Yes, Shey, there are. Morgan Freeman makes them. Look over there <-, or maybe it's ->.

MysticSlug | July 11, 19:36 CET

Dana5140 wrote



Ah, but I think Andrew serves several useful purposes. In "Storyteller," Andrew's story-inventing is neatly dissected and found wanting. I think Joss & Co. may have been exploring themselves through that -- their motivations, their complicity. After all, remember who's really to blame for all our heroes' woes: not the First, not Twilight, but a man called Joss. I think Joss felt a need to address that.

Andrew also is a dig at a whole class of people who sit and watch and enjoy but never get involved. A whole lot of nerds out there, oftentimes with lots of money and useful knowledge, who could be doing a heck of a lot of good... instead they sit around watching movies and TV.

You're not supposed to like Andrew. I think you're supposed to look at Andrew, then look at yourself, and think, "Hmm, maybe I should change."



Well, what did Buffy do to earn her powers, before she was called? Not much. And she's the first to admit that. Moreover, the show often discusses about how she didn't have a choice but is doing the best she can with the powers thrust on her. I would say that most people don't earn the powers they have. Take me, for example. I'm a college-educated white male. I've got power that others in the audience never had. Do I like that? Not the power imbalances, for sure. Was it my choice? Not really; I kinda got born with it all (even the college stuff... I come from a scholarly family). Am I doing what I can with said power? Maybe not enough, but I'm trying.

Also, I would have to say that "earning" doesn't really figure into anything. Life isn't fair. You just have to play the hand you're dealt.

As to the violation of Calling all the Potentials at once... there may be violation there, but I think Joss's point is, men have held the upper hand for time out of mind solely because they are physically stronger, and that collectively men have done more violating with that strength than any violation by Buffy and Willow.

Also remember that in Season 8, only 500 or so joined, out of 1300 they know of. They may not have given the girls a choice about the powers (or nightmares) but they've apparently given them a choice about joining Buffy's army or not.


Gahh, epic post...

ManEnoughToAdmitIt | July 11, 19:37 CET

SNT makes some really nice points in his post above. Leading on from there all I could add is that, and this is purely my own personal perspective on the matter, all that Buffy did was give them super powers. Consent or not, whether she had the right to do so or not, that's all.

That might sound like I'm missing the point of becoming a slayer but really who said anything about any of the girls actually becoming a slayer in the truest sense? It's like someone handing you a gun and saying use it as you see fit. Nobody is forcing you to use that gun. You can simply put it in a drawer and never so much as look at it again, if you decide that is how you want to proceed. Same goes with the slayer power. Buffy gave it to every Potential in the world but she never forced any of the girls to actually use it. How could she?

As SNT said, had Buffy not had Willow activate the Potentials, their future would pretty much have been a meeting with a Bringer's dagger anyway. If Buffy hadn't been able to hold back the First then it would have ended the slayer line rather than turn it into the slayer army. Personally, given the two options, I'd take having super powers forced on me over death at the point of a sharp object any day of the week. Add that to the fact that simply being given the power of a slayer isn't the same as being told you have to live the life of a slayer, I'd have to say that the issue of consent becomes a lot less important in this situation, in my opinion. Not that I'm missing the point that Dana5140 is making. I just think that, as in every specific situation in life, nothing is absolute and sometimes what may be a morally questionable action in one situation is absolutely the correct thing to do in another.

The Highlander | July 11, 19:45 CET

I.e. there's also more to being a Slayer than having super-powers, there's a certain amount of mental baggage too. It's true I think that a lot of people on the "curse" side are thinking of the new Slayers as the same as Buffy i.e. alone and isolated which obviously wouldn't be the case (or no more than they were before activation). But all that is missing the point IMO because it doesn't matter if you make someone better, you're still making them.

I'd always thought that "one girl in all the world" wasn't the most efficient way of coping with a kazillion vampires and other hostile beings out there.

