Buffy Anne Summers, aka

Posts Tagged ‘story universe’

I don’t know why, but I seem to be in a sailing mood today, and I think I’ll just go with it, metaphorically.

So . . . as previously stated, I intend to steer out of the doldrums (very soon, I promise) and begin to get into the actual subject today, i.e., the subject of character relationships in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I said "begin to get into" because, as stated in a previous post, to do the subject any justice, I feel I first need to talk about the story universe in which these relationships operate. (Call that a "cop out" or a delaying tactic if you will, but that’s where my head’s at today.)

And before I take to the deep water and high winds, let me take a moment to say that I feel that I may’ve built up some expectations now, and that worries me just a bit. I’m no academic, am largely self-educated, have written virtually nothing before on literary interpretation or art appreciation, and as I haven’t read the vast (and utterly overwhelming) majority of what has been written about BtVS, I have no inkling of whether, or to what extent, any of my observations may be considered tired, trite, or debunked.

In other words, if you are expecting some mind-blowing insight not heretofore touched upon by great or small, I am almost certainly destined to disappoint.

I don’t expect that most of my forays will build such expectations. As I have already said in a previous post, "Buffy has been a dear friend to me, and I have no desire to turn my friend into foe, nor to turn what has been a great pleasure into a great labor." But when you set out to spark a little extra interest, the chance you take is that some will expect too much and inevitably be disappointed. But whether some expectations are now too great or not, perhaps I can offer some turn of phrase, or some thought, here or there to make this at least somewhat entertaining, or otherwise worth your while.

And as I raise our sail and begin to navigate into the depths and swing our boom into the wind, you may recall that I left off last time on what I believe is not so appropriate to conclude about the creators of BtVS due to the collaborative and corporate nature of television. So it is only fitting that I mention this same observation has been cited by those who make the argument that a television show, or series, cannot be considered a bona fide work of art. As the argument goes, or at least as I understand it, if there is not one controlling creator then one of the prevailing practices of the critic — i.e., attempting to get "under the skin" of the creator so as to infer the artist’s deeper motivation and meaning — is not available.

As such arguments go, that seems valid enough, and I’m not quite sure whether a television show can be considered a legitimate work of art or not. What I do know is that, when I am watching Buffy, it often feels like I am witnessing artists at work, and with that in mind, I am going to suggest that a critical analysis of a controlling creator and his or her intent almost certainly should not be considered the only sound approach to art appreciation. Another approach that may be just as valid is to consider how a work of art captures, reflects, filters and influences — dare I say it?, the Zeitgeist of its life and times.

Well, I’m less than certain I’m using that term the way a German philosopher or academic might, but I did say it, and it may be worth keeping in mind as I may come back to that notion somewhere in my conclusion.

So, as a gust of wind catches the sail, let’s begin in earnest with some definitions. As I (hopefully) progress, when you see the phrase "the world of Buffy Summers," I will be referring to the above-ground, "in the sunlight" world in which Buffy attends school, makes friends and deals primarily with natural — as opposed to supernatural — challenges and responsibilities; when you see the phrase "the world of Demonic forces," I will be referring to the below-ground, "in the dark" world to which ‘the Master’ and ‘the First’ — and all the various other creatures in between — most often cling and in which they most readily thrive. When you see the term "Buffyverse," I will be speaking all-inclusively of both these worlds and how they interact with each other. Admittedly, we could use different, no-less-accurate terms, and this is somewhat of an arbitrary distinction no matter what the terminology since the world of Demonic forces overlaps the world of Buffy Summers almost as often as not. But it’s a distinction I believe will serve a purpose in the remainder of this discussion.

