Meandering Musings

Now, admittedly, I haven't been watching "Dollhouse." I was just somewhat curious about the last episode. I'm sure there's much more to the series that I don't understand, but looking at the finale, it looks like their post-apocalyptic world and a brain wiping/rebooting pulse is eerily similar to (okay, strikingly similar to) Stephen King's Cell .

:
::tongue firmly planted in cheek while burnishing the sheen of old-school BtVS fandom nostalgia::

A Diagnostic Tool for Post-Traumatic Joss Syndrome
( Read more... )

Okay, so apparently Joss ( vague spoilers ) So, donning fannish hat, let me state:

I don't ask much. Shipping? Pfft. Canonical shipping got kicked out of me ages ago.[/Spuffy persecution complex] Just don't make me wish I'd never discovered the Whedonverse by screwing Spike over worse than he has been in the past (considering things like Seeing Red and the piss poor execution of the soul quest, I'm setting the bar rather low here. Truly, I'm not asking much.) [/Post-Traumatic Joss Syndrome]

Yeah, yeah. I don't consider the comics as 'canon' no matter what. I don't care whether it's DH, IDW, or who is writing. It's simply too much of a change in medium and leads to too much cognitive dissonance. I don't expect those feelings to change. That said, I have bought a few of these comics. Please, don't make me want to burn them.

That is all.

Okay, so apparently Joss ( vague spoilers ) So, donning fannish hat, let me state:

I don't ask much. Shipping? Pfft. Canonical shipping got kicked out of me ages ago.[/Spuffy persecution complex] Just don't make me wish I'd never discovered the Whedonverse by screwing Spike over worse than he has been in the past (considering things like Seeing Red and the piss poor execution of the soul quest, I'm setting the bar rather low here. Truly, I'm not asking much.) [/Post-Traumatic Joss Syndrome]

Yeah, yeah. I don't consider the comics as 'canon' no matter what. I don't care whether it's DH, IDW, or who is writing. It's simply too much of a change in medium and leads to too much cognitive dissonance. I don't expect those feelings to change. That said, I have bought a few of these comics. Please, don't make me want to burn them.

That is all.

*snort*

Oh Joss, never change(and clearly Allie is incapable of doing so). Pop popcorn and take a seat, Joss is creating a wank-storm!

Okay, so I've long been a Jossian atheist agnostic. I suppose that's why my primary reaction to the spoilers is to roll my eyes. Unless or until I'm told otherwise, I remain convinced that it will all amount to a hill of beans. Which isn't to say that some of them aren't irritating beans, but still... just beans that in the end will ultimately leave the Buffyverse only subtly changed.

Joss likes to crow about sea-changes, then he just leaves things mostly the same. (See: Teflon Epiphanies, Oleander Epiphanies, playing to all fanbases in Chosen, a consistent pattern of plausible deniability with couples Bangels can't handle [but also cannot bully into non-existence], Angel being kicked out of hell after Season 2, and the endless good-bye of Season 3 without really cutting the chord on the ship, etc.)

My predictions for what will actually change (or not): ( Read more... )

I don't know how he's going to accomplish this. Many ideas come to mind, so here's a poll:

[Poll #1509349]

Okay, so I've long been a Jossian atheist agnostic. I suppose that's why my primary reaction to the spoilers is to roll my eyes. Unless or until I'm told otherwise, I remain convinced that it will all amount to a hill of beans. Which isn't to say that some of them aren't irritating beans, but still... just beans that in the end will ultimately leave the Buffyverse only subtly changed.

Joss likes to crow about sea-changes, then he just leaves things mostly the same. (See: Teflon Epiphanies, Oleander Epiphanies, playing to all fanbases in Chosen, a consistent pattern of plausible deniability with couples Bangels can't handle [but also cannot bully into non-existence], Angel being kicked out of hell after Season 2, and the endless good-bye of Season 3 without really cutting the chord on the ship, etc.)

My predictions for what will actually change (or not): ( Read more... )

I don't know how he's going to accomplish this. Many ideas come to mind, so here's a poll:

[Poll #1509349]

:
Under Nearly All Circumstances Vampires should not...