No, but it's the most efficient way of coping with the "one girl in all the world" ;). Which is to say, the Slayer was alone IMO for precisely the reasons hinted at in the comics - lots of super-powered people have lots of super-power and that's threatening to those in charge. The Slayer scares people like the 3 old men so they wanted to make sure she was always outnumbered (in their chauvinism they probably also thought making it "one girl ..." would make her easier to control too. Then along came Buffy ;).

I haven't heard much discussed is that, if Buffy and the others had failed at the Hellmouth, all those potentials elsewhere would have been hunted down and murdered, just as they were throughout the season.

Yep, as would the rest of humanity (my impression was that The First wanted a hell on Earth scenario and hell is bad for you, I think I read that somewhere ;). In that sense it was the right thing to do but whether that makes it the moral thing to do is greyer IMO. To save a billion you might sacrifice a million but you've still killed a million people. Heroes are, to some extent, people willing to take that kind of decision and carry the weight of it afterwards.

Saje | July 11, 19:53 CET

Hang on, shouldn't empowering someone actually involve giving someone a choice? Not just saying I know whats best for you and doing it?

Yes, Buffy and co had their backs up against the wall, but morally she was on very dodgy ground indeed.

It wasn't just a case of giving some poor girl 'super powers', It's the sudden change in her life and all the other baggage it would bring with it that people forget about.

As far as I'm concerned that act wasn't empowering someone, it was using a huge group of women that she didn't know solve her problems for her, good motives or not.

sueworld2003 | July 11, 20:00 CET

My point was more that the Potentials, as Potentials, would have been specifically targeted by the First et al. after Buffy was defeated. Yes, humanity in general was under threat, but those girls were in the front lines, so to speak, without perhaps even knowing it. I think giving them the chance to defend themselves in that situation is a moral decision. But yes, it remains grey/gray, for the baggage reasons noted. I do disagree, however, that "empowering" necessarily and always implies consent.

And when you say "her problems," sueworld, you kinda have to remember that she was fighting for the rest of us. It wasn't a family issue, or a missed class, or a broken heel. She was, actually, trying to save the world (again). Doesn't mean all choices made by those in command are sacrosanct; not at all. But it's a little demeaning to suggest that this was purely "her problems", as if there wasn't this whole other backdrop at play.

SoddingNancyTribe | July 11, 20:19 CET

Again though, Saje, if Buffy loses, then the First wins and all potential slayers die.

Even if we take the mental baggage into consideration, and honestly it didn't seem to bother Buffy herself much on a day to day basis, I'm going to have to assume that even with that involved it would be a better option than the knife in the chest choice. Occasional bad dreams or living in a world dominated by the ultimate evil until his minions finally track you down and kill you? Not really a hard choice, for me. ;)

And as I said above, sueworld2003, I'm not ignoring the moral issues of the choice Buffy made for so many unsuspecting girls but I would also say that the choice she made was about a little more than solving her own problems. She kinda had a world to save and that was a problem that all the Potentials would have shared in sooner or later, had Buffy not acted.

Bottom line, Buffy made the call she made, all the Potentials became slayers and didn't get stabbed (except the ones in the Hellmouth that kinda did ;)), the free world continued for another day. Was it the ideal answer? Probably not. Was it fair to every single girl involved? Unlikely. Was it entirely the morally correct thing to do? Is any act of war?

EDIT: To try and hide the fact that I really can't type.

[ edited by Highlander on 2008-07-11 17:27 ]

The Highlander | July 11, 20:21 CET

To save a billion you might sacrifice a million but you've still killed a million people.

Hmmm...isn't that was Jasmine doing? Do you think she was a 'hero'?

menomegirl | July 11, 20:22 CET

Unfortunately whether she was fighting for who for what, she was still making decisions on behalf a large group of people she knew nothing about.

When you're messing with someone without their consent, well, that doesn't sound like any form of female empowerment to me I'm afraid. Far from it in fact. She didn't know how these women would react to being altered like this, and so I was so pleased when later on in the AtS episode 'Damage' we got to see the other side of the coin.

Sure she had to do something, but from a story point of view I don't swallow the ending of Chosen as being such a positive manifestation of female empowerment as some.

