See what you think:
[b:d8034990e3]The Executive Producer's New Clothes[/b:d8034990e3]
[i:d8034990e3]Points to ponder as the new TV season approaches[/i:d8034990e3]
I promise, I really am going to stop writing these things. The summer is almost over, the new TV season is about to begin, and I have other things in my life I need to be doing.
Nevertheless, the issue hasn't let me off the hook yet. There's a new article going around, with the title "Misrepresentations. Misunderstandings. Slurs and allegations." It's an interesting title, because while the article does made some reasonable points, it also contains exactly what it says - misrepresentations, misunderstandings, slurs and allegations. In this case, directed toward me. On top of that, I've also been receiving some more emails responding both to my three essays and to the review of the pilot for [u:d8034990e3]Firefly[/u:d8034990e3] that I recently wrote and posted. It's all made me think a bit more about the relationship between Mutant Enemy and the fans in general.
[b:d8034990e3]Misrepresentations, misunderstandings, slurs and allegations[/b:d8034990e3]
Let's first take a look at the rebuttal article, written by a Ms. Ang. As I said, it does make some reasonable points, but in some cases it does so by refuting a point that I didn't actually make, and in other cases it does so by ignoring evidence, even when that evidence is in plain sight.
Ms. Ang breaks down her primary argument along three lines. Let's examine each in turn.
[i:d8034990e3]1)Killing Tara was an act of homophobia[/i:d8034990e3]
The first issue of the essay is whether or not we can accuse Mutant Enemy of being homophobic because they killed Tara. Ms. Ang claims that people are reading my essays and reaching the conclusion that I'm making that very accusation, even if it's not what I intend. Specifically, she writes:
[i:d8034990e3]"I find it amusing that someone that is insisting that Joss Whedon has committed an awful atrocity because of how his story is being interpreted by a small group of people is also confused and exasperated by how people are interpreting his own message."[/i:d8034990e3]
But let's look at what I actually said. Two perfect examples are quoted by Ms. Ang herself:
[i:d8034990e3]"...even if [b:d8034990e3]Mutant Enemy didn't intend to tell a homophobic story[/b:d8034990e3], they were still capable of placing a homophobic image on the screen."
"Like Warren shooting Tara, [b:d8034990e3]Mutant Enemy did their damage by accident[/b:d8034990e3] - but that doesn't change the fact that damage was done."[/i:d8034990e3]
Whenever the point I was making in each essay began to look like I was accusing Mutant Enemy of being homophobic, I was very careful to put in a disclaimer stating that I was making no such accusation. I'm not saying that anyone at Mutant Enemy was homophobic. I never have. The first words you see in the title of my first essay are "[b:d8034990e3]It's not homophobia[/b:d8034990e3]." How much more clear can I get?
It's one thing to send a message unintentionally, and I have no doubt that I'm capable of sending such messages myself. But it's something else entirely when a reader draws a different conclusion by ignoring part of what's written on the page. Imagine I was writing something about animals and I said, "Cats and dogs both have four feet, but that doesn't mean they're exactly the same." Would it make sense for someone to ignore the second half of my sentence and claim that I was saying cats and dogs were exactly the same? Of course not. And along those same lines, I don't appreciate being accused of saying the people at Mutant Enemy are homophobic when I very clearly and frequently said they weren't.
[i:d8034990e3]2)Killing Tara was socially irresponsible[/i:d8034990e3]
Ms. Ang believes that individual artists are not responsible for the actions of anonymous viewers. She points out that:
[i:d8034990e3]"Keanu Reeves is not responsible for Dylan Klebold shooting up Columbine High School, despite the fact that Dylan was a large fan of [u:d8034990e3]The Matrix[/u:d8034990e3]. Jodie Foster is not responsible for John Hinckley shooting President Reagan."[/i:d8034990e3]
She's right - but is it really a valid comparison? I've never seen [u:d8034990e3]The Matrix[/u:d8034990e3], but I highly doubt that Keanu Reeves used that movie as a means of telling kids to go shoot up their high schools. I know for a fact that Jodie Foster never told anybody to go kill a President for her. Joss Whedon, on the other hand, [i:d8034990e3]did[/i:d8034990e3] tell the audience - loudly and repeatedly - how important the Willow/Tara relationship was, how the whole point of [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] was to be inclusive to people who felt excluded, like gay teens, and so on.
