Whedonesque : Comments on 15710 : (SPOILER) Scott Allie comments on Buffy #12 and Whedonesque's reactions.

I get the Dark Horse company's necessity for the Times article, but from a storytelling point-of-view, it's actually made it a bigger deal than it should've.

Would ABC have picked up on it had the Times not ran the interview? Maybe, but also maybe not. Is Buffy S8 really on a national radar like that? It's not exactly the unmasking (and then forced remasking and universe-changing, but that's a rant for another time) of Spider-Man or the death of Captain America.

UnpluggedCrazy | March 07, 12:35 CET

I think Scott and the team did perfectly right.

And regarding the stir i think, that one pleasurable night sad and lonely Buffy shared with Satsu, the slayer, having a crush on her, will stay a standalone thing. And i find it perfectly fitting and artistically very well done. First I liked the whole cinnamon lipstick mystery, later on Buffy talking to satsu during that fight in the graveyard, I really loved how hard buffy tried to do the right thing after having realized how Satsu was in love with her, trying so hard avoiding to hurt her, and at the same moment that expression between hope and hurt on satsus face (very well done, Georges, thank you!), and it was all about parting, and then her tears and then ... absolutely hilarious!

Latest issues I could get here in Germany last week is #10 and 11. I hugely enjoyed them, especially the dialogue between Willow, Buffy and Robin. I've been waiting for years that the conflicts between the friends would be adressed in a proper way, and the ending was so sad, when they left, sadly, wordless, in different directins. Robins words were so beautifully chosen. I hope the real Robin enjoys the comic and her own strength, to keep the demons that must have been put into her by bad people under control.

Yes it's true, again I shed a few tears over those pages.

Frankly, I do not quite understand that Twilight guy. Is his main strength flying and knowing, having observed much stuff, so he will be able to morally corrupt buffy?

I'm looking forward to "Wolves at the Gate".

cleveland | March 07, 12:41 CET

it's actually made it a bigger deal than it should've.

Well to those who had a better memory than me, what was the press coverage like when Buffy got together with Angel and then Spike?

Simon | March 07, 12:50 CET

Simon, I'm not from the US and I started to follow Buffy in real time since Season 5 onwards, so I can be wrong, but I don't remember national press or TV stations picking up on Buffy news in either of those cases. Or better, in 8 years of fandom, I haven't seen any video or recollection of it. Let's be honest, if Buffy had hooked up with the Immortal or Randow New Guy there would've been hardly any coverage from the NYT. It's all because it's a girl she slept with, and this is a sign of the poor, double standard-afflicted times we're living.

Perseo | March 07, 13:13 CET

I couldn't agree more, Perseo.

zillah | March 07, 13:23 CET

Buffy/Angel got a fair bit of magazine coverage in Australia.. not really the same though I suppose.
I appreciated Scott taking the time to respond to concerns.

alexa | March 07, 13:37 CET

The only time Buffy got more press than usual was when the WB decided to delay the final episode of season three because it featured the graduating class blowing up the school. This came a few weeks after the Columbine shootings. They delayed "Earshot" for the same reason.
Even though the Times and ABC have issued stories on Buffy #12, it's almost a relief we haven't seen more coverage and attention towards it by the mainstream media. I'm hoping we have a loud and brief murmur, then move on to worrying about gas prices, mortgages and who will be President.

impalergeneral | March 07, 14:15 CET

Spoiled via the RSS feed again! Damn!

catalyst2 | March 07, 14:21 CET

I agree, it's always nice to have publicity but only to a certain degree, especially because this is unfortunately a tricky subject and very easy to trivialize and misread.

It's nice of Scott to dot the i's and cross the t's, but I wish there wasn't need to. This is a double-edged sword for DH. More sales (maybe), more ranting from the fans.

Perseo | March 07, 14:22 CET

Joss and Darkhorse took the approach they did because they knew that to risk not doing it that way would be wrong for them. It's their story and they wanted to control the reaction. I thought it was a very professional approach.

As Scott said, I've no doubt that Drew, Joss and the team know what they are doing and will deliver us a fantastic arc. Joss and Drew may have us jumping to conclusions before we know how it's going to play out and that may be exactly the way they want it.

Hee | March 07, 14:37 CET

And it's a bold, gutsy way to storytell, because it's not pandering to the fans or trying to please them with what they already know. We always go back to "what they need, not what they want" with Joss and his writers. I, for one, love that Season 8 is taking risks and going places instead of being fluff self-contained stories about ineffectual little-bads that confirm the status quo. If stories don't bring about change to the situation they started up with, they don't work. That's why I don't understand fans who say the characters don't ring true anymore.. characters need to evolve to stay alive.

Perseo | March 07, 14:44 CET

Well, I seem to remember that studies on this area say that there are quite a lot of woman having at least experimented with other sexual orientations. Don't see a reason why buffy could not fall into this category, taking her past. So it is not totally out of character for me. Question is, if angel was her true love (and her final destiny) staying like this might negate a lot of the past history. But anyhow, the man at the helmet is someone else. So the only real question here, do we like it or not.

Snugels | March 07, 15:12 CET

It's true, and not just women only. Anyhow, I don't see this one-night stand as a change of sexuality.. I see it as a request for warmth. For a link with someone else, and sex is the highest, most intimate link with someone. It doesn't matter that she's a woman, it matters that she's close to Buffy. It must be a woman because after all, the Slayers are the closest thing to Buffy's heart right now.

About Angel, we all think our first love is our one true love and final destiny. Doesn't mean they really are. I never saw Joss saying one way or the other, and I think Chosen was an open door for both options. Getting back together in the future or not. And EVEN IF Buffy gets with Satsu, why does it negate her past with Angel ? She loved him back then.

Perseo | March 07, 15:25 CET

I was kinda concerned about the issue going into #12, but it was handled great. My faith with Joss remains STRONG.

archon | March 07, 15:44 CET

I do remember, however, vacationing in Florida, on the Monday/Tuesday that "Surprise" and "Innocence" aired. There's actually a photo of me holding up a newspaper, on which is a sprawling photo of Buffy and Angel kissing. Can't make out the headline (or even which section it's in), but I guess they did get *some* media attention.

I, too, add my voice to the happy department, in terms of this development. I'm very interested to see what happens!

Knuckleball | March 07, 16:22 CET

I agree with snugels that it's just a realistic description of sexual experimentation (from Buffy's side). So it's not such a big thing to me. The interesting part is that Buffy really gave in, while she always appeared (and will certainly stay generally) as outright straight.

So the headlines might be bigger for those, who forgot about these former Buffy-Faith vibes.

With one one-night-stand like this, a sad person speaking out truly, a person in love, clinging on every sign that it still might happen, I can't see any manipulation-abuse scenario going on at the moment, leaving alone of Spuffy-like dimensions.

I'm looking forward to see how the Satsu-Buffy relationship will develop. Will there be tears? A few more shared nights? Or a comparatively mature and peaceful solution, with more solace than harm .....?

[ edited by cleveland on 2008-03-07 14:03 ]

cleveland | March 07, 16:32 CET

I think Scott might have directed some of his comments in his article at comments I made on the original thread. I was the one arguing that they made it a "very special issue" by letting the comic stores know to order extra. Well, that is interesting. :-)

Dana5140 | March 07, 16:46 CET

Perseo yeah it is a gutsy way to tell a story and isn't that's why everyone loved Whedon's stories? because they weren't afraid to stand on the field where most others were hiding and trying to blend in with everyone else in the bleachers (stadium seats).

As for poor little Satsu. What about she's manipulating Buffy and letting Buffy think she's in control. I think Buffy is going to end up hurt by Satsu with her Japanese name connected to this Japanese arc. It sure sounds like Scott is saying saying don't get all excited about it we've made it look like something but actually it's nothing and nothing bad.

Hee | March 07, 16:49 CET

I'm actually mellowing a little about this. At first, I disliked it very much -- not because Buffy slept with a girl, but because it was /so/ sudden and jarringly out of nowhere -- but through conversations here, I see that it could be turned to a balance of power theme, paralleling in some respects the Xander/Renee relationship. After all, why else would he ask her out in this issue, if the two were not in some way related?