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-07-11 17:31 ]

sueworld2003 | July 11, 20:29 CET

Should it involve choice? Maybe. Does it? Doesn't look like it. More when I catch up and yes, I realize that when we discuss the empowerment of these girls we are talking about something at once both fuzzier and more concrete than the simple dictionary definition of the word, but:

Empower Em*pow"er, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Empowered; p. pr. &
vb. n. Empowering.]
1. To give authority to; to delegate power to; to commission;
to authorize (having commonly a legal force); as, the
Supreme Court is empowered to try and decide cases, civil
or criminal; the attorney is empowered to sign an
acquittance, and discharge the debtor.

2. To give moral or physical power, faculties, or abilities
to. ``These eyes . . . empowered to gaze.'' --Keble.

There's a third definition at m-w that's of interest:

3 : to promote the self-actualization or influence of
Interesting... did Buffy do this?

Sure she had to do something, but from a story point of view I don't swallow the ending of Chosen as being such a positive manifestation of female empowerment as some.

Buffy treading grey areas? Astonishing! ;) I do agree that its not cut and dried, but we are seeing that play out in S8 and the aforementioned Dana episode of Angel (which was surely a stand in for dozens of situations where being 'empowered' in this way could go wrong).

Hmmm...isn't that was Jasmine doing? Do you think she was a 'hero'?

That's what made that arc so interesting. Was she? Maybe, but she was taking away free will and killing people on an ongoing (never-ending) basis, so I'm going with no, big free will nut that I am.

zeitgeist | July 11, 20:39 CET

zeitgeist, so the question becomes, did Buffy take away the free will of all those girls who weren't given a 'choice'? (like the ones in Sunnydale were).

menomegirl | July 11, 20:54 CET

Well, one could say that was done by the Three Men way back when, though in any case Buffy is certainly not permanently taking away their free will a la Jasmine, merely activating or actualizing their potential. Which some would say is the definition of empowerment.

zeitgeist | July 11, 20:58 CET

Yes, but most of those women probaly would have never been 'activated' in their lifetimes. Buffy took it upon herself to 'play god' with their lives. Pretty much like the shadowmen did really, and thats what I find so disturbing.

Anyhoo, strangely enough this thread is about the JM interview, or 'con report' as it apparently should be seen as. I don't always agree with what JM has to say about his views on certain things, but I respect the passion in which he expresses them, and May that never change. :0

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-07-11 18:07 ]

sueworld2003 | July 11, 21:06 CET

Very well-put and I agree with you.

I'd also like to add that I don't think Buffy gave Dana or the other Potentials nightmares-they would have had those for years, as Buffy herself did before Merrick ever showed up.

She didn't put them in danger-Willow's spell to bring Buffy back did.

Buffy gave them-as unasked for as it may have been-the means to protect themselves.

To quote Giles from The Gift:

menomegirl | July 11, 21:11 CET

I agree that JM might not have been talking about Tara- in fact, given past interviews I've read with him, he was probably referring to the attempted rape, but the possibility is he might have meant Tara. We do not know; it simply raises the possibility.

Some interesting comments here, for sure: "I continue to read the empowerment spell pretty literally as turning the original violation by the Shadowmen, who singled out one woman that they could control, on its head by creating a whole sisterhood of Slayers who would be beyond that kind of control." So, let me see if I have this right: it was wrong for the Shadowmen to do it to one woman, but right for Buffy and Willow to do it to many women? No, that does not make sense. That would really compound the problem.

And SNT, it seems to me that if potentialhood was without consent, that does not lessen the fact that slayerhood was also without consent. I understand that the potentials were at risk here, but in all of this, they never had a choice- not in being a potential (and how does one become a potential any way- and where in Buffy did we really learn there was an army of these girls as opposed to just one, ie, Kendra, Faith, in waiting?) and not in becoming a slayer. Buffy regrets that she was made a slayer- not that she would deny what she is, but still. And so she inflicts that on 1300 or more young girls. Because she needs them to fight a battle- just like our army needs young people to fight its, and in the past has simply drafted those it will send to die. Again, I am not in favor of the military analogies I keep seeing in S7 and more in S8.