Let's take another comparison Ms. Ang makes:
[i:d8034990e3]"Oliver Stone is not responsible for my neighbor hating the government."[/i:d8034990e3]
Again, she's right - but is the comparison valid? Her neighbor might have decided to hate the government without Oliver Stone's help, but as someone who hates the government, her neighbor might look to Oliver Stone as a sympathetic figure, perhaps even as a champion for the cause of hating the government. Imagine what would happen if Oliver Stone's next movie had a very pro-government message. Suppose Oliver Stone gave an interview where he said, "Hating the government is so pass. I'm over that. The CIA is your friend. The government can always be trusted. Oh, and we should have kept on fighting over in Vietnam." Wouldn't Ms. Ang's neighbor feel like Oliver Stone had become a traitor to the cause?
In the same way, Mutant Enemy set themselves up as sympathetic figures in the eyes of viewers who believe in the cause of gay rights. They may even have set themselves up as champions for the cause. And when they took back everything they had said before, they left those viewers feeling betrayed.
Ms. Ang then goes on to raise another point:
[i:d8034990e3]"Joss says he gives [u:d8034990e3]fans[/u:d8034990e3] what they need, not lesbian fans what they need. If the clubs at my college were correct - roughly 10% of the population is homosexual. Since the ratio of men to women is about 1:1, 5% of the population is lesbian (roughly, exact statistics are somewhat irrelevant to my point). Based on my experience with [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] fans, I think there is a higher percentage of lesbian [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] fans than lesbians in the general population, but even if 10% of all [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] fans are lesbians, that is still nowhere close to a majority. While most of the people upset about Tara's death would probably have been completely happy watching season 7 with a perfectly happy Willow and Tara, Joss did not feel this was true for the other 90% of the viewers. People that watch TV are often not satisfied with happy couples - they get bored with them very quickly. So, Joss decided to give that 90% of the viewers what he thought they needed, major Willow drama."[/i:d8034990e3]
This is a rather curious line of argument. First of all, it assumes that continuing the Willow/Tara relationship and "major Willow drama" were mutually exclusive. I've said several times now that the Dark Magic Willow story could have been achieved in a way that didn't require Tara's death (and I'll do so again in a few moments). But even if you don't believe me, I would think the brain-sucking story arc from Season 5 was all the proof you'd need that the Willow/Tara relationship and "major Willow drama" were capable of coexisting.
There's another message here as well. Ms. Ang is telling us that Joss was right to kill off Tara because an overwhelming majority of the audience was heterosexual. In other words, if you're in the minority you can't expect to have your viewpoint expressed. Majority rules, period.
Once upon a time, the idea that African-Americans shouldn't be kept as slaves was a minority viewpoint - but that didn't stop Harriet Beecher Stowe from writing [u:d8034990e3]Uncle Tom's Cabin[/u:d8034990e3]. Once upon a time, the idea that we should be careful not to destroy the environment with dangerous chemicals like DDT was a minority viewpoint - but that didn't stop Rachel Carson from writing [u:d8034990e3]Silent Spring[/u:d8034990e3]. The idea that war is a bad thing is always a minority viewpoint somewhere in the world - but that didn't stop Erich Maria Remarque from writing [u:d8034990e3]All Quiet on the Western Front[/u:d8034990e3] or Nevil Shute from writing [u:d8034990e3]On the Beach[/u:d8034990e3].
Social change never starts out as the majority viewpoint. Most often it starts when people have the courage to stand up and say, "I know this idea is popular, but I think it's wrong." With Willow and Tara, Mutant Enemy appeared to be saying that very thing about the way our society tries to render gay people, and especially gay couples, invisible - but then they took it all back.