So... I'm going to be optimistic about where this goes. I really wish we'd seen more build up to it so my initial reaction could've been more positive but I'm going to hope that it all ends up being something I'll really like.

[ edited by swanjun on 2008-03-07 14:16 ]

swanjun | March 07, 17:15 CET

Of course, they could have got Joss's view out there by posting something on their own website. I'd have loved to have seen if the mainstream media would have picked up on this without them going to so much trouble to make sure it did get noticed in the first place.

helcat | March 07, 17:25 CET

I'm not mellowing so much as just feeling a little ambivalent abuot the Buffy character right now. I think the sexuality is a red-herring, a convenient way to pigeonhole all negative reaction to this, despite the fact that Scott Allie explicitly said that Buffy was *using this girl who loves her*. That's just... okay, apparently.

And, yeah, I didn't like how random it seemed -- how Buffy never diverted from her "no" in 8.11 but apparently somehow decided she was horny/lonely/curious enough (again, all inferred from Scott's and Joss' interview) to change her mind *off-screen*. I'd have much rather Buffy been moved to give into those feeling in an emotional context -- like, go for the kiss in the infirmary in 8.11, for instance. Instead, she gave in to those urges with no context at all. And that was upsetting.

KingofCretins | March 07, 17:45 CET

It's good of him to respond, even if it's basically pointless IMO. Those that want to think it's a stunt will continue to do so, probably moreso the more vehement the denials and those that don't won't - again, probably irrespective of evidence.

As i've said, i'm happy to assume Joss and Drew did it because that's where the story took them (certainly until i've read it anyway) but, not being idiots or naive about the difference between what should happen (no fuss because everyone's totally cool with same gender sex) and what actually will happen (this much fuss because they're not), realised that with that story comes controversy and opportunity. Dark Horse have managed both quite well - fair play to them, they're not a charity, they're trying to make money (as well as create great comics).

That's why I don't understand fans who say the characters don't ring true anymore.. characters need to evolve to stay alive.

Evolution isn't the same as jarring inconsistency though (just pointing it out since I personally think the characterisations are spot on for the most part).

The Buffy/Satsu thing is stretching her character on paper IMO but it's all down to a) how it's done (still haven't read it, bloody work, boo ;) and b) how it's followed up as to whether it's inconsistency or evolution. I don't mind not liking her for a bit if that's how it goes, that comes with the sickle (I didn't for large parts of season 7 for instance).

Saje | March 07, 18:01 CET

I'm not sure they think it's /okay/ for her to have done it. Hopefully they'll explore the various ways in which it wasn't.

swanjun | March 07, 18:03 CET

I haven't received issue 12 yet or had a chance to read the other threads concerning this, but with all the assertive convincing that Buffy did in issue 11, I kept thinking, "Yep, she's getting feelings, too, but fighting it hard." So it's not a surprise that the next issue finds them in bed.

I haven't had a chance to go through 11 with Robin yet, either. She's had a rough week and wouldn't remember any of it if I did.

Edited to clarify: I WAS surprised to see them in bed, but it was a pleasant surprise, like "Whoa, cool twist!" rather than a negative shock.

[ edited by JerrodBalzer on 2008-03-07 15:25 ]

JerrodBalzer | March 07, 18:12 CET

I just now got our first letter of comment on the issue, from a reader who likened the scene in question to sexually explicit fan fiction, and said that if this becomes a regular thing he'll stop reading the book. Of course I hope he sticks around . . .

You heard him, start writing letters saying that you want more issues that equate to sexually explicit fanfic or we're never getting any more hot Slayer-on-Slayer action!!! Joking, of course. I respect that some people may have this reaction, but I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed by it. You gotta have some faith in the folks who brought us 7 previous incredible seasons. When was the last time Joss and team failed to pay attention to every little nuance of a situation? Not often and the very specific reaction shots and even placement of characters within scenes in the comic is a testament to the fact that they know what they are doing. If this totally blindsided you, it might be time to go back and read Season 8 again. While it may not be wholly expected, its been teased since, what, issue 2? And if anyone thinks that what we saw really equates to sexually explicit fanfic, let me assure you that that was All Ages compared to real sexually explicit fanfic. Really, network TV in the US goes further than what we saw in issue #12.

The Buffy/Satsu thing is stretching her character on paper IMO but it's all down to a) how it's done (still haven't read it, bloody work, boo ;) and b) how it's followed up as to whether it's inconsistency or evolution. I don't mind not liking her for a bit if that's how it goes, that comes with the sickle (I didn't for large parts of season 7 for instance).

Hear hear. And I fully expect follow up on the issues at play here (Buffy's sexuality, power and authority as it relates to relationships, the potential abuse of that power inherent in X/R and B/S, etc.). If we don't see any of this, then forget everything I said and forget that Josh Wheldon guy ;)

zeitgeist | March 07, 18:26 CET

A common criticism of late season Buffy is that people had to read the interviews to follow what the story was supposed to be. So again here we have Joss promising us that this doesn't make Buffy gay, rather than trusting the story as written to get that point across.

helcat | March 07, 18:33 CET

If this totally blindsided you, it might be time to go back and read Season 8 again. While it may not be wholly expected, its been teased since, what, issue 2?

I absolutely picked up on Satsu's feelings all along - I just didn't expect that she'd actually get anywhere with Buffy.

And if anyone thinks that what we saw really equates to sexually explicit fanfic, let me assure you that that was All Ages compared to real sexually explicit fanfic.

Seriously!

swanjun | March 07, 18:34 CET

zeitgeist/Saje/et al, I agree with about 98% of everything that's been posted so far. Except the person who wrote the letter. I don't mean this in a mean way, but if they really think this issue in any way resembled "sexually explicit fan fiction", they should go out and actually read some of that; after that, if they still can't tell the difference, they probably should stop reading the comic, 'cause it's over their heads.

Rowan Hawthorn | March 07, 18:37 CET

A common criticism of late season Buffy is that people had to read the interviews to follow what the story was supposed to be. So again here we have Joss promising us that this doesn't make Buffy gay, rather than trusting the story as written to get that point across.

Really? Was that a common criticism? I don't recall seeing that before. I don't think that it was necessary to read interviews to know what was going on. I have always found, however, that coming to Whedonesque to discuss an episode/issue afterwards definitely helped me to see it from all sides and pick up on anything that I may have missed. Its like rewatching/rereading with subtitles that say "HEY, LOOK AT THAT!!!". But I don't think it was ever required that you read interviews to follow the storyline and I don't think that way now.

And I don't think Joss isn't trusting the story, I think he's reeling in some people who may've been thrown by it and not inclined to stick around and see where the story goes. With comics the wait is longer to see the payoff and a lot of people are going to their comic shop specifically for this, so I think he felt that they would be less likely to make the trip and go out of their way than to sit in front of the show next week to see how it plays out. Make sense?

zeitgeist | March 07, 18:38 CET

All the media attention is a lot like the unexpected attention Buffy and Satsu got! Except the media attention is a little more orchestrated, and, I would guess, welcomed.

Lioness | March 07, 18:50 CET

I wouldn't say interviews are required to understand the story. But any discourse, whether interviews or the comments here on Whedonesque, can sometimes provide fresh perspectives. For example, in the Newsarama interview, Joss said: "They’re both wondering if they’re going to get hurt or if they’re going to hurt the other person, and whether or not they should have done it." Some here have commented on how Buffy is using Satsu, but I hadn't really considered that the same could be said for Satsu. She knows Buffy is lonely, feeling disconnected, and drawn to her. Satsu could easily be worried that she--Satsu--took advantage of Buffy, rather than the other way around.

1starbuckstown | March 07, 18:50 CET

Sorry, I meant it's something I've commonly seen online and that naturally reflects places I visit. However, if you want to see discussion of it just pop by the Buffy threads at TWoP where it is a frequently mentioned complaint. Personally I was always happy to go by what I saw on screen and ignore any authorial 'clarification' and for the most part I think I got what the writers were trying to say. Hey, I actually got that Spike wanted a soul all along just from watching the show.

