(no subject)

[shapinglight]

Hello again. Have been mostly absent since Sunday, except for posting horrid porn on my other LJ. Hands still bad, so still trying to keep posting/commenting smallscale. Have been reading but not commenting much. Sorry. Also, work is being a pain in the a**e.

Have been having an interesting conversation with shadowcat67, though, about this and that...



...during which the subject of Joss's speech/Q&A when he picked up his award from the American Humanist Society (?) came up. I've just listened to the whole thing (90 minutes, so no casual undertaking), and have come away quite impressed and liking Joss rather a lot. I'm looking forward to watching Dollhouse (if I ever get around to it) rather more than I was before.

I would urge everyone to listen to the whole thing themselves if they haven't already, but for me, the stand-out parts were as follows:

A clip of Angel's speech to Kate in Epiphany was shown - the one where Angel says, "If what we do doesn't matter, all that matters is what we do," or words to that effect. Joss says that pretty much encapsulates his philosophical standpoint, and that Kate's riposte that Angel just entered her apartment uninvited and saved her life in a miraculous way was put in just to show an opposing POV.

Interesting. Mind you, Joss does also say - and I loved this, particularly in view of the fact that I have seen the view expressed that if you criticise Buffy's actions in the Buffy comic, you are a running dog of the patriarchy - that if you use your drama just to make a philosophical/political point, it's didacticism, not drama, and people will walk away.

Yep. Nice to know that Joss agrees with me on this, or rather I agree with him, I suppose.

He was less satisfying on other issues that were of major concern to fans, such as that when he decided that Fred's soul was destroyed in AtS season 5, he never once thought of any 'deeper' issues connected with that (even though having a soul or not having one was so important in his own 'verse). It was just a shorthand way of saying they weren't buying the moment back. Illyria had replaced Fred and that was it. He did say he was sorry about not realising how much it would upset people.

He also didn't really unmuddy the waters where the possible dual nature of Angel/Angelus was concerned. He said the mythos of the show was that when a vampire kills you it sets up shop in your body and uses your memories/personality etc as its own, but that Angel/Angelus was also a metaphor for alcoholism - for how one person can be like two totally different people, one a monster and the other a normal human being, and yet be one and the same person. In other words, Angel/Angelus is both two different people and one and the same.

Confusing, and I wish the person who asked the question had asked him if the same thing applied to Spike.

About whom, btw, he said Spike was a more mature version of Angel, who came at his humanity in a more difficult way than Angel did. He was comparing Spike with Faith when he said this (the question was about Faith), and saying that her path to heroism was more mature and difficult than Buffy's. I think. Anyway, you should listen for yourselves. The question's at around 42 minutes in.

Did say that B/A is like Romeo & Juliet, a 'kiddie romance'. "'Twilight', if you will." Did also say, rather flippantly, in answer to a question that no one actually asked, but that he must get asked a lot, "She loves Spike, or maybe Satsu, I'm not sure sometimes."

Take that how you like.

Apologised for the fact that he can't really write 'ordinary joes', no matter how he tries. They always end up like the X-Men, that the First Evil was just a convenience and yes, incompetent, he realises, and that he's ashamed that some episodes of Dollhouse don't actually mean anything.

You've probably all talked about this already, haven't you, ages ago, and I didn't notice?

Anyway, how are all of you?

Comments

[kassto.livejournal.com]

So sorry about your hands. I know what a pain it is. Have had many journalist friends over the years suffering from bad repetitive strain injury and carpal tunnel syndrome, and it's a long slow thing of getting rid of pain, with all sorts of things coming into it. I noticed something of a trend with the people who had pain the worst — that they were hard workers, sometimes working too hard, and often not relaxed while at the computer, suffered from anxiety and drove themselves workwise because of it. Had to learn to relax more, while working at computer and elsewhere! Not saying this is you, and not a universal thing, but it was just something that stood out from my observations.

xx

[kassto.livejournal.com]

Oh... and nice that Spike gets the ``maturity'' vote!