* Play football (see Vampire Diaries)
* Play baseball (see Twilight)
* In fact, they should simply avoid all team sports that involve practicing during daylight (This is especially true of 'heroic' vampires in high school sports because...You're a freaking vampire! You have super speed, super hearing, and sometimes you can fly. This counts as an unfair advantage when competing against normal high school kids. This then runs counter to being a mopey, angst-ridden, heroic pale vampire. It also makes you a big ol' cheat!)
* Sparkle (see Twilight)
* Trust 'V' addicts (see True Blood) (Seriously, you're a lifetime supply of hallucinagenic sex, so you think the addict is just going to keep you as a casual buddy?)
* Trust Body Theives (see Anne Rice) because if you offer a body thief an immortal beautiful body with super powers what are the odds that the thief will decide to keep it?! Moron.)
* Date 10th graders (even if they look 23). Seriously, can they expand their dating pool beyond high school? If you're over 100 you might appreciate conversation that doesn't revolve around who is going to the prom. Any vampire worth his/her salt Should go "Teenagers! Delicious, but I wouldn't want to date one."
* In fact, vampires shouldn't attend high school. Period. Vampire, why are you there? For the rest of us over a certain age, suddenly re-enrolling in high school Chem II is the stuff of sleep-deprived nightmares (usally involving inappropriate nudity and/or realizing that you haven't studied the subject of the pop-quiz ... for the last fifteen-plus years!) The regular kids who have to be there, want to be anywhere but there, so why, Vampire, are you inflicting this upon yourself on purpose?! (See... a whole heck of a lot of stuff, actually.)

sueworld2003 has posted responses that the new(?) editor to the Angel comics gave to some buffyforum questions. I wasn't particularly perturbed by her answers regarding Spuffy. First, because she came off as being relatively level-headed in response to the obviously Bangel-oriented somewhat pushy interviewer. Second, because I do not believe that there will be any crossover until such time as Joss is cravenly desperate for attention and/or readers and perhaps not even then. For that reason I find the ship debate to be moot. I was interested in some of her responses regarding Spike though. Specifically:



I gather, in a third hand sort of way, that there has been debate about this. It's not a particularly new or revolutionary POV. I believe that Joss and David Fury have expressed similar views about this at one point or another, and I remember thedeadlyhook pointing out in an essay a long time ago that, while Spike may lose style points for the way that he does it, since acquiring his soul, he became remarkably consistent about being on the side of the right (albeit, Mutant Enemy never seemed to tire of the "will Spike go evil?" fake-out).

What tends to surprise me, however, are some of the fannish debates that go on. There is a line of thought that somehow Spike's characterization/struggle threatens or lessens Angel's. It almost inevitably descends into a "my vamp" vs. "your vamp" wars.

Why is it always placed in a context of wondering which vamp has the most trump cards?

It seems to me that most of the contrasts between Spike and Angel don't come out of trying to have one vamp have an 'up' on the other one, but out of the necessity for their own character construction and evolution.

Angel was 'cursed' with his soul. From a writing standpoint, that has to mean something (and character-wise that extends further than creating a Big Bad for Season 2). For Angel that has to mean something. If a writer creates a curse, it needs to chafe the character. If the character is a titular hero, he cannot be chaffed by the concept of heroism in itself. The friction then inevitably becomes conflict over his heroism. Basically, from a writing POV, from the need of friction for drama, it makes perfect sense that one of Angel's points of conflict be that his soul was forced on him and that Angelus (as opposed to Angel) doesn't want it.

Angel was, more or less, introduced as a heroic character (Well, mostly. In season 1 he had periods of passivity, but he was consistently one of the 'good guys.') When layering heroes, you're usually presenting (excusable) flaws. So in contrast to hero-Angel, we get Liam flashbacks and a 'see how much he's grown from who he was.' Angel evolved organically from the place he was introduced. He was given flaws and internal conflict. It makes sense that the soul -- which is a curse -- should be a source of conflict for him.

Spike began in a polar opposite position. He was the bad-guy. When showing 'good guy' Angel's background there was conflict in showing him as not-particularly-nice Liam. By the same token, when showing 'cool bad guy' Spike, they contrasted with 'not-at-all-cool, just geeky and heartbroken' William. Both sets of choices in characterization are, at least partially, products of how each character was initially introduced and what presented a good way to stretch them with a few internal contradictions.

The titular hero had the soul forced on him. This leads to internal conflict whenever he is given trust, accolades, or love (as tends to be given to heroes).