Bottom line I hate that we have interviews stressing how this is so not a big deal and that it doesn't actually mean anything has changed with Buffy while acting as a huge advertisement saying 'buy this comic, it's got Buffy in bed...WITH A GIRL!!!1111!'

helcat | March 07, 19:02 CET

Satsu could easily be worried that she--Satsu--took advantage of Buffy, rather than the other way around.

Absolutely. Its something I wondered if (and was hoping that) we would see acknowledged or explored from the get-go. Satsu knows Bufy doesn't normally swing that way, so in a very real sense, she is inviting some future heartache on herself (and using Buffy). Spike likewise used Buffy as she was using him, all the while hoping against hope that it would lead somewhere. I feel for Satsu and Spike.

zeitgeist | March 07, 19:10 CET

I get it-I do really understand why the NYT article, etc. I just wish it wasn't necessary at all. Sort of like the reason Joss gave (in the Equality Now speech) about writing strong female characters. For me this has very little to do with the "controversy" and everything to do with exceptional story-telling.

I think Season 8 is going in a really interesting direction. Aside from that, I'm interested in the moral ambiguity in an entire army of slayers and all the repercussions Buffy never could have foreseen. I absolutely loved that bit in the last issue about Buffy's moral certainty being shaken. It's an awesome twist!

I think based on the character development, this is all very organic. In short, I dig it. Way.

Betsy | March 07, 19:11 CET

And if anyone thinks that what we saw really equates to sexually explicit fanfic, let me assure you that that was All Ages compared to real sexually explicit fanfic. Really, network TV in the US goes further than what we saw in issue #12.

I laughed when I read the part about that letter. The scenes between Buffy and Satsu were more emotional than sexual and if I'd been rating them, I wouldn't give it more than a PG-13 or an FRT. Frankly, the scenes between Buffy/Riley or Buffy/Spike in the televised series were more sexually explicit as compared to issue #12.

menomegirl | March 07, 19:52 CET

Frankly, the scenes between Buffy/Riley or Buffy/Spike in the televised series were more sexually explicit as compared to issue #12.

And I suspect there are plenty of heterosexual males for whom this is the chief complaint about this particular twist. :-)

jclemens | March 07, 20:17 CET

:)

zeitgeist | March 07, 20:30 CET

I haven't read the book yet, but I'm very excited about this development.

I have always been very frustrated with how un-nuanced Willow's coming out was. I mean, she loves Oz, Oz dumps her, she falls in love with Tara, and then she's a No-Men-Ever-I'm-Gay lesbian? It's so possible to fall in love with a woman and not be gay, so I've been frustrated that we didn't get to see this play out more with Willow. There are so many more degrees than gay and not-gay.

Thank you Joss!

whedongeeky | March 07, 20:35 CET

Why are so many people assuming that this is going to be just a one-night stand? Just because Buffy said they should leave it at one wonderful night, as the song says, it ain't necessarily going to play out that way. She did tell Satsu in the first place that nothing was going to happen, and she told Spike that she would never have sex with him, and we all know how those worked out. Very often people make intelligent, reasoned decisions about the best route to follow, and then the heat comes on and the reasoning part of the brain just gets totally detached (sort of like the saucer part of the Enterprise in the pilot episode of TNG.)

barboo | March 07, 21:08 CET

The whole issue was spectacular. Nuff said!

toontimer | March 07, 21:13 CET

Why are so many people assuming that this is going to be just a one-night stand?

I think people are reading that into what Joss has had to say about the issue in interviews. Of course, there are other ways to read what he's saying, but that coupled (no pun intended) with what Buffy is saying makes it seem so.

zeitgeist | March 07, 21:22 CET

Well, Joss said that they're not turning Buffy gay, and I suspect have her repeating the act with Satsu would strongly lean in that direction. From how Drew proposed the thing to Joss, that it would be a spontaneous spurt of the moment.. I'm not feeling the encore. Could be way wrong, though. We'll see.

Perseo | March 07, 21:23 CET

...a spontaneous spurt of the moment...

Paging Dr Freud, Dr Freud to the front desk please.

;-)

Saje | March 07, 21:24 CET

Saje, I was paging him myself while I was writing that!

Perseo | March 07, 21:27 CET

Heh ;).

Saje | March 07, 21:28 CET

See how I didn't even comment on that? I think I've grown as a person ;) Although I did giggle in an undignified manner while reading it, so...

zeitgeist | March 07, 21:40 CET

No, if you read the interviews it's clear that it wasn't a spontaneous spurt, that rather it was a long time coming.

jclemens | March 07, 21:49 CET

EWWWWW!

swanjun | March 07, 21:53 CET

As a lesbian fan & scholar of the Buffyverse, I was delighted to see Buffy and Satsu sexually and emotionally entangled. Whether this is a one-night or one-year or ongoing "friends with benefits" relationship, the characters are moving forward. This brings Satsu into the forefront in contrast to the throng of Slayers in the background. /She/ now has as much (or more) room for development as (than) Buffy herself. For all we know, Satsu could develop into one of the most powerful characters in the Buffyverse. I appreciated Hee's comment regarding the Japanese enemy / Japanese lover coincidence--that is, how can this possibly be a coincidence? In some way, Whedon, et al. are going to have to deal with race politics in a way that (as many Whedon scholars and critics have noted) was not paramount in the television show. This plot development opens numerous doors for potential conflict, struggle, and resolution (or not), and I for one am eager to see where the story will take us. Finally, for me, the intensity I loved about the television show is back. Let's go to work! Thanks Joss!

willowcedar | March 07, 21:56 CET

Jclemens, it was planned from the writers' POV, not from Buffy's.

Zeitgeist, how mature of you:-)

Perseo | March 07, 22:06 CET

zeitgeist - only because Saje beat you to it! ;)

ruthless1 | March 07, 22:07 CET

Carry on Whedonesque.

Simon | March 07, 22:10 CET

No, I deliberately held off for many, many seconds before Saje commented. Does it count as restraint if I guessed that he would make the comment for me? ;)

Somewhat topically (meta-topically?), here we are in a thread discussing a link that discusses our discussion of a link that the person talking in this link was involved in. Dizzy yet? Round and round we go. Great discussion the past few days, however, good on you all.

ETA - menomegirl - why are you exclaiming one users name at another user? (joke!)

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-03-07 19:15 ]

zeitgeist | March 07, 22:11 CET

zeitgeist-Right there with you. ;)

jclemens-Hee!

zeitgeist-LOL!

[ edited by menomegirl on 2008-03-07 19:23 ]

menomegirl | March 07, 22:14 CET

So zeitgeist, you are saying there is a connection between Whedonesque and Satsu?

[ edited by Lioness on 2008-03-07 19:18 ]

Lioness | March 07, 22:17 CET

No, and you cannot draw me back into Ben/Glory River/Chocolate either, so don't even try ;)

zeitgeist | March 07, 22:21 CET

I finally got to read the issue...totally great stuff.

However, I think the excitement that followed the big reveal was way more fun though. I could totally visualize all the actors stumbling into the room one at a time and getting awesome reaction shots from each. (btw--am I the only one that didn't realize it was Andrew doing the superman scene while flying Willow Airlines? I had to immediately turn back a few pages to re-read his lines in "his voice.")

alexreager | March 07, 22:21 CET

Let me throw out an idea or thought that really isn't mine, that I read elsewhere. Many people have commented on a couple of things with regard to Buffy sleeping with Satsu; one is that this is an age when that kind of experimentation may take place and that sexuality can be fluid, and the second is that when we are feeling alone and unconnected, this can happen to forge a connection and to obtain some comfort and solace. Let's accept these comments as true for the moment.

So, from that perspective, Buffy and Satsu makes sense. But- really, we have been here before. For one, we got to see Willow develop feelings for Tara and ultimately come to grips with them over a lengthy period of time (wich was not the case here at all- oh, we knew Satsu had interest in Buffy, but certainly not the reverse until last issue), and we also saw a more aggresive Kennedy win over Willow. In Joss's world, girl-on-girl is not unique or even unusual. There are now 4 real lesbians- Willow, Tara, Kennedy, and Satsu. To that we add a one-off Buffy. But, here is the thing- why don't we see two men fall into bed together for the comfort they bring each other,for the solace (and no on the Spangel here, please)? Why is it always gay women? It is not brave, it is not novel, it is not unusual, though all of the press here has been about Buffy sleeping with a woman; none of the press has been about the actual story. And the only "gay" male is ambiguously gay and played that for humor. I think it is time to be really brave.