Foremost, the world of Buffy Summers and the world of Demonic forces seem readily discernible as conditions of light and shadow, or day and night, or good and evil, or of primarily conscious aspirations, such as — in no particular order — life, love, youth, beauty, family, friendship, community, freedom, compassion, redemption and forgiveness, as well as creative and procreative impulses and primarily unconscious will, such as the drives toward sterile power (power for its own sake), desolation, blame, damnation, ruthlessness, slavery, isolation, manipulation, dysfunction, senescence, ugliness, vengeful hatred and death.

In short, the particulars of the two worlds being characteristic of, nearly synonymous with, descriptive of, or symbolic of, life and death, the combat between them maps approximately to the contest between biological and psychological drives, i.e., approximately what I believe some have termed ‘Eros’ and ‘Thanatos.’

While this dualistic arrangement of drives, or forces, is anything but unique to the Buffyverse and may, at first glance, appear to have nothing to do with the relationships between characters, it is an arrangement that has been given particular emphasis in the Buffyverse, represents a kind of relationship in and of itself (more on that in a moment), and I would argue it is the foundation, or backdrop, in which the character relationships develop, and are thereby made more meaningful.

So what is this argument again? I suppose it is that one of the most explicit — and thereby most immediately accessible and overarching — themes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is this perennial struggle between these most fundamental passions that can be said not only to inform the inter-human experience, but may be said — or rather is said by many — to inform the human psyche’s relationship with itself.

Did I say human? In truth, given the various demons, vampires, werewolves, robots (and of course, Adam, of season four) that populate the series, I suppose I could go further and consider whether or not this discussion warrants inclusion of inter-species, or trans-human, experiences and relationships as well. But there’s no need to be lashed to the ship’s mast so as to avoid being seduced by this Sirens’ song, for I can simply say I have no inclination to do that as I don’t feel particularly qualified.

(Maybe I’ll tackle that question someday when I’m feeling a little bit more full of myself.)

So then back to the aforementioned and seemingly emphasized dualism of the Buffyverse — so what? This is rather obvious. Have I simply set my sailing vessel adrift without realizing it? Maybe. It’s obvious enough when one pauses to think about it, but television and film seem to have a way of making us lazy, sometimes (or maybe I should just say it has a way of making me lazy), and I would contend that the Buffyverse is comprised of one of the more extreme contrasts between forces in television history, and one that we don’t always pause to notice. Or at least I know I don’t.

Many would say this kind of dualistic contrast is characteristic of the fantasy and horror genres, and in the latter case, perhaps especially of the tales-of-the-undead variety, but before some of you drop anchor and start to argue the point, I expect I’ll argue with myself before I’m done, so bear with me.

And lest I immediately dissolve into a schizoid discussion with myself, I’d like to mention that beyond the already-mentioned Eros-versus-Thanatos construction (or however one cares to phrase it) of the Buffyverse, I’ve noticed also that there are patterns of relationships in the world of Demonic forces against which the relationships of the world of Buffy Summers stand in sharp contrast. There are also virtual omissions in both worlds of many of the key factors that usually impact real relationships between real people in the real world that have caught some of my interest.

For example?

Well, let me address the omitted key factors first and get to the patterns later, and perhaps at some point I can even try to conclude something about what the continued cultural phenomenon of BtVS has to say — but perhaps not so much about its creators as about its fans.

However, as Gnarl, from Same Time, Same Place (Season 7, Episode 3) might say — if he had any friends and could sail the seven seas of course — I need make great haste into uncharted waters and go buy a giftie for an ailing friend now, so how about let’s save the next stage of this journey for next time . . . ?

(What do you think? Way past time to abandon ship and drop the sailing metaphor? What did it have to do with anything anyway? Am I hoping shipbuilders, or the merchant marines, or maybe even pirates, will buy adspace on this site? Or maybe recently I’ve been listening to a lecture on Homer’s Odyssey? Y’never know . . .)

(originally posted on June 10)

Okay, so that was kind of cheap trick, but in my defense the title of the last post did say it was the teaser. So with that out of the way, let’s get on with it! Oh no, I meant let’s segue into my next tangent.