Another interesting comment: "It's like someone handing you a gun and saying use it as you see fit. Nobody is forcing you to use that gun." Well, this is not a great analogy. Of course, you are right, but also simplistic. If you never give someone the gun, they never have to make any choice at all. They cannot use it, period. Once they have it, it MIGHT get used, might not, might be accidentally discharged, etc. Because it is there. If it is not, none of those possibilities exist. And while we don't know whether or not any of these girls were ever forced to do anything, we do know that Giles went looking for them. Giles gave them information about what was happening, and Giles used that to gather a good many of them into the slayer army.

And then highlander asks the critical question, in my humble opinion: "Buffy made the call she made, all the Potentials became slayers and didn't get stabbed (except the ones in the Hellmouth that kinda did ;)), the free world continued for another day. Was it the ideal answer? Probably not. Was it fair to every single girl involved? Unlikely. Was it entirely the morally correct thing to do? Is any act of war?" This is where I think S8 is going, to answer this question. Leaving aside Willow and her absolution or lack of.

I know there is no consensus on Andrew- people love him or hate him, and I fall on the hate side. I understand he is supposed to represent the fan geek, but I thought that point had been made already with the Trio of Idiots. Andrew took time away from people, and I for one never found Storyteller a compelling episode, though I know for many it is.

Dana5140 | July 11, 21:29 CET

Well, I this turn in debate is awesome, and I hope what I say contributes to the debate in someway.

It kind of reminds me of the debate about the "draft" during other times of war. She essentially "drafted" the potentials to become slayers. Is that morally right? Probably not, but it was needed.

It was the smart thing to do. She was fighting a war, and she needed all the man-power she could get. Sure, if there was a way to empower all the potentials with their consent and one-by-one, it would have been all tea and dumplings, but they did not have the time to do it that way. Buffy made her call, and I feel it was the smart thing to do. Yes, it isn't the cleanest, but Buffy and company did not have the time to debate the merits of forced conscription.

ETA: Gods, I sounded like the current administration, ignore what I said. :)

ETA part duex: When I say current administration, I don't mean the administration at the Esque, but the ones in DC.

[ edited by crazygolfa on 2008-07-11 18:42 ]

crazygolfa | July 11, 21:36 CET

The potentials already had the dreams. It was in the movie and Wesley/Andrew confirmed it in Damage. What Buffy did was give them the power to act on them. Before that the potentials had no access to their powers and therefore no choice as to whether to use them or not. Afterwards they could choose whether or not to act. What Buffy and Willow did was different from the Shadowmen activating a single girl because for that girl the choice was to to use her powers or let the world go to hell. With hundreds of girls activated a proportion can choose not to be Slayers or to fight evil in a different way without leaving the world unprotected.

I’m not sure that consent in the context of medical procedures is the most appropriate analogy here. When women were given the vote or access to the universities no women voted those measures through and we weren’t each individually consulted or individually emancipated it was a freedom given to all women (or in the case of university education all those with the ability and inclination to take advantage of it) whether or not they chose to exercise it.

hayes62 | July 11, 21:39 CET

Very interesting debate. I agree with hayes62-- Buffy gave them the power but they're not forced to become Slayers. She also never chose them to be Potentials.

To attempt an analogy, it would be like if you, in Buffy's role, lived in a village and your village was under attack. You have an arsenal of guns and you hand out the guns to let your fellow villagers defend themselves. You choose to empower them. Now with their new power, they can choose to stay and fight or they can run away and not fight. Of course, the analogy fails in the sense that they can ditch their guns and the Slayers can't but again, I don't feel they're forced to use their powers if they don't want to. They can run away and not fight.

spiralout9 | July 11, 22:08 CET

I haven't and don't have time to really go into this. However, there is an old theater joke, immortalized in "Shakespeare in Love" in which the actor playing the nurse is asked what "Romeo and Juliet" is about and he says, "It's about this nurse..." When an actor is talking about what he would like to see for his character, he is going to be talking about his perspective on things and he is going to be looking at it as an actor because that is his function.