Dana5140 | March 07, 22:59 CET

I personally think women are able to 'get away with' more in terms of their orientation than men. If Buffy sleeps with a woman, but it is made clear that she is not gay, people take it at face value. People tend to assume that a guy who has sex with another guy can't be anything but gay.

MadeToLoveJoss | March 07, 23:13 CET

Hee, jclemens ;).

Ah restraint, someone told me about that once. The fruit though, it hangs low and is so easily reached ;).

I think it's fairly clearly true that female on female sex is more widely accepted than male-male but i'm not sure that's the point. Andrew being the only (ostensibly) gay male, a male-male scene would have to be shoehorned in, it really would be about "The Point !" (TM), about "having gay male sex in a mainstream comic" and not just a natural story development. If we're to believe Joss/Drew/Scott Allie then this wasn't about bravery (though I guess it took some) it was simply about where Buffy is and where she's going.

Saje | March 07, 23:32 CET

Maybe, with the characters as established, it would be too hard to get m/m relationships in Buffy at this point.

However... maybe we'll get them in Dollhouse? Although the nature of that story kind of precludes long-term, if the Dolls themselves are involved.

swanjun | March 07, 23:41 CET

There's an idea. The concept of adding a different sexuality onto a blank slate every time is intriguing.

Simon | March 07, 23:43 CET

Maybe, with the characters as established, it would be too hard to get m/m relationships in Buffy at this point.

Some would have said that about Buffy prior to W/T.

zeitgeist | March 07, 23:47 CET

It makes one wonder what the clients will be like. Private citizens? I'm imagining bittersweet scenarios where a lonely gay fellow /finally/ finds the right guy, then the time is up.

Can they pay again to get that same personality brought back again? Like.. a recurring contract?

swanjun | March 07, 23:50 CET

"Maybe, with the characters as established, it would be too hard to get m/m relationships in Buffy at this point."

Not really, if Buffy can suddenly be up for experimentation why couldn't some of the male characters. I mean they could just stop using Andrew as a joke character and actually delve into his sexuality if they wanted to but I'm not holding my breath.

Andrew being the only (ostensibly) gay male, a male-male scene would have to be shoehorned in, it really would be about "The Point !" (TM), about "having gay male sex in a mainstream comic" and not just a natural story development.

Sorry, I don't see how this would be any more shoehorned than Buffy and Satsu and actually less so in that Andrew isn't the title character so there would always be less emphasis on any of his storylines. But it doesn't have to be Andrew, Xander could experiment seeing as that's what people do in their youth.

helcat | March 08, 00:06 CET

I get what you're saying, helcat, and I agree that this Buffy thing feels shoehorned to me, too. I guess I'm just hoping there won't be /further/ shoehorning, at least for a while.

[ edited by swanjun on 2008-03-07 21:09 ]

swanjun | March 08, 00:09 CET

My point is helcat that with Andrew being the only gay male (in the village ;) and Andrew, Xander and Giles being basically the only males full-stop then you'd have to fit either Xander or Giles into the role. If they'd done it from the start then fine I guess you could make it fly but then it would still be about "having gay male sex in a mainstream comic" because, frankly, Xander has plenty of other options if he's just lonely and isolated and wanting to get laid and Giles is far outside the "experimenting" stage agewise.

Can they pay again to get that same personality brought back again? Like.. a recurring contract?

Sure, if the money's right, right ?

The 'Dollhouse' idea is just so fertile and that's yet another direction it can go down i.e. is sexuality cultural or genetic (or rather, what's the balance because it seems pretty evident there's a mix, as with most things) ? Would a naturally gay active feel "off" or maybe even disgusted at some fundamental level if they were used for straight sex ? And what about a naturally hetero active ?

Some would have said that about Buffy prior to W/T.

I think in some ways that's made it harder. Obviously in fiction more stuff happens to fewer people than in real life but if you have a character that's apparently hetero and becomes gay can you really do it again ? It'd still feel like shoehorning to me.

Saje | March 08, 00:17 CET

"Buffy" as a franchise has already been the bold and ground-breaking series about sexual orientation -- if there's any series that *doesnt'* have anything to prove, it's this one.

Besides, isn't the real point that these people are orientationless, genderless? Men are no better than women or vice-versa, gay is no better than straight or vice versa? There shouldn't be a quest for quotas or something. And, if you think I'm mistaken, well, you've got one ostensibly gay male character and (with Giles not really around) one straight male character. Wouldn't you need them both in the interest of full diversity?

KingofCretins | March 08, 00:31 CET

Oh I agree the comic Buffyverse is very lacking in male characters which would make the move tough unless they actually took the time to introduce more male characters but would that really be so hard to do? It'd probably be an easier fit into the AtS comics but I don't see that happening either (and I believe BL has said as much on his website) and while I think it would be a braver move all round it'd now be a mistake after the hoop-la over Buffy/Satsu.

"but if you have a character that's apparently hetero and becomes gay can you really do it again ?"

Well seemingly you can so long as this time it's just about the sex and not a change in orientation.

helcat | March 08, 00:33 CET

I'm not saying it wouldn't feel shoehorned if it was main cast, aside from introducing someone for Andrew. Just saying whats good for two geese may just as well be good for two ganders. And no, I don't expect Xander to lay down with Andrew any time soon (though I suspect Andrew has thought about it ;)).

zeitgeist | March 08, 00:34 CET

But, here is the thing- why don't we see two men fall into bed together for the comfort they bring each other,for the solace (and no on the Spangel here, please)? Why is it always gay women? It is not brave, it is not novel, it is not unusual, though all of the press here has been about Buffy sleeping with a woman; none of the press has been about the actual story. And the only "gay" male is ambiguously gay and played that for humor. I think it is time to be really brave.

I couldn't have said that better myself. I once had hope they'd do that on Ats but alas.

menomegirl | March 08, 00:44 CET

I couldn't have said that better myself. I once had hope they'd do that on Ats but alas.

Yeah, but you just want it for slashy reasons ;)

zeitgeist | March 08, 00:46 CET

Well, of course! But I'd love it as great story, too.

menomegirl | March 08, 00:52 CET

"Besides, isn't the real point that these people are orientationless, genderless?"

I don't think the aim is to portray characters as being orientationless or genderless. I have always thought that the slayers being female was a fairly integral element of the mythology . I also don't think you need to aim for gender neutrality and no defined orientation in order to espouse equality. I've no interest in quotas but it is valid to point out that this terribly brave show seems to have embraced lesbian characters in a way that it hasn't male gay characters and maybe wonder aloud why that is.

helcat | March 08, 00:56 CET

KoC, you say "Besides, isn't the real point that these people are orientationless, genderless?" Well, not really. Willow really is not, right? She is a gay women, end of story, and that is indeed now canon, as Joss has said it (not that I am a canon king or anything, just making a point).

They could introduce a love interest for Andrew if they wanted, and they could make it serve the story, because that is what they do, right? :-) But I doubt this will happen.

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2008-03-07 22:40 ]

Dana5140 | March 08, 00:59 CET

... seems to have embraced lesbian characters in a way that it hasn't male gay characters and maybe wonder aloud why that is.

Statistical accuracy ? ;-)

Well seemingly you can so long as this time it's just about the sex and not a change in orientation.

Heh, yep fair point but the thing is, with the characters we have to play with, it wouldn't just be about the sex because why would Xander fall into bed with Andrew when he's surrounded by numerous pretty much exclusively gorgeous young women ?

And if you introduce another character for Andrew to bed then isn't that a lot of engineering to NOT make a point (because remember the idea is not to make a point but just to tell a story) ? If it's just incidental (the story point I mean, not the act itself) then frankly who cares enough for it to be worth all the scaffolding required ? Buffy's the "star" so if she's lonely and isolated it's news - if it's Andrew then it's plain old dog bites man.

