I'm still not entirely convinced that writers should be somehow obligated to send a positive message, all of the time. And that sometimes, what others perceive as a negative message in literature can actually end up helping others. "The Bell Jar" was actually one of the most uplifting experiences I had via literature when I was a teenager.

And I get so tired of the "I never signed up to raise your kids..." escapist crap whenever shows screw up. The fact is, millions of people watch shows like BTVS. A large portion of their audience was kids. So call me crazy, but I do believe that when a show has that large of an audience, an audience they're seeking out, then yes, they have a duty to act responsibly.

Fair enough. I'm wondering if you think that artists whose work is ultimately part of a visual medium--tv and movies in particular--have a greater responsibility, here? Certainly it takes greater effort for someone who might be of the "wrong audience" to pick up a book and read the disturbing messages but when it is on television it's harder to avoid. But maybe that's more of a network/censorship issue? For the record, I'm not entirely sure where I stand when it comes to this. I'm just asking the questions...

 

[Robb Stark]

To add to that: I can think of an example of Joss and co sending out a message that really didn't sit well with me, which was ultimately good for the story. I wonder if it's because it was handled well that I was able to accept it, and continue enjoying the show,(after a pause of course?) In another thread, 🙄, I did refer to this--I had a very difficult time with Buffy forgiving Angel and resuming a relationship with him. Somehow the storytelling in season 3 was so brilliant--a mixture of comedy, heartache, love, family above all--that I became ok with it.
The other BIG thing that I think the writers did back then which really helped people like me,(maybe everyone): they made it so that Angel forgot everything he'd done as Angelus. It's a lot easier to justify forgiveness of a person who literally doesn't remember anything but loving you with all of his soul. I mean of course he comes to know what he did, but that is so much further removed from being aware of it in a physical, chemical, emotional way. Adding that bit of information--Angel's initial unawareness of his deeds--might have been the device that made for more responsible storytelling. Just off the top of my head. What do you guys think??

Angel's regaining of his soul and how he was forgiven never bothered me. To be honest, as a fan Spike's never bothered me either. I can draw the line of having a soul and not having one. What bothered me was the message. With Angel, it was made explicitly clear that "Angelus" and "Angel" were completely independent of one another. I mean, they set the parameters that Angelus is locked inside Angel when Angel has his soul. They were so separate that they had their own unique memories (they showed that in S4). I thought they did a great job of illustrating that they were under no circumstances the same guy, and that Angel was not responsible for what Angelus did. That's a big part of what makes "Becoming" so powerful and emotional. It isn't Angelus she kills. It's Angel. And you're right, the fact that he doesn't even remember what happened adds to it.

Fair enough. I'm wondering if you think that artists whose work is ultimately part of a visual medium--tv and movies in particular--have a greater responsibility, here? Certainly it takes greater effort for someone who might be of the "wrong audience" to pick up a book and read the disturbing messages but when it is on television it's harder to avoid. But maybe that's more of a network/censorship issue? For the record, I'm not entirely sure where I stand when it comes to this. I'm just asking the questions...

I don't think the message always has to be positive or taken into consideration. But the medium and the projected audience should come into play. I mean, take The Wire, on HBO for example. The message there isn't positive in anyway, and it's still an incredible show, one of the best I've ever seen. The difference is that it's never insulting and it's clearly targeted towards adults. That's made very clear. It's produced on a network, HBO, well known for their style of programming.

With BTVS, it's a prime-time network show produced on networks known for designing programming targeting kids and teenagers. The show was advertised to attract that demographic. When that's the case, I think they have a duty to ensure responsible programming.

Now, to be clear, Buffy gets it right the vast majority of the time. I really do think that.

 

[Kean]

And more to the point: is all of this utterly irresponsible of the creators of the show? Or do they have a right to tell a story without worrying about the message it sends? Surely the greatest writers of all time weren't worried about how their audience would feel about their work but...bottom line: how much responsibility does/should an artist have to consider how he/she might affect others? And if the "right" message comes at the cost of a "great" story, is that the preferred path to take?

With this show in particular I think there is quite a hefty responsibility, especially when Joss has stated that he created Buffy to be an icon.

"I designed Buffy to be an icon, to be an emotional experience, to be loved in a way that other shows can't be loved. Because it's about adolescence, which is the most important thing people go through in their development, becoming an adult. And it mythologizes it in such a way, such a romantic way-it basically says, "˜Everybody who made it through adolescence is a hero.' And I think that's very personal, that people get something from that that's very real. And I don't think I could be more pompous. But I mean every word of it. I wanted her to be a cultural phenomenon. I wanted there to be dolls, Barbie with kung-fu grip. I wanted people to embrace it in a way that exists beyond, "˜Oh, that was a wonderful show about lawyers, let's have dinner.' I wanted people to internalize it, and make up fantasies where they were in the story, to take it home with them, for it to exist beyond the TV show. And we've done exactly that."

Source

He made this show to mean more to people than just entertainment. He made the conscious decision to make the message imperative. When the message is lacking, it matters.

I mean, god forbid someone have an opinion and it doesn't match with other people's.