Much of Spike's character arcs were done with relatively little screen time. I always find it interesting how much time is attributed to the character in S7 when he barely appears in most of the episodes at all. When he does, the writers and the actor usually made the most of it, but it is still a small amount of actual time except for a few episodes.

If I recall correctly, JM's complaint with Spike in Joss's episodes may also be partly because, since his portion was usually isolated and tangential to the story, he was often doing "2nd unit" filming, meaning that Joss was not actually directing him at all. The main Joss action was happening somewhere else while JM's scenes were being done separately. Admittedly, if I had to choose an actor to leave to his own devices with a scene, JM would be the one I would choose, so it may have actually been both a compliment and an unavoidable happenstance due to the pressures of filming. That does not mean that it would not frustrate him.

As far as the empowerment of the potentials around the world, the fact is that these women were being targeted for death whether they were activated or not and Buffy's actions gave them the means to fight back rather than be helplessly killed.

I think the power to vote, to own property, to testify in court, serve on a jury, to run for public office and to work at a well-paying job are better analogies than the one about the gun. Women today were not given a choice by the women of some years ago whether they would have these powers. Those women fought for them and now all women in the countries where they fought have that power. Some women use it and some don't. Some bemoan feeling forced to take responsibilities they felt they would not have had if they were still "protected" by not having those powers. However, they forget that women were still put in positions where they need those powers, they just didn't have them available to them and therefore were ready made victims. Before the potentials were activated they were ready made victims for the bringers just as much as a woman was who had no money and no male relatives to protect her was before we were given those powers.

newcj | July 11, 22:12 CET

"Well, this is not a great analogy. Of course, you are right, but also simplistic."

I'm gonna go with the idea you were calling my anology simplistic, rather than me, Dana5140. ;)

You are entirely correct that I was trying to create a simple analogy for this situation. However it wasn't intended to prove or disprove the issues I think you have assumed I was discussing, Dana5140. I was using this as a way to illustrate that Buffy didn't force a lifestyle onto any of the newly empowered slayers rather than trying to suggest that no harm could come of what she did. Naturally there will be many examples of slayers going dark side and many cases of untrained girls losing control and lashing out with their newfound strength. I won't dispute that for a second. All I wanted to point out is that at it's most basic all Buffy did was give the girls abilities they didn't have before. What they do with that additional power is down to the individual girl. Some will use it for good, some will use it for evil, some will do nothing at all with it.

And that is my main point. The girls that choose to go on with their regular, non-demon-slaying lives are free to do so and need never so much as look at a vampire, let alone slay one. The "gun" will be theirs to own but will never be used. Sure, there will no doubt be a small number of these girls that will suffer the consequences of having this power no matter what they choose (wouldn't be a very interesting fictional world if bad stuff didn't happen to good people now and again) but I hold to the fact that all these girls were going to die if the First had won. No matter what they have to face because of what Buffy did, it's got to be better than almost certain death.

The Highlander | July 11, 22:18 CET

As Sunfire wrote recently, newcj, you save me a lot of typing. And in my case, you save me a lot of thinking and formulating into words and writing, too. I'm not altogether sure that's a good thing, as my brainpan could use the exercise, but it can't be helped... you already dood it, and I agree.

QuoterGal | July 11, 22:21 CET

When women were given the vote or access to the universities no women voted those measures through and we weren’t each individually consulted or individually emancipated it was a freedom given to all women ...

That's a very interesting comparison hayes62, I like that. Y'see, this is the thing with Mal's (and maybe Joss' ?) issue with "making people better" - pretty much every bit of social progress made since the enlightenment has revolved around people being made better (compulsory primary education for instance or the vote). So when is it OK to make people better and when isn't it ? It's definitely not as black and white as Mal and Possible Joss seem to think IMO.