[ edited by Saje on 2008-03-07 22:00 ]

Saje | March 08, 01:00 CET

But the characters they have to play with are the characters that Joss has introduced. He gets to choose whether to limit the male characters to Giles, Andrew and Xander or whether to allow other male characters to play an active role in the verse. It is as it is because that's the choice Joss made. So, yeah, I still think that Buffy/Satsu isn't actually driven by telling a story, I think it's driven by a 'what would make an awesome and unexpected plot twist that we can then make a fuss about in the media'.

Introducing a character to pair up with Andrew would be no less 'engineering' as the convenient arrival of Kennedy in season 7 to pair up with Willow.

helcat | March 08, 01:16 CET

Re: male/male sex. One show doesn't have to do it all. Buffy has always been about female empowerment moreso than male empowerment. I should think that would transfer to the sexual realm as well. If Andrew has a lover at some point, that's great. But, for me, this is not a necessity for the show. I think we may see some male/male development in the Firefly / Serenity comic. Meanwhile... there's Torchwood at least...

willowcedar | March 08, 01:43 CET

I'll be damned. As far as a gay male relations on TV, I found out that there really is one, that it has been around for a few months now, that is a real love story not played for laughs, and it is creating some controversy. It is on, of all shows, As the World Turns, a soap opera, and features the characters of Luke and Noah. No kisses allowed yet, which is where the controversy comes in. But man, here it is on a TV soap, and Joss cannot figure out how to move beyond what hetero guys fantasize about?

ETA: willowcedar, you posted as I was writing. Let me add, nothing is necessary for the show. It is all writing decisions, and Joss could make this decision as much as any other.

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2008-03-07 22:45 ]

Dana5140 | March 08, 01:44 CET

I think this treads on what some people have expressed concerns about in the other thread. Are we equating female empowerment with women sleeping with other women? I mean Joss certainly doesn't have to have m/m pairings to convince any of us of his cred re: equality. And its also certainly true that the Buffy/Satsu plot gives us more meat for dissecting Buffy's character and where she is at emotionally and psychically.

zeitgeist | March 08, 01:47 CET

That's true Dana5140: i.e. that nothing is necessity. Still... The Buffy / Satsu plot makes more sense now (given all the Slayers) than an Andrew / lover plot would have. Do you watch Torchwood?

willowcedar | March 08, 01:47 CET

what hetero guys fantasize about?

We do? I fantasize about chip butties but two women sleeping together not so much.

Simon | March 08, 01:50 CET

zeitgeist, I wouldn't say "equating"--I just meant that it makes sense for the show to focus on Buffy and on female sexuality given the general focus on female power in the show--especially with the "Are you ready to make a choice" / share the power moment that led to all these Slayers.

willowcedar | March 08, 01:50 CET

Since people will no doubt wonder: Chip Butty link.

zeitgeist | March 08, 01:51 CET

Apparently it doesn't matter if you are "straight or gay" Dana. Switching sides can just be about "experimenting" with an open mind...so we really don't know what will happen with the rest of these characters. Xander must be pretty closed minded not to be "experimenting" with Andrew. ALL the male characters must be closed minded to never have given it a go. Xander and Oz, Xander and Andrew...heck, Giles and Ethan were around the same age, they could have went at it too.

cheryl | March 08, 01:53 CET

willowcedar - dig, I'm with you.

zeitgeist | March 08, 01:55 CET

I'm personally a Spike-shipper with a deep respect for Angel, but I'm also really loving the possibility of a whole Buffy/Xander thing. Having said that, I trust Joss completely. When he's in complete creative control he's an absolute genius. The only project he had control over that I didn't at least like was season one of Buffy. Pretty much everything sucked about that season from the writing to the acting. Other than those twelve episodes he (for the most part) hasn't failed to entertain us. Sure over the years we've all disagreed with the importance of different characters or where certain story arcs ultimately ended up. But we've always returned for another visit to these worlds that Joss has created because at the end of the day he accomplishes what he sets out to do. Tell a damn fine story.

JesusSavedIn01 | March 08, 01:59 CET

Yeah and lets be honest, not those crap fries you get in the States. Those wishy washy little wisps of a chip. Chip butties are real man's stuff, thin blocks of potatoes fried in beef fat. And served in an bap. With butter. Gorgeous.

Anyhoo back to the ongoing saga of Buffy #12. Btw y'all forgot about Torchwood and two blokes snogging. It works when the plot requires it, not just cause there's two blokes snogging for the sake of it. Same for Buffy #12 I guess, Buffy and Satsu work. It moves the plot along. And hey if you don't like it don't read it. Vote with your wallet.

Simon | March 08, 02:00 CET

With you on both counts, Simon ;)

zeitgeist | March 08, 02:01 CET

The very best thing I've heard about (I've not really been following this saga as I'd rather stick nails in my eyeballs) is slash fanfic writers complaining about this turn of events. 'cause, you know, Buffy licking clits left right and center = fine, respectful handling of the aftermath of getting laid = bad. Or something.

gossi | March 08, 02:06 CET

(Whoa! Got a little graphic there Gossi!)

Simon--Oh my goodness...a french fry sandwich???!!! (And what's a bap?)

And to chime in on the Andrew topic, I think people are quick to assume Andrew is gay. I think he's just shy when it comes to the ladies as a result of his ultimate geekyness. The perfect ending to his story must have him living happily every after with his (non-slayer) super model bride.

alexreager | March 08, 02:10 CET

The thing about Xander is that we don't know he is 100 percent straight. Remember, Joss deliberately Xander in the early seasons to be possibly gay. And remember in "Intervention", Xander started to describe Spike in a very fondly way. We also don't know what Xander and Dracula did in their "year" together. From the preview and "Antique",it seems that Dracula and Xander had a close relationship. I wouldn't be surprised if their relationship was deeper than meets the eye.

Edit: I would like to say, that I don't think it's likely they did anything intimately. It's just a possibility, but it won't come out of left field or right field or whatever field it comes out of.

[ edited by crazygolfa on 2008-03-07 23:30 ]

[ edited by crazygolfa on 2008-03-07 23:31 ]

crazygolfa | March 08, 02:25 CET

The very best thing I've heard about (I've not really been following this saga as I'd rather stick nails in my eyeballs) is slash fanfic writers complaining about this turn of events.

I was, too. What's even better is that the Bangel and the Spuffy 'shippers finally agree on something.

Same for Buffy #12 I guess, Buffy and Satsu work. It moves the plot along. And hey if you don't like it don't read it. Vote with your wallet.

Agreed.

And I think this post is now racier than issue #12.

;)

crazygolfa-Xander also had quite the thing for Riley. ;)

menomegirl | March 08, 02:30 CET

Don't worry I have no temptation to buy this comic at all.

helcat | March 08, 02:34 CET

zeitgeist: "Since people will no doubt wonder: Chip Butty link."

Thanks for that, zeitgeist, Chip Buttys are exactly what I thought they might be, and now I am more a'scared than I've been throughout this whole Batsu brouhaha, which is saying something.

gossi: "I've not really been following this saga as I'd rather stick nails in my eyeballs..."

Yes, almost exactly where I'm at, goss, 'cept I say, "gouge out my own eyeballs and eat them..." - but we're really on the same page here. ; >

As always, though, I look forward to reading the issue and caring about Joss' characters, as I have all along. The rest of this all... makes me tired and a little squinchy. Maybe if I have a Chip Butty I'll feel better, but I doubt it.

QuoterGal | March 08, 02:47 CET

Chip Butties can cure pretty much anything.

And what's a bap?

A bap is like a cob.

And since Simon brought it up, saw this in the Metro. Even by my (Scottish) standards I think this may be a deep fried step too far.

Saje | March 08, 03:07 CET

You guys eat so weird.; >

QuoterGal | March 08, 03:25 CET

Saje-Ew.

menomegirl | March 08, 03:26 CET

When Joss went to Edinburgh for the EIFF in 2005, I heard from a friend he was after a deep fried Mars bar...

Even I haven't had one of those.

gossi | March 08, 03:32 CET

Y'know when super-heated pizza cheese (especially out of a microwave) gets stuck to the roof of your mouth ? It's like that but made from diabetes instead of milk.