[jen-nsync-landl.livejournal.com]

I haven't talked about this already and am very glad you posted it! :) Interesting, interesting stuff, though, try as I might and much as I admire Joss, I cannot seem to buy in to Dollhouse. I saw half the season or so and now have access to the dvds and so have already watched the original version of the pilot, and still, doesn't. quite. work. I suppose I should give it another shot.

[And forgive me for a little smile over this: Did say that B/A is like Romeo & Juliet, a 'kiddie romance'. "'Twilight', if you will." ]

Hope you are well.

[rahirah]

Joss is usually interesting, even when I want to beat his head in with a rutabaga.

(As for who 'she' loves, mehwhatever. Show me the money, Joss.)

[quinara]

Ooh, that session does sound worthwhile (and more considered than some things he's come up with...). I'm glad you're more interested in Dollhouse! I'm intrigued to hear what he says about it, since I've spent most of my time in my own half-formed-meta-vacuum (the expression, one day it will come).

he's ashamed that some episodes of Dollhouse don't actually mean anything

I think I'd argue with him on that point, since it's very hard to write/produce anything that means nothing. Surely what he means is that he didn't think beyond the plot about what his writers were producing...? ;)

[snickfic]

What rahirah said about the rutabaga. Especially: alchoholism? What? Because that's all about getting a girl to sleep with you and then going on a months-long rampage. Yeah.

And also, Kate's reply about Angel's miraculous entry pretty much totally derailed Angel's (Joss's) philosophical point. What I took away from that exchange was that Angel was pwnd, yo.

Ahem. Anyway, thanks much for the notes!

Dollhouse has some good things. In particular, there's one absolutely fabulous ep full of character revelations via tricky POV - very fun.

[next_to_normal]

Especially: alchoholism? What? Because that's all about getting a girl to sleep with you and then going on a months-long rampage. Yeah.

Yeah... I read that and ever so elegantly went, "Huh?" Clearly, I need to rewatch S2 with this in mind.

What I took away from that exchange was that Angel was pwnd, yo.

Also, pretty much the entire rest of the series establishes that Angel is basically destiny's bitch, so I think maybe Joss' philosophy lost a little something in the translation to plot...

[snickfic]

Angel is basically destiny's bitch

Destiny's bitch vs. love's bitch. Discuss. *g* (Or, you know, not. I was just amused by your phrasing.)

I think maybe Joss' philosophy lost a little something in the translation to plot...

Methinks yes.

[sockmonkeyhere.livejournal.com]

After reading this part, I'm more glad than ever that Joss no longer seems interested in the AtS comic books:

He was less satisfying on other issues that were of major concern to fans, such as that when he decided that Fred's soul was destroyed in AtS season 5, he never once thought of any 'deeper' issues connected with that (even though having a soul or not having one was so important in his own 'verse). It was just a shorthand way of saying they weren't buying the moment back. Illyria had replaced Fred and that was it. He did say he was sorry about not realising how much it would upset people.

He and BL are apparently equally thumbs-down on allowing Fred to be brought back, so I'm glad he's no longer in the AtS comic book picture. Now if only BL would change his mind, or if some other IDW writer would defy him and return Fred to life.

Y'know, if Joss was truly sorry for upsetting fans by destroying Fred's soul, bringing her back in the comic books would have been an easy way to make that up to us!

I just hate the way this series ended up. And I hate the comic books, because they could bring Fred back so easily and yet I know that they never, ever will...and that will prevent me from ever enjoying AtS again, and the thought of that makes me so sad and angry that I've almost got tears in my eyes.

(And arrgh, now I've dripped bitterness all over your LJ. I'll go get a mop. I hope your poor hands recover soon!)

[ex_peasant441]

Apologised for the fact that he can't really write 'ordinary joes', no matter how he tries. They always end up like the X-Men

Hah! Joss, it's very easy: you just stop giving them damn superpowers.

[lyr]

I'm sorry your hands are still bad and that work is being a pain.

I have always thought that nothing matters but what we do speech is one of the most powerful bits of dialogue of all time. As for didacticism, I think as long as we make our philosophical and social points part of the fabric of our creations rather than the main focus, it sends a powerful message without feeling too preachy.