Hmmm...isn't that was Jasmine doing? Do you think she was a 'hero'?

Personally, no BUT i'm the product of my culture which means i've been raised with a number of deeply ingrained prejudices one of which is so fundamental to "Western civilization" that most of us don't even question it i.e. we all "know" that it's better to be free than not free. But is it ? Why ? If you lived in a perfect society without war or crime or famine and you didn't even know you weren't free, what's so bad about that ? That's what Jasmine offered.

If it's moral (not just pragmatic) to sacrifice a million people to save a billion then you could make a case that she's a hero (ignoring Ats's blatant ad hominem attack with the "face of maggots" ;) because that's exactly what she's offering.

(to me the most interesting villains are those that actually have the same or nearly the same aim as the hero but are just willing to break a few more "eggs" in making the omelette - they make us ask the hardest questions)

Saje | July 11, 22:30 CET

More than just the "empowerment" was confusing behavior on Buffy's part. There are many parts of Season 7 when Buffy takes actions she's previously called unfair, including deciding to kill Anya (which was commented on) and locking up the Potentials with a vampire (which was not). I think that a theme of Season 7 was what it necessary in wartime. Were Buffy not up against the First, which she could not defeat alone, none of the rest of it would have come into play. She would not have had to train the Potentials so vigorously, or activate them with or without their consent. However, she was in wartime, and she as a leader really didn't have a choice. That's how the Watcher's Council, and the Shadowmen, felt originally, and that's why Buffy was locked up with a maniacal vampire (which was reprehensible in Helpless but fair training in Potential. I don't agree with most what Buffy did in Season 7. I think she reacted too quickly, was too panicked, and made bad decisions. But it was war, and she was the leader, so she did what she thought she had to.

And then unrelated, re:
He has said many times in the past that he preferred the more action-oriented arcs of Spikes character. Which puzzles me, because JM is nothing if not a serious actor, and season 7 gave him the opportunity to take the character to a completely different, more nuanced level, which he did beautifully. It was IMO, by far his best showing as an actor.
We got to observe the development of "souled Spike", struggling to come to terms with his new soul, as well as he and Buffy's twisted and complex past, while being manipulated by The First. And the depth he brought to this broader canvas was awesome to behold.
I believe I've read interviews with JM before where he said that he'd shoot a scene and not know his motivation. I think he said that he didn't know whether Season 6's end was supposed to be him getting a soul, or him getting de-chipped, and he didn't know whether that was to love Buffy or to kill her. So perhaps while we remember the nuances of his Season 7 performance and can clearly read the tone, he recalls only confusion, and feels that he could not play the part to his best ability.

ormaybemidgets | July 11, 22:30 CET

this is the thing with Mal's (and maybe Joss' ?) issue with "making people better"

Joss has always said Mal is someone that he wouldn't naturally get along with - he'd prefer to have dinner with the Operative. Mal is a libertarian, Joss is a liberal (in the American sense of the word). Still I think there is a distinct difference between what was done on Miranda and compulsory primary education or universal health care, which is that the Pax suppressed a natural human tendency (aggression) while education (if UR doing it right) enables innate gifts to be realised.

hayes62 | July 11, 22:58 CET

That whole post as well. I like the way your mind works, SNT. I'm pretty talked out on Buffy/Angel, but I must say if someone gave me the strength, power and resiliency like that what was given to the Potentials at a young age, unbeknownst, I'd gladly have taken it. I base at least part of this viewpoint on the montage shown of the various girls who would benefit, including the girl who rose up and restrained the fist of someone who'd been routinely abusing her. That was me at that age. Keeping in mind this is a fictional story that reflects a lot of reality, if the worst had happened and they were hunted down, those that did survive would at least have better odds of dealing with the human monsters out there.

[ edited by Tonya J on 2008-07-11 20:01 ]

Tonya J | July 11, 22:59 CET

Still I think there is a distinct difference between what was done on Miranda and compulsory primary education or universal health care, which is that the Pax suppressed a natural human tendency (aggression) while education (if UR doing it right) enables innate gifts to be realised.