Saje | March 08, 03:56 CET

Ok, when the Burns supper page was loading I totally thought it was from a Simpsons episode that I hadn't seen yet.

[ edited by MadeToLoveJoss on 2008-03-08 00:56 ]

MadeToLoveJoss | March 08, 03:56 CET

A deep fried Mars bar? Double ew. I just cannot imagine that. Ew. *shudders*

menomegirl | March 08, 03:57 CET

"And to chime in on the Andrew topic, I think people are quick to assume Andrew is gay". I believe that Joss has said that Andrew is gay but hasn't quite realized it himself. Quoter Gal? Can you confirm that for me?
Deep Fried Creme Eggs. Yum. Do you suppose there will be any left when I head over in 3 weeks?

Lioness | March 08, 03:58 CET

Saje--Ok, now you're just messing with me! The only cob I know is at the center of an ear of corn.

Baps, cobs...??? From what I know of the sentence context, either its a basket-style container or a round bread like a pita.

alexreager | March 08, 04:04 CET

It's a bun or a roll.

Caroline | March 08, 04:07 CET

It's just a bread roll alexreager ;). ETA: Caroline pipped me to it ;).

(sort of appropriately for this thread "baps" is also a slang term for boobs in some parts of the UK)

Do you suppose there will be any left when I head over in 3 weeks?

Yeah, they're all over the place up to and a few weeks past Easter, should be plenty about. Whether you'll get anyone bar that maniac in Maidstone to fry one for you is another matter Lioness ;).

Ok, when the Burns supper page was loading I totally thought it was from a Simpsons episode that I hadn't seen yet.

With the lesser practiced 'Toast to the Nuclear Power Inspectorate' ;).

Haggis is one of those things you can praise til your blue in the face, once someone's found out what's in it, they're gonna have to taste it to really believe how nice it is.

[ edited by Saje on 2008-03-08 01:17 ]

Saje | March 08, 04:09 CET

Lioness, here's wot he said on whedonesque recently:

"Andrew's sexuality is always on the cusp of self-awareness because Andrew is stunted emotionally and because it's hilarious."

People still manage to find this ambiguous, however...

QuoterGal | March 08, 04:17 CET

I seriously do not know what direction to take in this post. DO I talk Dark Horse, sex, chip butties or gay characters on television?!

Firstly, I was surprised this was Scott A's first visit, given that the Dark Horse page links directly to us. I do hope he enjoyed the visit and comes again soon. (jc, perseo and sage, don't go there!)

I do wonder if Scott 'got' the main point of the objections. For most of us it wasn't about the gay at all- it was about the abrupt turnaround in Buffy's emotions (Drew's decision, apparently) and the perception that she has taken advantage of Satsu. Joss may very WELL be my master, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything little thing he does.

As said, sexuality, especially in women, is never a done deal. (I spoke with my boyfriend and he says that if you want to send a hot chick to our door so I can test that theory, then go ahead! I'm game.) Buffy's adventures as a sexual tourist in Gayland may very well be a one-off. (Or a few-off. I mean, we all know about that slayer stamina.)
BUT at this stage, it looks an awful lot like hero worship on Satsu's part, and indifference on Buffy's.

I just hope that Satsu is NOT evil. Because then I'll have to raise ire about the cultural stereotyping of 'bad' characters. Still, there's a lot more of the tale to be told, so I'm hunkering down and on the 'wait and see' side.
And suddenly, have a strange hankering for a chip butty.

missb | March 08, 04:38 CET

Ya Ya Scott. I believe you...actually wait a minute....I don't.

You ran that image all over the internet as far as the eye could see cos you knew it would create a talking point and it would sell more comics.

Yawn.

angeliclestat | March 08, 05:46 CET

Simon- heterosexual male interest in lesbian porn has been well documented. That is in part why it has been more successful in mainstream media compared to gay male sex. So it is easy to add it to the Buffy mix- once again- and get the response that we have seen. I can imagine that had he made, say, Xander gay, the press would be different.

Willowcedar- I regret that I know nothing about Torchwood. From your comment, it would appear that a gay relation may exist. Is it serious, or is it played for laughs?

Andrew is coded as gay. Period. WHAT he is, we don't know. But the portrayal is as a gay male who does not recognize this in himself. I don't think that is highly arguable.

And chip butties? Never heard of 'em, but I want them.

Dana5140 | March 08, 05:53 CET

I do wonder if Scott 'got' the main point of the objections. For most of us it wasn't about the gay at all- it was about the abrupt turnaround in Buffy's emotions (Drew's decision, apparently) and the perception that she has taken advantage of Satsu. Joss may very WELL be my master, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with everything little thing he does.

QFT, big time.

I've seen all sorts of forums pelted with completely fatuous arguments that all criticism of this story is rooted in that old battleaxe, homophobia. I've never met the thing and don't care to. I don't think fans' misgivings over this are no more or no less character-related than when Buffy kept Angel's return secret, slept with Parker on the (first? second?) date, tuned out her friends to be codependent with Riley, and used Spike as a sexual outlet for her self-loathing. In other words, it has nothing to do with anyone's politics, and everything to do with the character and what it means for her.

I would really love to have Joss or Scott just simply acknowledge that their audience is reacting to something now as legitimate as what we reacted to then. They are both right to ask that we be patient and trust the story. But I don't appreciate what I feel is the implication from the top down that people that have issues with this just have Issues with this or a bias rooted in their own prior 'shipping preferences (as I feel the CBR interview in particular implies).

This has great story potential. We have what are sure to be very intensely personal reactions to all this coming from Willow, Dawn, Xander -- we have the emotional fallout for Buffy and Satsu. We have room to speculate as to if or how this tells us anything about the events alluded to in "Anywhere But Here". And, as all of us do, the 'shippers will always find a way to hope for their story. So, no, this isn't and shouldn't be a crisis for the fandom, and the media attention will blow over after the same period of scrutiny that followed the Season 3 postponements and criticism of the content after the shootings at Columbine.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2008-03-08 03:01 ]

KingofCretins | March 08, 06:00 CET

Are we still talking about this?

TamaraC | March 08, 07:26 CET

Oh, Dana, thanks for missing the point yet again - or finding something to complain about for the sake of it:

But, here is the thing- why don't we see two men fall into bed together for the comfort they bring each other, for the solace?

This is what slash is for! ;-)

But I'm only slightly kidding there. I think men can have random sex without the guilts far easier than women can. This makes the dynamics of the story completely different.

I think it's interesting that you've tried to turn the discussion away from the story and complained about another subject that would have equally been called stunty or exploitative or whatever if Xander had fallen into bed with a guy. It's not instructive to the discussion at hand to complain about why isn't it done with men? Because that isn't the story at hand. Also, answering why it's not done with men doesn't really tell us anything about this story.

The series is called "Buffy". Every episode of the show and the comic is about her and how she is emotionally affected. Even episodes that were about other characters, were tangentially about her. This issue is about Buffy very directly - it's not about "Why aren't they telling a story about two men?"

And the only "gay" male is ambiguously gay and played that for humor. I think it is time to be really brave.

I don't think Buffy (or any single series for that matter) is under any obligation to tell EVERY SINGLE KIND OF STORY IMAGINABLE merely to justify the story they are currently telling. Or else you'll have Scottish people complaining there's not enough storytelling about modern day Scotland in the comics - it's all about living in a castle!

As to "brave"... Six Feet Under creator Alan Ball was asked if straight actor Michael C Hall was brave for playing gay character David Fisher - his response was basically, "An actor isn't brave for playing gay. But it's an act of cowardice not to."

It wouldn't be brave of Joss et al to tell the gay male story, but it would be cowardice not to tell the gay female story they want to tell.

crossoverman | March 08, 07:33 CET

It wouldn't be brave of Joss et al to tell the gay male story, but it would be cowardice not to tell the gay female story they want to tell.

That is just brilliantly put, crossoverman. They've got the story they want to tell. They are clearly willing to take some chances with their audience's good will to tell it. I don't think there should be anybody saying "yeah, but..." to this and waiting for a "more" that Joss doesn't owe anybody.