I'm not trying to suggest that anyone at Mutant Enemy ever intended to be a social crusader along the lines of Harriet Beecher Stowe or Rachel Carson, but their words and actions certainly indicated that they at least cared a little about their gay viewers. But if they thought depicting a realistic same-sex relationship was important, then why did they destroy the one they had? And if they didn't think the inclusion of homosexuals was important, then why did they spend over two years telling everyone that it was?
Next, Ms. Ang had this to say about the feasibility of being "socially responsible" at all:
[i:d8034990e3]"If a writer wants to create a masterpiece, it is not essential that they be socially responsible; in fact, it would be very hard for a completely socially responsible show to be considered a masterpiece. Any show that had a perfect mix of every ethnicity, sexuality and possible handicap and did not write any stories that killed any of those characters or had any of them go evil or make morally ambiguous decisions would probably not be widely watched or read."[/i:d8034990e3]
As a writer myself, let me first point out that if you want to create a masterpiece, the surest way to fail is to think about whether or not you're creating a masterpiece. The whole concept of what is or isn't a "masterpiece" is for history to decide, not the writer. Lewis Carroll, author of [u:d8034990e3]Alice In Wonderland[/u:d8034990e3], considered [u:d8034990e3]Sylvie and Bruno[/u:d8034990e3] to be his masterpiece. Not that many people have agreed with him (which is too bad, really, because the book has got some very interesting things in it).
Secondly, what Ms. Ang is saying here is merely a rhetorical tactic, inflating the idea of "social responsibility" to its extreme and then attacking the overblown phantom instead of the actual point. Nobody expects Joss Whedon or anybody else to create something with "a perfect mix of every ethnicity, sexuality and possible handicap." Nobody expects a single writer to address and solve all of the world's social problems. But writers do make choices about which social problems they want to address, and then they stand by their choices. Rachel Carson didn't write [u:d8034990e3]Silent Spring[/u:d8034990e3] and then go out to spray her garden with DDT. Gene Roddenberry didn't portray Lieutenant Uhura as an equal in one episode and then have her happily waiting on "Massah Kirk" hand and foot in the next. Similarly, all the Willow and Tara fans expected was for Joss Whedon to stand by his own words - not treat a same-sex couple with unprecedented sensitivity and respect but then turn around and toss them aside as callously as everyone else ever has.
And that brings us to the third point...
[i:d8034990e3]3)Killing Tara was an act of betrayal by Mutant Enemy[/i:d8034990e3]
Ms. Ang's attempt to refute my claim that killing Tara was an act of betrayal rests primarily on one point:
[i:d8034990e3]"...the whole idea of betrayal can only be used when talking about people that sought out more than the episodes online (which is at most 25% of the viewers)."[/i:d8034990e3]
But this isn't true. Joss Whedon lied about Willow and Tara to [u:d8034990e3]E!Online[/u:d8034990e3], a website that has a much broader reach than just the [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] community, and [u:d8034990e3]Out[/u:d8034990e3] magazine, one of the most popular publications in the gay print media. When Marti Noxon boasted about the "naked sex scene" that was coming in "Seeing Red," she did so on National Public Radio's [u:d8034990e3]Talk of the Nation[/u:d8034990e3]. The lies spread much farther and much wider than just the places where only [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] fans would think to look.
And even if Ms. Ang is right, so what? Is she suggesting that it's okay to lie as long as you limit your lies to a few people? Most people who cheat on their spouses don't lie to a major media outlet about it - does that mean their spouses have no right to feel betrayed? If it does, then I imagine we can expect divorce court judges to start telling plaintiffs, "Sorry, I can't grant this divorce because you're the only person your spouse lied to." Somehow, I doubt that's going to happen.