And I always saw B/A that way, but it's interesting to know that Joss does, too.

On the subject of Dollhouse, I will say that I think it is well worth watching, even though it is my least favorite of the Jossverse. Don't give up on it in the first few episodes, even if you're tempted; it takes a while to build itself enough for you to see the architecture of what it's trying to be.

[shapinglight]

Well, I am a bit stressed at the moment due to the work situation, so that could well have some bearing on this latest flare up of my RSI. At least I feel I'm getting something done about it this time, though.

[shapinglight]

I wasn't clear from what he said, but I think he meant more that Spike's arc was a more mature expression of what he wanted to do with a redemption story than Angel's was, not that Spike was more mature as a character. I dunno. No one asked a question concerning Spike, btw. Joss mentioned him spontaneously a couple of times, but that was it.

[shapinglight]

You should listen to the whole thing. It's well worth it.

What you say about Dollhouse seems to be a common view. FWIW Joss himself seemed quite frustrated about certain aspects of it. He intimates, but doesn't actually say, that there was a lot of studio interference which meant he couldn't include things he wanted to include. For instance, he never meant to suggest that all Actives (is it?) were young and pretty. There was supposed to be a scene with an older female active but he wasn't able to include it. Etc.

[shapinglight]

You should listen to it. It's very interesting from a TV writerly/humanist POV anyway.

I took the 'who she loves' comment as further evidence that Joss really doesn't think that question important. However, he could have flipped the whole thing off and just said "She loves Satsu", which those of his listeners who had the least idea who Satsu was would probably know wasn't true.

I still don't see him revisiting either Spuffy or Bangel in the comics, though, except in the way he already has, in Buffy's fantasy life/dreams.

Was nice to hear him say it, though.

[kseenaa.livejournal.com]

Sorry to hear your hands are still messing with you. :-/

I am a bit to lazy to listen to the whole thing, but this was all interesting. I liked the fact he admits that Spike and Faith is a more mature version off Angel and Buffy. I think that makes sense actually. At least to me. Maybe why I like those two characters most. :-)

[shapinglight]

Ooh, that session does sound worthwhile (and more considered than some things he's come up with...).

I'm sure you'd find it extremely interesting. You should definitely listen to it.

I think when he said he was ashamed that some episodes of Dollhouse didn't mean anything, he was probably talking about the early ones, which I've heard are pretty much Eliza Dresses Up In Sexy Costume of the Week. He doesn't exactly say that Fox insisted on that, but I suspect that was what he was trying to get at (this speech was made before Dollhouse was renewed).

The comment about not using drama to make a didactic point because then it ceases to be drama was made in connection with Dollhouse. He said something along the lines of people seem to think that Dollhouse is 'about feminism', but it isn't. It's a drama. That's paraphrasing badly. You should watch it.

[shapinglight]

Especially: alchoholism? What? Because that's all about getting a girl to sleep with you and then going on a months-long rampage. Yeah.

I've done Joss a disservice here. He wasn't talking about Angel's arc in BtVS but about AtS, which is a different kettle of fish. He also said that he found it very easy to connect with Buffy as a character but not at all with Angel, who was this traditional 'straight up' Hollywood hero. It took him a long time to figure out what AtS was about. In fact, I had the impression that he didn't until the very end - the final scene of NFA.

What I took away from that exchange was that Angel was pwnd, yo.

Well, it seems he doesn't see it that way. He was just presenting two differing povs. But you should listen to the whole thing. Very interesting, I thought.

[shapinglight]

Clearly, I need to rewatch S2 with this in mind.

As I said to snickfic above, he wasn't talking about Angel's arc in BtVS, where he's basically a plot device in Buffy's story, but about AtS itself.

Also, pretty much the entire rest of the series establishes that Angel is basically destiny's bitch, so I think maybe Joss' philosophy lost a little something in the translation to plot...

This is true. He did of course mention that he didn't write all this stuff alone, so I guess Greenwalt and others made their views known through the plot/characters too. He did say some interesting things about why the PTBs were so distant, though.

Will try and get back to this. Have to rush off to work now.