ETA: clarify what I was responding to.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2008-03-08 05:29 ]

KingofCretins | March 08, 07:44 CET

Personally I think it is too bad that Scott/Dark Horse feels the need to explain Joss' story decisions. For me the whole thing made perfect sense once I looked at it metaphorically: the saga is about Buffy, and in Season 8 Buffy's main concern has to do with the new slayers. She isn't looking for love, her focus is all on these young women and what they need. Who Xander, or Andrew, or anyone else sleeps with is only of interest if it either effects Buffy, or reinforces something in the main story.

Although I would adore an Andrew spin off! Maybe he could seduce Dracula and get him to help defeat Twilight? Unless he IS Twilight....

embers | March 08, 07:46 CET

Actually, this was not my issue; as I noted, it was something I read elsewhere that I thought would make a fertile topic for discussion. Which it has. I haven't tried to do anything, let alone turn the discussion away from something- these are posting boards, so you don't have to respond to anything anyone says in particular. But truth is, I am feeling pretty beat up. Can I not raise these issues without someone attacking me rather than the issue? Please? Can't we all get along?

But while the story is called Buffy, it is not about Buffy alone, and never was. What gives the canon its resonance is the gestalt of the show, not any single character, even if Buffy is obviously the lead and the person around which events swirl. Just like Dollhouse will not solely be about Echo, but will include all the other characters we are only now learning about.

Dana5140 | March 08, 07:50 CET

crossoverman - too harsh, tone it down, please. You could've found a way to say what you said that didn't come across as an attack on a fellow poster.

zeitgeist | March 08, 07:57 CET

But truth is, I am feeling pretty beat up. Can I not raise these issues without someone attacking me rather than the issue? Please? Can't we all get along?

I apologise. I happen to think the issue you raised has little to do with the issue at hand, but sorry if I was too harsh.

Yes, it would be great to read a story about two men having random sex or comfort sex or a healthy long-term relationship. But because Buffy Season Eight lacks that, it's not a mark against these comics. That it's difficult to find these stories in mainstream media is a concern, but it's not impossible to find them. That Joss and Drew have chosen to tell this story shouldn't be denigrated because they haven't chosen to tell a completely different story.

But while the story is called Buffy, it is not about Buffy alone, and never was.

I didn't mean to imply it was about Buffy alone. I do believe it's about Buffy first and foremost - which is why it's called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and not "Buffy and Friends". It's certainly an ensemble piece, don't get me wrong. There are many other characters that are equally as fascinating as Buffy - and in some periods more interesting than her. But each episode comments on her, which is not necessarily true of the other characters.

crossoverman | March 08, 08:18 CET

I have three things to say on this matter:

#1: Joss' recent assertion in an interview that - wherein he defended this story twist - "all sexuality is fluid" is very presumptuous. Does he think himself a scientist? Psychological studies have shown that because women relate to sexuality through emotion it's much easier for them to be truly bisexual, this is true. But because men are all drive, it's damn near impossible (for them). Of course there can always be anomalies. One or way another, and the possibly of anomalies acknowledged, his claim is very broad. Does he hold any doctorates? Has he researched this? Has he talked to many people for whom sexuality is quite solid? I'm willing to bet that, the possibility being acknowledged by science, a lot of women still don't think themselves "fluid."

#2: I think Joss is a writer, a fine one, but still no scientist. What he produces is the result of his own mind only: it is his own view of the world, and nothing more. In essence it is his well-articulated opinion, rather than a researched and empirically proven fact. A thing is not fact simply because he depicts its existence.

#3: Like many here I didn't like the twist. There was nothing in the series to speak to the possibility of Buffy being bisexual. As an artist I admire Joss' tenacity in helping to normalize homosexuality in popular culture, but as a fan I'm disappointed that he did it at the expense of credible character development; this feels like Joss making a personal political point rather than telling a story.

[ edited by Ryan-RB on 2008-03-08 05:53 ]

Ryan-RB | March 08, 08:48 CET

Ryan-RB - I believe that he was speaking specifically about Buffy and I guarantee you that the man has read up on the subject. As far as doctorates, I assume that you are being facetious. As Buffy is a woman and a fictional one at that, living in a fictional world created by Joss, I guess that his well articulated opinion is the be all end all for Buffy. If you re-read Season Eight I think that you will find the seeds were planted for this event going back quite a ways. Have you read #12? I was worried until I read it, but I think its believable/credible/whatevs. Given that, I don't think that Buffy is truly bisexual much less gay. I think that she was in dire need of comfort and wanted to look at herself through Satsu's eyes to discover what was lovable about herself.

zeitgeist | March 08, 08:57 CET

I don't doubt he's read up on the subject. So have I. That doesn't mean I'd make such presumptuous claims. That doesn't make me a scientist. And as someone who lives in relative ignorance on the matter, I don't have the authority to make claims as bold as that, same as him.

As for character credibility we'll simply have to agree to disagree, though it's interesting that what you describe supports exactly the scientific notion of women relating to sexuality through emotion that I brought up. I just don't think the seeds were there in the comic, and the abruptness of its appearance speaks to poor storytelling. At least you're not accusing me of being a homophobe like some people here have been doing. Pleasant, if disagreeable discourse is always preferable. :)

Ryan-RB | March 08, 09:03 CET

I think a lot of folks see it as lining up with the sexuality through emotion bit, which is part of why I find it difficult to reject it out of hand. To me its plausible given her state. And I don't think that what Buffy does or doesn't do or a short interview with joss gives you the full 4-1-1 on his thoughts on the subject. I mean we've discussed this one issue for hundreds of posts and we haven't said everything yet. Feel free to point out where anyone directly called you anything nasty and untoward and I will look into it. Nothing you've said seems homophobic to me. You do have a weird obsession with scientists, however ;)

ETA - even Joss' line about all sexuality being fluid is open to some interpretation, especially the more you've read about things like the Kinsey scale/reports. in different times in their lives, men and women identify as different points on that scale. You'll no doubt find it interesting that a larger percentage of males 20-35 were identified as equally hetero- and homo-sexual than females of the same age group (11.6% vs 7%). More here.

zeitgeist | March 08, 09:08 CET

But, here is the thing- why don't we see two men fall into bed together for the comfort they bring each other,for the solace (and no on the Spangel here, please)? Why is it always gay women? It is not brave, it is not novel, it is not unusual, though all of the press here has been about Buffy sleeping with a woman; none of the press has been about the actual story.

Why no Spangel?

Why aren't gay female characters brave? I think quality gay female characters are still unusual. Maybe not in the Jossverse, but in fiction in general it still isn't the norm. I think a male/male relationship or experience would be more fitting for the Angel series...simply because it is more male oriented and there would be more opportunities within the story. It doesn't necessarily need to be Spike and Angel.

I agree with willowcedar above, Buffy is more female oriented and focuses on female empowerment. Lesbianism and feminism are naturally entwined because they're both rooted in women stepping out of their traditional roles in society. The argument against women being with women is as much about misogyny as it is about homophobia. I dare say it's actually more about misogyny.

Plus, there are more female characters and thus more opportunities to explore female/female relationships. To do any kind of relationship any justice be it between two women, a woman and a man, or two men, I think a fair chunk of time needs to be dedicated to it. We got practically a whole issue of Buffy and Satsu talking and we learned a lot about Buffy and where she is emotionally in the process.

I guess the question is, how would a male/male relationship move the Season 8 story of Buffy forward? Especially when we only have an issue a month. It can't be done just to make a statement because that is never satisfying for more than 5 minutes.

GrrrlRomeo | March 08, 09:17 CET

Like many here I didn't like the twist. There was nothing in the series to speak to the possibility of Buffy being bisexual.

The Kinsey Scale is 60 years old this year. It definitely describes sexuality as being far more complicated than binary - heterosexual or homosexual. The Klein Sexual Orientation Grid is 15 years old and expands on the idea of sexual fluidity over time - you may have been bisexual when younger and feel more attracted or inclined to one sex or another in later life.

Personally, and I am no scientist, I think the only label that is important is the one we give ourselves. For example, over the period of her entire life, Willow could be described as being bisexual - because we have evidence that she both loved and was sexually attracted to Oz and Tara and Kennedy. But she now describes herself as gay - so who are we to argue?