Ms. Ang then attempts to refute my criticism of the lies Mutant Enemy told after Tara died by misquoting me. She writes:
[i:d8034990e3]"His assumption that Willow and Tara were 'too great and too intensely personal for him not to know' is as egocentric as any of Joss's statements. While Tara was special to some viewers, she was just another character to many - and more importantly her and Willow's relationship was not special enough to retain if it meant forgoing the Evil Willow story in Joss's opinion."[/i:d8034990e3]
A valid point - except for the small detail that it doesn't address what I actually said. Here's the original version of the sentence Ms. Ang misquotes:
[i:d8034990e3]"[b:d8034990e3]The fan reaction[/b:d8034990e3] to Willow and Tara was simply too great and too intensely personal for him not to have seen that it was unique."[/i:d8034990e3]
As you can see, I was talking about a completely different issue. I know perfectly well that a great many people thought Tara was just another character. I wasn't trying to say otherwise. What made Willow and Tara unique was the intensely personal manner in which some fans responded to the story. As far as we know, nobody sent Joss Whedon an engraved toolbox when Xander became a carpenter, but fans did send him an engraved "lesbian toaster" when Willow and Tara officially became a couple. And in the wake of Tara's death, Marti Noxon told [u:d8034990e3]The Advocate[/u:d8034990e3], "It's the first time that we've gotten public outcry where I really can't even read some of the letters, they hurt so much."
So now, just as before, Mutant Enemy acknowledges that the fan reaction was unique, and yet they still won't explain how they can justify the amount of pain they inflicted on fans who had far more than the normal amount of emotional and social investment in their story. Unfortunately for them, acting like the question isn't an issue is not going to make it go away.
[b:d8034990e3]Ratings - Truth and Spin[/b:d8034990e3]
Ms. Ang then presents a series of tables that claim to show that [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] hasn't been suffering in the ratings as a result of their most recent season. I know other people who can generate tables of numbers that are just as impressive and paint an entirely different picture. Rather than hash through them, though, let's look at what others have said about those numbers:
[i:d8034990e3]"The WB's [u:d8034990e3]Gilmore Girls[/u:d8034990e3] surged to series highs in adults 18-34 (3.1/10) and persons 12-34 (3.5/11), even topping UPN's [u:d8034990e3]Buffy the Vampire Slayer[/u:d8034990e3] in young male demos. ... UPN showed big year-to-year gains vs. its weak Tuesday scores last season, but [u:d8034990e3]Buffy the Vampire Slayer[/u:d8034990e3] fell to first-run season lows (4.07 million, 2.2/6 in 18-49)."[/i:d8034990e3] - [u:d8034990e3]Variety[/u:d8034990e3], May 9 2002
[i:d8034990e3]"...in the 8 p.m. hour, a repeat of the WB's should-be-Emmy nominated [u:d8034990e3]Gilmore Girls[/u:d8034990e3] scored a respectable (and fifth place) 3.4/ 5 -- 62 percent above a repeat of UPN's [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] (#6, 2.1/ 3). Stop smiling WB!"[/i:d8034990e3] - [u:d8034990e3]Media Week[/u:d8034990e3], June 5 2002
[i:d8034990e3]"[u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] and [u:d8034990e3]Angel[/u:d8034990e3] fell so far that even with shows like [u:d8034990e3]Roswell[/u:d8034990e3], [u:d8034990e3]Wolf Lake[/u:d8034990e3] and [u:d8034990e3]Alias[/u:d8034990e3] gone ([u:d8034990e3]Alias[/u:d8034990e3] only temporarily) they could not break the genre top ten. [u:d8034990e3]Angel[/u:d8034990e3] only took in 1.7 million viewers with its first rerun."[/i:d8034990e3] - [u:d8034990e3]Cinescape[/u:d8034990e3], June 11 2002
These articles and others like it seem to indicate that the ratings have been more along the lines of what I described in my previous article, not what Ms. Ang described in her rebuttal.