[brutti-ma-buoni.livejournal.com]

News to me, so thank you, and I shall listen, if only to get some pro-Dollhouse excitement going. It's on my rental list once it's released here, but it felt rather dutifully placed there. "Good fangirl, yes, you will watch the new Joss show."

[molly_may]

"She loves Spike, or maybe Satsu, I'm not sure sometimes."

Heee, I realize he said this jokingly, but as a Spuffy fan, I take whatever crumbs are tossed my way! And as someone who basically ignores the existence of the comics, I only see the first part of the sentence.;)

More seriously, thanks for posting this, because while I had seen the link at Whedonesque I hadn't listened to the speech yet, and now I'm very interested in doing so.

[shapinglight]

or if some other IDW writer would defy him and return Fred to life.

I hope it will happen, Socky, but to be honest cannot see a comic book writer preferring Fred to Illyria. Illyria is a character who has pretty much sprung from the pages of a superhero comic fully formed.

You never know, though.

:Hugs: and thanks for the good wishes.

[shapinglight]

He said this in answer to someone who asked him why the crew of Serenity were all such exceptional individuals who were the best at what they did. Whether this is true, I don't know, as I've never managed to get to the end of Firefly as you know, but Joss was a bit shame faced about it.

Presumably, he meant the crew to seem more ordinary.

[shapinglight]

I'm sorry your hands are still bad and that work is being a pain.

I think these things are connected actually. I've noticed that when work is particularly stressy, the hands play up more. :(

As for didacticism, I think as long as we make our philosophical and social points part of the fabric of our creations rather than the main focus, it sends a powerful message without feeling too preachy.

I agree. I think that was probably what Joss meant really, and the Angel/Kate scene is a case in point. I think he was just trying to say that Dollhouse, Firefly, BtVS etc weren't about one thing, but dramas incorporating various themes.

I shall definitely watch Dollhouse when I get the chance and will hope that Joss manages to stay closer to what he originally wanted to do in the second season.

[shapinglight]

I don't think he meant Spike and Faith as a couple. He meant that their character arcs were similar in being more messy and complicated, more 'grown up,' than Buffy's and Angel's, but along similar lines. Can't remember now how that related to B/A being a 'kiddy romance,' but it was in the context of a question about Faith. I'll have to go back and listen again.

[shapinglight]

I hope you enjoy it. I thought it was well worth the time.

[shapinglight]

Heee, I realize he said this jokingly, but as a Spuffy fan, I take whatever crumbs are tossed my way!

That's how I took it too. I don't know if it was entirely a joke. Perhaps. It came out as part of a list of questions, some of which he'd been asked:

How do you think we should watch your shows? DVR
Who would win in a fight, Buffy or River? River (some girl asked this as a joke question and he got the audience to cheer for one or the other to answer her.

The question of whether Buffy loves Angel or Spike wasn't actually asked by anyone, but the way he came out with this as part of a bunch of stock answers suggests he's been asked it a lot. There wasn't much of an audience reaction either, whereas when he said about B/A being a 'kiddie romance' like Twilight, there was a lot of muttering.

Anyway, do listen to it. It's very interesting, and he's nice about Spike when he mentions him , like he was in that Write Environment interview.

[next_to_normal]

he wasn't talking about Angel's arc in BtVS, where he's basically a plot device in Buffy's story, but about AtS itself.

Huh. I still don't really see the metaphor, but then again, from watching the show, I got the impression Joss and I see Angel pretty differently. What he's saying here sounds closer to my thoughts, but I've stopped trusting anything Joss says as representing what he actually thinks.

[shapinglight]

Well, it's not the first time I've heard Joss or one of the writers say that Angel's dual nature is supposed to be a sort of metaphor for a recovering alcoholic. In fact, I thought that vampirism in fiction/film had often been used in that way.

Re: the nebulousness of the PTBs - that seems to be tied in with Joss's belief that those with the power in this world often abuse it and use it for bad purposes. Therefore the senior partners of Wolfram and Hart, though we never see them, still seem more immediate and 'hands on' than the PTBs. Good is often powerless except in the most diffuse way.