Buffy isn't bisexual after one night of sexual intercourse with a woman, unless she describes herself that way. However arguments can be made that she is currently bisexual (Klein) and not exclusively heterosexual (Kinsey). Also, this quote from Issue #11...

Buffy: And, honestly, I think it's kind of awesome. You're hot, you have great taste, you're a hell of a Slayer and you smell good.
Satsu: But you're not gay.
Buffy: Not so you'd notice.

... which at least implies that she's not completely closed to the idea (obviously, see issue #12) and that she's aware of it enough to articulate it, rather than completely dismiss it.

ETA: - Very much agreed, GrrrlRomeo

[ edited by crossoverman on 2008-03-08 06:31 ]

crossoverman | March 08, 09:28 CET

There was nothing in the series to speak to the possibility of Buffy being bisexual.

Ryan-RB-I have to disagree with you on that. While I never percieved any vibes between Buffy and Willow, I saw a lot of chemistry between Buffy and Faith. I don't think Buffy's gay, not even really bi but the possibilities were there a long time ago.

menomegirl | March 08, 09:53 CET

Well said crossoverman. I was going to try to cobble something like that together but you beat me to it and you did it well.

ruthless1 | March 08, 09:55 CET

crossover: You're talking about something that exists outside the series. Has Joss made a thematic point of acknolweding that kind of idea in the series or comics before? Something referring to the Kinsey scale? The discussion of what sexuality actually is is somewhat immaterial to the discussion of whether or not the plot twist works. If we're talking about the comic in and of itself, then all you're doing by bringing up Kinsey is rationalizing your interpretation of this twist. Yes, Kinsey's scale is quite possibly a credible explanation for how and why a switch like that could happen, but because nothing in the series or comics suggests that that's thematically applicable for the characters, it still comes off as an out-of-nowhere twist that speaks to poor storytelling and Joss shoe-horning a personal political point into his work.

Is the show fundamentally existentialist? I don't thnk so. Not with its pre-conceived notions of right, wrong, human and monster...Buffy is a show that has a clear moral outlook on a lot of things. It's not like BSG, where it just presents actions and characters and leaves the audience to decide the moral constitution of things. Buffy certainly does not purport that self-labelling is the end-all be-all of identity. It certainly has not thematically addressed a Kinsey-ian sexual philosophy.

And let's leave out the entire sexuality debate. How is this sudden a shift acceptable character development? Almost no buildup or tension between the characters. A couple pages in a preceding issue or two does not suffice.

Ryan-RB | March 08, 10:11 CET

Ryan-RB - you brought up the interview which is something outside of the comic proper as well, so you opened that particular door. In which case, which way do you want it, cause you can't have it both ways. Either a) we aren't talking about anything outside the comic in which case Joss' well articulated opinion is the law of his land or b) we can talk about the science (and I know how you love science!) of sexality research, in which case reference to Kinsey, Klein, et al. are valid. If we ignore the external stuff (which remember, you brought to the table), then you can look at several (not just issue #11) instances of this being foreshadowed within the comics alone or you can go back to the series itself and find little things that were never followed up on. As is always the case the filters of the person watching/reading/experiencing apply, so you may not see things where others do. Also if you subscribe to the emotional theory of fluid sexuality you mention above, how can this occurence of Buffy acting outside her normal sphere of sexual preference be anything but acceptable to you? She was clearly in quite a state and took comfort/advantage in/of the love Satsu proferred.

Is the show fundamentally existentialist? I don't thnk so. Not with its pre-conceived notions of right, wrong, human and monster...Buffy is a show that has a clear moral outlook on a lot of things. It's not like BSG, where it just presents actions and characters and leaves the audience to decide the moral constitution of things. Buffy certainly does not purport that self-labelling is the end-all be-all of identity. It certainly has not thematically addressed a Kinsey-ian sexual philosophy.

Really? Buffy? Did we watch the same show? It explored the murky grey depths of what it means to be human.monster/good/evil and never had a 100% non-movable answer for any of it. Angel? Spike? Buffy? Willow? Not 100% heroic nor 100% evil. Whether the show itself has address/embraced a Kinseyan philosophy regarding sexuality is almost entirely irrelevant to whether or not it can be applied or assumed to apply.

zeitgeist | March 08, 10:18 CET

#2: I think Joss is a writer, a fine one, but still no scientist. What he produces is the result of his own mind only: it is his own view of the world, and nothing more. In essence it is his well-articulated opinion, rather than a researched and empirically proven fact. A thing is not fact simply because he depicts its existence.

"Sexuality is fluid" is more a theory than fact...just as most things in science are. The interview I read he said sexuality is a spectrum, which is different than fluid. Fluid means blue can become red, where spectrum means purple is a shade containing both blue and red. And if straight is red and gay is blue, then perhaps Buffy is #FF0033 (and I feel like a total geek for knowing the hex value but not the english word for that shade).

I don't doubt he's read up on the subject. So have I. That doesn't mean I'd make such presumptuous claims. That doesn't make me a scientist. And as someone who lives in relative ignorance on the matter, I don't have the authority to make claims as bold as that, same as him.

I think it's more likely that he just has lesbian friends, and women friends in general, that have related stories to him. Weren't Willow and Tara based on some friends? Joss is in the business of telling stories about fictional people and the human condition that real people can relate to. It would be aweful if his characters were based on scientific subjects.

I'm not a scientist, but I am a lesbian, so I think I have some authority. The question is whether or not anyone is willing to believe me when I say I have met many, many straight women who have slept with a woman at one point in their life. Being a lesbian seems to cause straight women to confide in me or ask me questions about sexuality (sometimes too much methinks). I mean, when I came out in my late teens trying to find a girl to date that wasn't just curious was difficult. LOL

I am more willing to accept this Satsu/Buffy scenerio and see how it's plausible because I've been in Satsu's position and I can relate. And I could relate to Willow and Tara for the same reason. And I'm eternally grateful that Joss has created characters that I can relate to on a level I never have been able to before. Because that's what everyone wants out of fiction isn't it?

There are many times I couldn't relate to things Buffy went through with Angel, Spike, Riley and Parker. But at the same time I accepted them as plausible because I've seen other women go through relationships like that. I couldn't relate, but I could understand. And what I hope is that even though not everyone can relate to this one thing, that they can understand it.

I'll be honest, I fast-foward the DVD through much of "Where the Wild Things Are"...and various parts of Season 6...just because: bored now. Comics are even easier, just turn the page. But let others have their moment of relation with the characters ya know?

Lets share these characters and maybe learn something outside our own personal experiences and observations. I assure you, there are women that have gone through what Buffy is going through.

GrrrlRomeo | March 08, 10:21 CET

GrrrlRomeo - /agree and +100 pts for:

And if straight is red and gay is blue, then perhaps Buffy is #FF0033 (and I feel like a total geek for knowing the hex value but not the english word for that shade).

zeitgeist | March 08, 10:24 CET

It's quite simple, zeitgeist. There are two debates here:

1) Is sexuality fluid?

2) Is the nature of the Buffy/Satsu twist poorly contrived?

They are both interesting debates and I have addressed them both. I have not, however, presumed to take my opinion on the constitution of sexuality, and apply it to a self-contained story, a story which is the product of another subjective viewpoint, one that functions within its own context and addresses external reality only as its author decides to. I have argued that to some point, it is possible for sexuality to be fluid. But at the same time I have argued there is nothing in the comics or the series to indicate that Joss has presented this view in his themes in the series or comics to a satisfactory end, such that the twist does not feel poorly contrived.

The first topic was discussed both in and of itself, and as it related to the second. I can easily have it both ways when I'm talking about two different things.

[ edited by Ryan-RB on 2008-03-08 07:27 ]

Ryan-RB | March 08, 10:26 CET

Ryan-RB - it looks to me like you are willing to let the two cross over when you post, but when someone uses something from one of them to refute your points on the other one you cry foul, which isn't particularly fair. You don't find that Willow is an example of fluid sexuality within the Buffyverse? Really? If so then fluid sexuality is a part of Buffy's world and Buffy's state right now could lead to her being more willing to experiment.

zeitgeist | March 08, 10:31 CET

GrrlRomeo, you're confusing relativity for exi

March 07 2008