Finally, Ms. Ang compared the Summer 2001 ratings against the Summer 2002 ratings to show that there has been no change during the rerun season. What she fails to take into account, however, is that during the summer of 2001, [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] had already been picked up by UPN, and consequently the WB was moving their final airings of the show all over its schedule. This summer the show has not only remained in its usual timeslot, but it has also been placed in the 9pm Wednesday slot following the higher-rated [u:d8034990e3]Enterprise[/u:d8034990e3]. Last summer the WB gave their [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] reruns no promotion at all, while this summer UPN has not only created new commercials (including a very curious one for "Normal Again" which tries to depict the episode as some kind of zany comedy), but has also tried using tie-ins to the movie [u:d8034990e3]Blue Crush[/u:d8034990e3] and the pop group N*Sync to boost ratings. Yet the ratings have been no better, and in many cases they've been much worse.
[b:d8034990e3]"The Narrative" revisited[/b:d8034990e3]
Ms. Ang concludes her rebuttal by saying this about me:
[i:d8034990e3]"Mr. Black states that 'Claiming that Tara's death was a necessity implies that there was no other way to bring about the ultimate goal of the storyline.' But actually, their claim that Tara's death was a necessity implies that there was no [u:d8034990e3]better[/u:d8034990e3] way to bring about the ultimate goal. Are there other ways? Of course there are always other ways - that doesn't mean there are better ways. Joss felt that the best way to bring about Evil Willow was to kill Tara, while I've seen many hypothesis on other ways to make Willow evil, most of them introduce large inconsistencies into the story or stray from the story Joss was trying to tell."[/i:d8034990e3]
There's an implication here - Joss chose this path and therefore it's automatically the best - but I'll get to that in a minute. First, I want to explore a hypothesis or two on other ways to make Willow evil.
I'll start by pointing out that Joss's own method introduces a large inconsistency into the story, namely Willow's reasons for using magic and the effect magic had on her. Before "Wrecked," magic was never depicted as a metaphor for addictive drugs. Willow was never shown going to a magical crack house or performing spells for the sole purpose of feeling high. Magic was a challenge that gave her a feeling of accomplishment. It allowed her to become a vital part of Buffy's fight against evil. And eventually it became a crutch that she used to shortcut her way through the rough patches of life.
What if Joss had kept that initial depiction of magic? What would Season 6 have looked like? For about the first third of the season, it wouldn't have been all that different. Perhaps, though, we might have seen the beginnings of some friction between Buffy and Willow. After all, Willow had been in charge of the Scooby Gang for months, and there was Buffy moping around instead of taking the leadership role back. Perhaps Willow would have tried to step in - just to help until Buffy was back on her feet, of course. Perhaps she would have used magic to make up for the fact that she didn't have Slayer strength. The forget-spell on Tara would still have occurred. Tara would still have left in "Tabula Rasa." Being socially responsible doesn't mean a couple can't have problems or temporary estrangements.
Around the time of "Smashed" or "Wrecked," instead of seeing Willow turn into a crackhead, we might have seen the friction between her and Buffy become more open and deliberate. Instead of trying to help Buffy, perhaps Willow might have begun to feel like she could replace Buffy. Perhaps Willow might have seen her friends' attempts to reduce the amount of magic she used as a threat, an attempt to remove her from being in charge. Perhaps she wouldn't want to give up being in charge, because perhaps she felt like her magical methods really were the best way to go about fighting evil.
Around the time of the February sweeps, you could have the strained relationships between Willow and the other Scoobies reach a breaking point. Perhaps a crisis would come up - possibly involving the three nerds - in which Willow thought the only solution required her to delve even deeper into dark magic. Perhaps Buffy would object, and Willow would angrily do it anyway. And in that moment, perhaps something would have happened to bring about Dark Magic Willow.