I'm probably paraphrasing him very badly here. This part comes near the end of the film, about 85 minutes or so in.

[next_to_normal]

In fact, I thought that vampirism in fiction/film had often been used in that way.

Really? It's the first I've heard of it, but I'll happily admit, BtVS was my first foray into vampire lore.

The stuff about the PTB sounds interesting. I've never quite thought of them as "good" - more that they're self-interested powers, just like the Senior Partners, whose interests just happen to align with the best interests of humans. I tend to think that there is no real "greater power for good" in the Buffyverse - only our heroes who fight the good fight on the ground.

I'm watching the video now, but only about 20 minutes in.

[kseenaa.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean them as a couple either. :-) They just happen to be two of my favorite characters in the series. :-) In fact, I prefer Faith with Dawn. And Spike with Drusilla. *cough* But hey. ;-D

[shapinglight]

Have to admit to a liking for Faith/Giles myself, though that probably makes most people go ewww! :)

[shapinglight]

I tend to think that there is no real "greater power for good" in the Buffyverse - only our heroes who fight the good fight on the ground.

I'm pretty sure Joss would agree, which also explains why hell dimensions are so real, whereas Buffy's memory of 'heaven' is so vague as to be almost non-existent.

I'll be interested to know what you thought when you've seen the whole thing.

[next_to_normal]

Having watched his actual answer, I found the Angel/alcoholism to be pretty unsatisfying. I think the alcoholism metaphor would've worked better if they didn't have this mythology where Angel and Angelus appeared to literally be two separate people. I like his description of it as one consciousness operating under two different moral structures, but I don't think that's what we were consistently shown.

The PTB thing makes sense, given Joss' perspective. I think it's somewhat unusual in this kind of mythology to not have equal opposing forces - if there's a First Evil, why isn't there a First Good? Why is there so much about hell dimensions, but only passing reference to heavenly ones? Why are the Senior Partners so much more hands-on than the PTB? It makes for a rather grim worldview if evil has all the power and only has to maintain the status quo in order to triumph. But it makes sense when you realize Joss isn't telling a story about good vs. evil, he's telling a story about abuse of power and oppression. By definition, there can be no all-powerful good guys, because power corrupts.

That also kind of ties back into why Joss doesn't believe in God, I suppose, because God IS the all-powerful good guy, and Joss doesn't think those exist.

[shapinglight]

I like his description of it as one consciousness operating under two different moral structures, but I don't think that's what we were consistently shown.

No, I agree. We weren't. That could well stem from the fact that AtS was more Greenwalt's show than Joss's and when Greenwalt left (end of season 3) Tim Minear's. From what I remember of Minear's view, which admittedly isn't much, Minear takes a more simplistic view of the Angel/Angelus business and thinks they're two separate people. Hence the season 4 arc where Angelus remembers the Beast but Angel doesn't. Minear was show-runner then.

Which is a very long-winded way of saying that Joss didn't have as much to do with AtS as he did with BtVS/Firefly and therefore his expression of his vision in that show is more inconsistent, which may well stem from his own admission that he found Angel a difficult character to deal with because he didn't really understand him.

But it makes sense when you realize Joss isn't telling a story about good vs. evil, he's telling a story about abuse of power and oppression. By definition, there can be no all-powerful good guys, because power corrupts.

Yes, and hearing him articulate it like that made me more optimistic that we are not supposed to take everything Comics Buffy does, like robbing banks etc, as perfectly acceptable, and that it may at some point be dealt with. Comics Buffy is a lot more powerful now that she has the Slayers to back her up and Joss believes power corrupts.

That also kind of ties back into why Joss doesn't believe in God, I suppose, because God IS the all-powerful good guy, and Joss doesn't think those exist.

Yeah, he's an Existentialist, though one with a sense of humour, which perhaps explains BtVS season 3 Angel's reading material (Sartre, was it, or Camus?) during the episodes where Joss and co were gently poking fun at B/A and their unsuitability.

[kseenaa.livejournal.com]

Oh, man... You are not alone there... *grin* Faith works with most characters. Faith/Angel. Faith/Buffy. I could go on... ;-)

[next_to_normal]

which may well stem from his own admission that he found Angel a difficult character to deal with because he didn't really understand him.