In Buffy the Vampire Slayer, on the subject of relationships, obviously there is much to work with. One could easily write an entire book on Buffy Summers’ relationships alone. With the inclusion of other characters, with a little less ease, one could write several. To do the subject any justice though, I feel I first need to talk about the story universe in which these relationships operate, and so I will, but I am not going to attempt to cover everything, or any one thing from various perspectives, or even any one perspective in depth. No doubt more on the subject of relationships begs to be addressed, but for now I intend only to skim the surface, and from a height, and before I begin in earnest, let me get a little writerly-something out of the way (how was that for a segue?):

It is a truism among critics and literary types that creators of fiction often incorporate unconscious obsessions, agendas and intentions into their work and thereby not only enrich the fictional world(s) in which their characters move and evolve, but reveal more about themselves than they intend.

I have no real argument with that. So in beginning any analysis, even one as relatively simplistic as this, I would agree that it is not unreasonable to expect to increase one’s awareness of, and perhaps even reveal something very significant about, how such a creator perceives and assigns value to experience.

From there — that is, if the above is a reasonable expectation — then in an analysis that is to be strictly limited to the depiction of relationships, one might expect to reveal how a creator posits what character and relationship qualities are and are not worthwhile, and perhaps what responsibilities the genders and the members of the varying social strata, may have toward one another, and given the overriding importance of emotional and hierarchical relationships in all our lives — in fact, these relationships veritably define human existence — even some of the creator’s ideological biases.

Whoa, that was kind of a mouthful. And by the way, how about this tangent? Still with me?

If so, I now may surprise some of the critics and literary types and tell you all, I simply don’t care.

Frankly, I couldn’t give a — excuse me, what I mean to say is, when examining any collaborative creative effort (like Buffy the Vampire Slayer), any such expectation is a cognitive stretch. However much it may be argued to have been primarily the creation of Whedon, by definition BtVS was the combined effort of a team of creators, and that is what is being examined here, and further complicating matters, we are looking at a collaboration that took place in a corporate environment in which the utmost (or at least a primary) concern was commercial success.

And if all that were not enough to bring into question the validity of such reveals, in the specific case of Whedon, Petrie, Noxon, Greenwalt, Fury, Espenson, et al, we also are dealing with some very sophisticated creators who were often quite self-conscious — judging by how the show consistently played with language, metaphor, foreshadowing, etc. — about what they were doing.

So if someone comes up to me and says it is possible to determine, simply by watching BtVS, that Whedon or Noxon, or any of the other writers or creators, are Nazis, or communists, or right-wing or left-wing nuts of whatever persuasion, for the purposes of this analysis (at least), I simply don’t care — and I don’t believe it could be a reasonable determination in any case.

In this or any given analysis, though I may not always say so, I think it behooves us all to reflect on the difficulty of inferring what was of conscious intent, what was unconscious, what was true to any specific creator’s vision, or to the artists’ collective visions, and what was or was not due to commercial considerations.

Given human nature, this is true even when taking into account what the writers themselves may have to say on any given matter, i.e., since memory itself is unreliable and may fail or fill in where there are blanks — and since the writers themselves may not always correctly assess what their intentions were, i.e., as the series matured and plot developments seemed sometimes surprisingly foreshadowed, Joss himself purportedly asked his fellow writers on more than one occasion, "Were we planning this back then?"

If that isn’t evidence enough, even without referencing theories of the unconscious, that even the creators themselves may not always have fully understood their own intentions, I can’t imagine what is.

So now, with all that almost interminable preamble, or disclaimer (or tangent), out of the way, in the next post — by the end of this week or somewhere in the next — I will begin my ruminations, a bit more in earnest next time, on the characters’ relationships, skimming the surface from a height and giving you my take — with no claim whatsoever to certainty — on interpreting at least some of their thematic resonances.

I sincerely hope you will find it worth your while . . . [to be continued, soon]