Think about it. Dark Magic Willow appearing during the February sweeps. Not with only a mere three episodes remaining in the season, but with roughly one-third of the episodes still to go, and agonizingly long stretches of reruns in the midst of them. That's how long Angel got to be evil in Season 2, after all. Think of what Dark Magic Willow could have done with all that time. Perhaps she would have killed all the nerds, or taken them over and made them her henchmen. Imagine the irony of having Warren the misogynist bowing down to her instead of being flayed alive by her. He could still die eventually - a victim of his own resentment over being controlled by a woman - but it wouldn't have been necessary. Perhaps Willow would have kept Amy around as well. Perhaps Willow would have made little "adjustments" to her, changing her hair color or her personality to resemble Tara, the lover she had lost and still missed. Imagine what Alyson Hannigan could have done with a part like that.
Meanwhile, Buffy would be faced with the task of figuring out what to do. Fight Willow? Join her? Bring her back? The challenge would have brought her out of her depression instead of letting her mope around until some miraculous unmotivated revelation in the last five minutes of the finale. And what about Spike? Buffy could still be sleeping with him - perhaps his attempts to have her join him "in the darkness" would prompt him to argue with her about what she should do, or even about whether or not Dark Magic Willow was right. Buffy and Spike could have had a real relationship instead of the alternating cycles of violent sex and sexy violence that we ended up seeing.
And Tara? Sooner or later, Buffy would have needed a magic expert to counter Willow's powers. The fact that Tara wasn't as powerful would have added suspense and drama to the story. The fact that Dark Magic Willow might have turned on Tara would have added even more suspense and drama. But none of that would have required Tara to die. In fact, Tara's presence when Dark Magic Willow was ultimately defeated could have been the thing that began Willow's healing process, and her eventual return to the Scooby Gang.
So there you have it - a way to achieve Dark Magic Willow without killing Tara. A way to give Joss Whedon the "cool" Dark Phoenix imitation he wanted while being socially responsible at the same time. Would it have been better than what we saw? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But aren't you at least a little sorry that we'll never get to find out?
[b:d8034990e3]Sparks from a [u:d8034990e3]Firefly[/u:d8034990e3][/b:d8034990e3]
I'm going to digress for a moment now and talk about my review of the pilot for [u:d8034990e3]Firefly[/u:d8034990e3]. Trust me, I have my reasons and they'll become apparent when I wrap everything up.
Some people who commented on my review were unhappy with the way my feelings about Mutant Enemy in general colored what I wrote. I'm unfairly biased against [u:d8034990e3]Firefly[/u:d8034990e3], they claim, because of the way I feel about what happened to Willow and Tara. Some have told me that I couldn't possibly be more wrong - they think Joss has been doing a great job with all his shows, and they're eagerly waiting to see [u:d8034990e3]Firefly[/u:d8034990e3] as well.
But wait a minute. Isn't that what I said in the review? My conclusion was:
[i:d8034990e3]"If you like the same old thing Joss Whedon has been giving us over the past few years, then the show is probably right for you."[/i:d8034990e3]
Doesn't that match what these people told me? If so, then in what way am I wrong?
Believe it or not, my review of [u:d8034990e3]Firefly[/u:d8034990e3] was much more even-handed than I'd expected it to be. A lot of people were expecting me to give it a full-on [u:d8034990e3]Mystery Science Theater 3000[/u:d8034990e3] treatment - but I honestly thought the show deserved better. My primary complaint was personal and had to do with my feelings toward Mutant Enemy in general, and I freely admitted that.
And even if I hadn't felt the way I do about Mutant Enemy, that still doesn't mean I would have given [u:d8034990e3]Firefly[/u:d8034990e3] a glowing review. Remember, this is the episode the executives at FOX turned down, and they probably don't even know who Willow and Tara are. The pace of the show really [i:d8034990e3]is[/i:d8034990e3] dreadfully slow at times. The Western motif really [i:d8034990e3]does[/i:d8034990e3] annoy me. Making the [u:d8034990e3]Serenity[/u:d8034990e3] Captain a nihilistic anti-hero would be a risky venture under any circumstances. Besides all that, it's a pilot episode, and pilot episodes rarely turn out to be masterpieces. I said some negative things in my review of the [u:d8034990e3]Birds of Prey[/u:d8034990e3] pilot, too - and I [i:d8034990e3]liked[/i:d8034990e3] that.