You know, that was another thing that struck me as odd. Joss described Angel as being "a straight-up hero" - which, I'd agree, that's not Joss' typical character range, but I think Angel's far more complex than that. I'd say he's more of an anti-hero, really, and I was kind of thinking, "Man, if that's how you see Angel, you really don't understand him."

Yes, and hearing him articulate it like that made me more optimistic that we are not supposed to take everything Comics Buffy does, like robbing banks etc, as perfectly acceptable, and that it may at some point be dealt with.

You know, it's funny, it didn't even occur to me to consider the comics in relation to what he was saying (which probably shows how little I think of the comics, lol), but yeah, I think you're probably right. On the other hand, despite what he says about every character of his needing redemption, all his redemptions are not created equal, so I'm still iffy on the extent to which we'll see Buffy as being wrong.

[yourlibrarian]

I've just listened to the whole thing (90 minutes, so no casual undertaking

Funny that, we've watched about 60 minutes of it so far but between computer reboots and starting work again haven't seen it all yet. (This past week I moved to a new computer, or rather Mike and I have swapped computers, and it's been somewhat trying in terms of things that don't work the same or don't seem to work at all).

You've probably all talked about this already, haven't you, ages ago, and I didn't notice?

If someone has, I haven't seen it, so I'm glad you brought it up. I was actually quite interested by his discussion of death, especially as he said that most of his work now is about death as a part of life. I found that rather curious given that many people's beef with him (as in the Fred discussion) is about how Joss is always killing off his characters and I think that it's usually just for dramatic effect or to serve the larger storyline. I did think, though, that his reference to how he lost his fear of dying when he had a child (and how interesting that his kids go by their mother's name -- so much more sensible) made me think again of how Angel's Shansu could take place through Connor.

I also quite liked his discussion of characters with opposing POV and being able to love both and not know who is right. It seems to me that when creators do this with their characters it often gives a lot of longevity to the show exactly because people feel frustrated with not ever being able to resolve those same disputes, because there is no one answer. It made me think, too, about something he said in some interview before about how the help one character needs may come from their worst enemy, or someone they hardly know. Essentially no character exists who doesn't have something redeeming about them. I suspect that's part of the incredible "faith" of the humanist in the face of overwhelming evidence!

[sockmonkeyhere.livejournal.com]

I hope it will happen, Socky, but to be honest cannot see a comic book writer preferring Fred to Illyria. Illyria is a character who has pretty much sprung from the pages of a superhero comic fully formed.

That's what's so especially heart-breaking: they wouldn't HAVE to give up Illyria in order to bring Fred back; they could easily write a plot that gives BOTH characters life and a place in the comic book stories. But because they're young male fanboys, they don't want to include Fred because they think she's unsexy and boring. And these young male fanboys will always have total control over the comics, and will always write them solely for other young male fanboys, and they'll always do whatever BL wants because he's become their golden boy. And what BL wants is to have Spike all to himself forever, away from the other canon characters and hanging out only with his own original characters...and to have Fred stay dead with a burnt-up soul.

And there's absolutely nothing that any fan can do to change that. IDW could be inundated with thousands of requests from adult women readers and they'd still ignore them in favor of what their peers, the other young male fanboys, want. As long as IDW is run by young male fanboys, AtS will never be anything like the TV series; it'll be just another X-Men, but without even the small bit of romance that X-Men was allowed, and with Illyria-Not-Even-A-Trace-Of-Fred front and center as the young male fanboys' wet dream. I'll bet if Amy Acker herself asked them to let her help write Fred back into the series, they'd say no.

When I read that Whedon said he was sorry about not realizing how much his destroying Fred's soul would upset people, I was floored. He honestly thought people wouldn't mind? Was that due to his being an atheist and not believing that souls really exist anyway, and just assuming that everyone else felt the same way as him? If so, he's an extremely naive man.

(I wonder what Ch. & company thought about his publicly calling B/A a "kiddie romance." Yikes!)