I really don't think that is what anyone is saying here, at all. But at the end of the day certain issues deserve a more thought out approach. Of course works of art should focus on the uncomfortable issues, if for no other reason than to understand how we (people) come to a place where we commit these acts, but certain issues: slavery, rape, pedophilia, hate crimes etc, are so inexcusably wrong that that inherent wrongness most be acknowledged. Quite frankly, if a show, especially in recent times, takes on an issue as important and as chronically misrepresented as rape, and somehow at the end of that story it hasn't managed to mention that rape is an abhorrent act, regardless how the characters to the point where the act takes place, something is very wrong with the writing.

To add to that: I can think of an example of Joss and co sending out a message that really didn't sit well with me, which was ultimately good for the story. I wonder if it's because it was handled well that I was able to accept it, and continue enjoying the show,(after a pause of course?) In another thread, 🙄, I did refer to this--I had a very difficult time with Buffy forgiving Angel and resuming a relationship with him. Somehow the storytelling in season 3 was so brilliant--a mixture of comedy, heartache, love, family above all--that I became ok with it.
The other BIG thing that I think the writers did back then which really helped people like me,(maybe everyone): they made it so that Angel forgot everything he'd done as Angelus. It's a lot easier to justify forgiveness of a person who literally doesn't remember anything but loving you with all of his soul. I mean of course he comes to know what he did, but that is so much further removed from being aware of it in a physical, chemical, emotional way. Adding that bit of information--Angel's initial unawareness of his deeds--might have been the device that made for more responsible storytelling. Just off the top of my head. What do you guys think??

In my experience, not prioritizing the message is directly related to shows being bad. If you don't know what you want to say, then what you do say tends to lack any meaning. I think the key ingredient to any artistic works, is sincerity. Even if the show doesn't have an answer for its internal conflicts, well offer that up. I can't help but think of a show like Glee, that wants desperately to have the creditably of a sincere show, but their message is consistently and dangerously not.

All of that being said, I'm still not entirely convinced that writers should be somehow obligated to send a positive message, all of the time. And that sometimes, what others perceive as a negative message in literature can actually end up helping others. "The Bell Jar" was actually one of the most uplifting experiences I had via literature when I was a teenager.

Positive message? No, absolutely not. But a responsible message? Absolutely. When I was growing up I listened to Eminem's Marshall Mather's LP religiously. My parents found it incredibly problematic because of the content, but I found it vital. To me, his message was honest. He wasn't trying to preach to anyone. He just told his story honestly. I could say the same for The Wire, the show didn't try to do anything but present the reality of a specific situation. It didn't try to say who was right or wrong. It just was the truth. If (once again using the SR example) BTVS had been honest with the AR, and showed both sides, then it would have been a totally different experience and arguably, better TV. BSG tackled the issue and in contrast they managed to create an episode of TV that was appropriately and insistently clear that rape was wrong, but also it invested in the story enough to make it an exploration of humanity and morality. That, to me, is tackling the hard issues and retaining artistic integrity.

 

[BuffyElevated]

I believe that people think that Joss is homophobic due to a lot of unfortunate implications that come across in the show. For example:

Larry. The first gay character that we are given on the show, who is shown to be out in Season 3 and completely comfortable with himself. Then he is brutally killed in Graduation Day. Now, yes, a lot of other characters were killed in that fight too and Larry's death would have been shown because the audience knows the character, but there is the first unfortunate implication. Our first gay character and he's killed.

Willow declaring herself as gay when she is actually bisexual. This could be seen as a positive thing, showing that Willow has accepted her sexuality but it smacks of the writer's trying to say "Look! We have a one hundred percent gay character! Look how ok we are with it!" instead of acknowledging that Willow is bisexual. It's almost as if the writer's were pushing too hard to show how alright they are with Willow being gay.

Tara's death. Tara is a strong, well-rounded character, who is gay. Fans loved her. She is one of the most adored characters in the Buffyverse. Then she was killed and her death was used as a plot device. We weren't allowed to grieve, we weren't allowed to see her funeral. No, the lesbian dies to serve the plot, full stop. Another unfortunate implication.

Willow's magic rampage. Unfortunately this plays right into the "Psycho Lesbian" trope. From Tvtropes:

For years, an unfortunate cocktail of censorship and bigotry rendered all lesbian characters on screen exclusively psychotic and villainous. Hays Code-era requirements that villainous and controversial characters be suitably punished meant that such characters would almost inevitably be toast before the credits rolled - and this convention has persisted long after the demise of the Code itself.

What makes Willow's magical rampage even more uncomfortable is the fact that she is saved by Xander telling her he loves her, which completes the trope/cliche and sends the message that all a psycho lesbian needs to be brought back to earth is the love of a man.

I hope this helped some. For the record I don't think Joss is homophobic but I do think that he needs to put more thought and effort into his writing.

Wow, well said! I agree with you on a lot of this... Except that despite all this, I never saw Joss as homophobic at all. I don't see anything wrong with the way the gay characters were depicted in the show, except yes, I totally agree that Willow being labeled as 'gay' when she was actually bisexual was weird to me.