[b:d8034990e3]The Executive Producer's New Clothes[/b:d8034990e3]
The reaction some people had to the [u:d8034990e3]Firefly[/u:d8034990e3] review reminds me of what I've seen several times in emails to me or on various posting boards - the feeling that criticizing Joss Whedon at all is some sort of blasphemy. The simple fact that Joss Whedon made the [u:d8034990e3]Firefly[/u:d8034990e3] pilot should somehow be reason enough for me to think of it as the greatest science fiction show ever. The simple fact that Joss Whedon thought killing Tara and turning Willow evil was the right thing to do should be reason enough for me to think it was the best possible choice that could have been made.
I feel a bit like the boy in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. You know the story, don't you? Two con men convince a vain emperor to buy a suit from them, made of a material so light and fine that people who are stupid or incompetent will think it's invisible. They end up taking his money and selling him nothing, but when the emperor starts parading around in his non-existent new outfit, everyone is too afraid of being thought of as stupid or incompetent to point out that he's actually walking around naked. Everyone, that is, except for one small boy who isn't worried about being thought of as stupid or incompetent and therefore says exactly what he sees.
That's how I feel, not just because of Willow and Tara, but because of the entire Buffy season in general. Emperor Joss has gotten himself a new suit - a suit woven with threads that turned female empowerment into female degradation, but where white men could walk away from their responsibilities or become attempted rapists yet could still be thought of as heroes. A suit that stitched sex and violence together and glamorized the pairing, but where a healthy relationship between two young women was sacrificed on the altar of a plot twist that played itself out in all of two weeks. Perhaps some are reluctant to call Joss's new suit what it is because they're afraid they'll no longer be thought of as "cool" - or as Ben Varkentine said at Ink19.com:
[i:d8034990e3]"There's a line in the second season where Xander says to Buffy, about Angel: 'The way I see it is that you wanna forget all about Ms. Calendar's murder so you can get your boyfriend back.' The way I see it, some people want to ignore the horrible execution of Tara's death and the way it fits into a larger pattern so they don't have to have their belief in Joss & Co. shaken."[/i:d8034990e3]
On one level, I can understand. You might say I owe Joss Whedon my writing career. In 1996, after ten years of beating my head against the Hollywood wall, I finally admitted that they didn't want me, and realized that I didn't want them. I thought I had nowhere else to go. Then [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] came a year later, and [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] fan fiction became the training ground where I learned how to write prose instead of scripts. It was where I first put together a story that was as long as the novels I'm writing now.
Imagine how I felt, then, when the writer who had inspired me and brought my own craft back to life suddenly and inexplicably went in a direction that I felt was so horribly wrong. Could Joss really have gone so awry, or was it somehow my fault because I was no longer thinking "properly?" It was a question I had to answer. Why do you think I've written so much on this subject? Not just to see myself put pretty sentences together - if that's all I wanted to do, I have other things I could be writing that might actually get me paid someday. But since I first found out about Tara's death back in March, I've been wrestling with my own uncertainties, and making sure that what I thought was wrong actually was wrong. After all that, I'm now very [i:d8034990e3]very[/i:d8034990e3] sure - and I don't care how much that detracts from my ability to look "cool."
In any event, ultimately how "cool" you or I or anyone else looks won't matter. The Nielsen boxes will determine Mutant Enemy's fate in the coming season, and as I said before, history will have the last word on [u:d8034990e3]Buffy[/u:d8034990e3] or anything else Joss Whedon creates. I think I can finally live with that. I think I've finally said all there is for me to say.
Of course, I've thought that before - but I'm serious this time. Really. I mean it.
[i:d8034990e3]Robert A. Black has written three Young Adult novels in the past year, and is currently seeking publishers for them. By the time you read this, he should be hard at work on his fourth.[/i:d8034990e3]
Comments, anyone?
) the best written show on tv but that was then and this is now and after S6 the show is dead to me I think your insightful and well argued essays are a fitting obituary.