[shapinglight]

And what BL wants is to have Spike all to himself forever, away from the other canon characters and hanging out only with his own original characters...and to have Fred stay dead with a burnt-up soul.

I'm pretty sure you're right about most of BL's plans. He probably is going to hive Spike off to only interact with his OCs, which doesn't please me much, have to say. He could even have been told he can't use Illyria because IDW want to do something else with the character. However, where Fred's concerned, I really don't think he's thought about it that much. He's just going with what Joss said. Joss probably told him which characters he was allowed to bring back and for how long. I don't expect to see Wesley back again either, or Cordelia.

I'll bet if Amy Acker herself asked them to let her help write Fred back into the series, they'd say no.

I'm not so sure about that, Socky. I think they would do it.

Was that due to his being an atheist and not believing that souls really exist anyway, and just assuming that everyone else felt the same way as him? If so, he's an extremely naive man.

I'm not sure if that was the reason. I'm not sure he even gave it that much thought. He confesses himself that his primary thought was how hot Amy Acker looked in the Illyria costume. :(

(I wonder what Ch. & company thought about his publicly calling B/A a "kiddie romance." Yikes!)

If they know about it, I'm sure Lucinda, who isn't a Joss lover as far as I can see, would be all bitter and twisted about it and Cheryl, who comes on like the high priestess of the Church of Joss, would find some way to wank it to her own satisfaction that he means the exact opposite of what he says.

[shapinglight]

I was actually quite interested by his discussion of death, especially as he said that most of his work now is about death as a part of life. I found that rather curious given that many people's beef with him (as in the Fred discussion) is about how Joss is always killing off his characters and I think that it's usually just for dramatic effect or to serve the larger storyline.

It is, of course, but I think he also thinks that by doing it - especially in sudden unexpected deaths like Anya's and Wash's - he's making a point; about how we can't escape death and it can happen in sudden and shocking ways, and we just have to look it in the face and accept it. Or something. With him, I have the impression that nothing is ever quite for dramatic effect, which could possibly explain why in subverting various televisual storytelling cliches, he's created some cliches of his own.

It seems to me that when creators do this with their characters it often gives a lot of longevity to the show exactly because people feel frustrated with not ever being able to resolve those same disputes, because there is no one answer.

Very much so. I suppose it's why we're still arguing about BtVS to this day. Good thing really, and a contrast with other, sometimes better, shows, that when they're finished leave you feeling you have nothing to say.

[shapinglight]

and I was kind of thinking, "Man, if that's how you see Angel, you really don't understand him."

It could well be that Joss's idea of a 'straight up hero' isn't quite the same as ours. Certainly, with both Angel and with what little I've seen of Mal in Firefly, he seems to have an uncontrollable urge to make the character look petty/silly on occasion, in order to deflate them.

And of course he does the same with 'cool villain' Spike. The nerd's revenge perhaps?

I'm not sure I'd describe Angel as an anti-hero myself. He's too earnestly trying to do the right thing, even if he keeps making horrendous mistakes. I'd always thought of an anti-hero as being more like Spike, or how Spike affects to be once he's won his soul - doing good but trying to affect that he's doing it despite himself, not because he really cares (though Spike plainly does). I accept I may have the wrong impression.

Joss said more about the idea of Angel as 'straight up' hero on that Write Environment CD, where he compares Angel to Spike rather unfavorably, saying Angel's more of your typical Ann Rice brooding type vampire.

I suspect what it comes down to is that Joss finds Angel too conventional for his taste.

[next_to_normal]

he seems to have an uncontrollable urge to make the character look petty/silly on occasion, in order to deflate them.

I dunno, I actually like that about his heroes. :) Especially with Angel, because he really needed some lightening up.

I'm not sure Angel totally fits as anti-hero, but he just has far too much grey for me to see him as "straight-up hero." That's what really surprised me about Joss' comment, because Angel's a character with so many layers of good and bad (and that doesn't necessarily line up with whether or not he has a soul), and it seemed weird for him to not recognize that complexity.

[yourlibrarian]

in subverting various televisual storytelling cliches, he's created some cliches of his own.