Spike is the one who sought his own soul but is rarely given trust, never given accolades, and who tends to find love and acceptance to be elusive.

This isn't a matter of either/or or what makes one vamp better than the other. It's a matter of writers needing to build a character over a long period time in a serialized story. They each started in one place and the writing needed to provide contrast, internal conflict, and an elusive goal. Spike's development isn't following the path of Angel's. Spike's path isn't a result of Angel's. In many -- if not most -- ways Spike is completely opposite Angel... which is why the two characters actually function quite nicely together.

But, at the end of the day, I think both characters came by their paths (and their characterizations) organically (for the most part). It's not constant brinkmanship where only one character can win best in show...or 'best' period. People don't work that way, why should characters?

sueworld2003 has posted responses that the new(?) editor to the Angel comics gave to some buffyforum questions. I wasn't particularly perturbed by her answers regarding Spuffy. First, because she came off as being relatively level-headed in response to the obviously Bangel-oriented somewhat pushy interviewer. Second, because I do not believe that there will be any crossover until such time as Joss is cravenly desperate for attention and/or readers and perhaps not even then. For that reason I find the ship debate to be moot. I was interested in some of her responses regarding Spike though. Specifically:



I gather, in a third hand sort of way, that there has been debate about this. It's not a particularly new or revolutionary POV. I believe that Joss and David Fury have expressed similar views about this at one point or another, and I remember thedeadlyhook pointing out in an essay a long time ago that, while Spike may lose style points for the way that he does it, since acquiring his soul, he became remarkably consistent about being on the side of the right (albeit, Mutant Enemy never seemed to tire of the "will Spike go evil?" fake-out).

What tends to surprise me, however, are some of the fannish debates that go on. There is a line of thought that somehow Spike's characterization/struggle threatens or lessens Angel's. It almost inevitably descends into a "my vamp" vs. "your vamp" wars.

Why is it always placed in a context of wondering which vamp has the most trump cards?

It seems to me that most of the contrasts between Spike and Angel don't come out of trying to have one vamp have an 'up' on the other one, but out of the necessity for their own character construction and evolution.

Angel was 'cursed' with his soul. From a writing standpoint, that has to mean something (and character-wise that extends further than creating a Big Bad for Season 2). For Angel that has to mean something. If a writer creates a curse, it needs to chafe the character. If the character is a titular hero, he cannot be chaffed by the concept of heroism in itself. The friction then inevitably becomes conflict over his heroism. Basically, from a writing POV, from the need of friction for drama, it makes perfect sense that one of Angel's points of conflict be that his soul was forced on him and that Angelus (as opposed to Angel) doesn't want it.

Angel was, more or less, introduced as a heroic character (Well, mostly. In season 1 he had periods of passivity, but he was consistently one of the 'good guys.') When layering heroes, you're usually presenting (excusable) flaws. So in contrast to hero-Angel, we get Liam flashbacks and a 'see how much he's grown from who he was.' Angel evolved organically from the place he was introduced. He was given flaws and internal conflict. It makes sense that the soul -- which is a curse -- should be a source of conflict for him.

Spike began in a polar opposite position. He was the bad-guy. When showing 'good guy' Angel's background there was conflict in showing him as not-particularly-nice Liam. By the same token, when showing 'cool bad guy' Spike, they contrasted with 'not-at-all-cool, just geeky and heartbroken' William. Both sets of choices in characterization are, at least partially, products of how each character was initially introduced and what presented a good way to stretch them with a few internal contradictions.

The titular hero had the soul forced on him. This leads to internal conflict whenever he is given trust, accolades, or love (as tends to be given to heroes).

Spike is the one who sought his own soul but is rarely given trust, never given accolades, and who tends to find love and acceptance to be elusive.

This isn't a matter of either/or or what makes one vamp better than the other. It's a matter of writers needing to build a character over a long period time in a serialized story. They each started in one place and the writing needed to provide contrast, internal conflict, and an elusive goal. Spike's development isn't following the path of Angel's. Spike's path isn't a result of Angel's. In many -- if not most -- ways Spike is completely opposite Angel... which is why the two characters actually function quite nicely together.

But, at the end of the day, I think both characters came by their paths (and their characterizations) organically (for the most part). It's not constant brinkmanship where only one character can win best in show...or 'best' period. People don't work that way, why should characters?