He's also set up a hard task for himself because I know I always expect to be surprised by Joss' work now exactly because it was characterized by subverting cliches (sometimes with humor, sometimes with actions).

a contrast with other, sometimes better, shows, that when they're finished leave you feeling you have nothing to say.

Yes, or else what you're trying to figure out is what was the author's message rather than trying to debate the merits of the issue itself. I think his approach, a totally character based writing scheme, leads to that sort of openness because even when people agree it's not necessarily for the same reasons.

[shapinglight]

I dunno, I actually like that about his heroes.

Oh, I like it too. Petty Angel is one of my favourite incarnations of the character, just like he is Joss's.

That's what really surprised me about Joss' comment, because Angel's a character with so many layers of good and bad (and that doesn't necessarily line up with whether or not he has a soul), and it seemed weird for him to not recognize that complexity.

I don't know if it's that he doesn't recognise the complexity, more that 'straight-up hero' is his baseline starting point for the character and all the greyness and complications are added on top of that.

Not that we can really know, I suppose, short of pinning him down and asking him ourselves.

[shapinglight]

He's also set up a hard task for himself because I know I always expect to be surprised by Joss' work now exactly because it was characterized by subverting cliches (sometimes with humor, sometimes with actions).

This is true, and is probably one reason why I find the Buffy comic so disappointing. So far, everything is exactly what it seems (when it makes any sense at all).

I think his approach, a totally character based writing scheme, leads to that sort of openness because even when people agree it's not necessarily for the same reasons.

Good point. And now you've said that, I find myself rather awestruck by the sheer cleverness of it.

[sockmonkeyhere.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure you're right about most of BL's plans. He probably is going to hive Spike off to only interact with his OCs, which doesn't please me much, have to say.

I imagine there's lots of readers who don't go online and won't know about Spike being separated from all the other canon characters until they purchase and read the comic books. If a lot of them don't like it and want Spike back with the Fang Gang, maybe they'll contact IDW and protest in enough numbers that IDW will cancel or at least shorten the "Spike Gets Spun Off Into BL OriginalCharacterLand" plan. (If he goes through with his fantasy of pairing Spike with that godawful Spider, surely that will generate quite a lot of negative feedback -- again, maybe enough to convince IDW to put Spike back into the AtS stories.)

He could even have been told he can't use Illyria because IDW want to do something else with the character. However, where Fred's concerned, I really don't think he's thought about it that much. He's just going with what Joss said. Joss probably told him which characters he was allowed to bring back and for how long. I don't expect to see Wesley back again either, or Cordelia.

BL must be awfully surprised by all the reader requests to restore Wes, Cordy, and Fred. I guess he just assumed that all AtS fans were as enamored of Joss as he is, and that we all happily accept whatever Joss says and does with the characters.

I'm not sure if that was the reason. I'm not sure he even gave it that much thought. He confesses himself that his primary thought was how hot Amy Acker looked in the Illyria costume. :(

I swear to God, men who let their penises do their thinking should NEVER be allowed to write scripts. I'm still shaking my head in amazement over BL squealing in the IDW forums that "Fans of Fred and Illyria, Issue 14 is gonna knock your socks off!" He honestly thought that Fred fans would be thrilled and excited to discover that he hadn't brought Fred back after all? That just seeing her mentioned anywhere in the story, even if the mention was that she didn't exist, would make us happy? And that having Illyria mack on Spike would make up for that?

I'll bet if Amy Acker herself asked them to let her help write Fred back into the series, they'd say no.

I'm not so sure about that, Socky. I think they would do it.

Hmm...I wonder if I could find Amy Acker's mailing address. And/or Juliette Landau's...

I'll keep e-mailing LiveFred and Spike/Fred requests to IDW, but at this point about all I can hope for is that the novelty of hogging Spike to himself will wear off for BL after awhile, and that one of the other IDW writers will NOT be of the "Joss is God" camp and will bring the missing Fang Gangers back.

the high priestess of the Church of Joss, would find some way to wank it to her own satisfaction that he means the exact opposite of what he says.

LOL! "By 'kiddie romance' he obviously means that Buffy and Angel are going to have kids!"