And again, the distinction is arbitrarily made between making people do things "for their own good" and other interferences as if one is automatically OK and one isn't (universal health care is a red herring, no-one's being made to do anything in that situation - except pay taxes I guess ;). The Pax is close to a red herring because of course, hindsight is 20/20. But would it have been so easy to decide which side of the fence it fell on before Miranda?

And the "natural tendency" argument doesn't hold much water with me either, natural is emphatically NOT the same as good or worthy or even necessarily desirable so I don't see why suppressing a tendency is clearly wrong because it's natural. Revenge may be a natural human tendency for instance but we suppress that in civilised society and force submission to the rule of law. Is it wrong to do that if revenge actually is natural ? Or is it OK because, natural or not, revenge is "bad" ?

(and we know Joss has said he'd disagree with Mal about a lot of things, do we actually know what though ? Cos i'd love to read that interview if anyone has a link)

Saje | July 12, 00:02 CET

highlander- no, I meant you. ;-)

Boy, all you guys are sure arguing the ends justify the means! Buffy had to do it because....

This quote caught my eye: "However, she was in wartime, and she as a leader really didn't have a choice. That's how the Watcher's Council, and the Shadowmen, felt originally, and that's why Buffy was locked up with a maniacal vampire (which was reprehensible in Helpless but fair training in Potential. I don't agree with most what Buffy did in Season 7. I think she reacted too quickly, was too panicked, and made bad decisions. But it was war, and she was the leader, so she did what she thought she had to." This is exactly the argument advanced by our current administration for every depredation it does. So I have a really hard time with this argument for Buffy- which is, as I noted above, the ends justify the means. What others did (ie, Shadowmen) which was argued wrong, here is okay because it is needed for the fight. If you do what your enemies do, are you somehow moral because you are on the side of the angels? That is precisely the argument offered for torturing captured potential Al Qaeda members, right? Torture one to save many? But is it moral? I do understand that these were some of the questions that Joss was looking at, but my feeling here is that we are too quick to forgive Buffy her decisions because she was just trying to save the world- she was justified, by golly. But I think S8 is getting at the question of, was she?

Dana5140 | July 12, 00:22 CET

As Sunfire wrote recently, newcj, you save me a lot of typing.

Also much using of words to communicate thoughts, which is even harder. I like what newcj said here about the empowerment issue as well.

Sunfire - I don't really see that off the top of my head, but I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on that. Anya is way less prone to falling in thrall to some powerful/mesmerizing force as far as I can see. She's proven that she's more than happy to follow her own agenda, whatever that entails.

Consider how each is a social outcast originally because they annoy and kind of scare others. A somewhat effeminate, seemingly gay nerdy man who won't stop talking. A woman who is direct in what she says and does and is skilled with reasoning and magic but has no tact whatsoever. They both try to fit in and often fail, and they're both considered inappropriate rather often. They both get a lot of grief for being themselves, and they both struggle to learn how to be who they are. They each always define themselves in terms of other people-- in Andrew's case, a kind of hero worship; in Anya's, rejection. Anya doesn't follow Olaf, but she does create a violent career for herself in reaction to his treatment of her. And tries to revert to that when Xander leaves her at the altar, too. Her lyics in "Selfless" are really good: I've boned a troll I've wreaked some wrath, but on the whole I've had no path, I like to bowl I'm good with math but who am I? Now I reply that- I'm the missus. Anya's personality isn't like Andrew's, but in terms of falling in with the wrong crowd because the right crowd doesn't like you, and the wrong crowd offers you power? Warren recruited Andrew. D'Hoffryn recruited Anya.

Willow's more like an introverted Buffy.

Sunfire | July 12, 00:22 CET

Very good points, Sunfire.

menomegirl | July 12, 00:30 CET

If Willow is introverted Buffy and Andrew is like Anya, who is Dawn like? A female Xander?

crazygolfa | July 12, 00:45 CET

Not everyone is like someone else. Just sometimes there are strong parallels in how they approach things or how they're treated by others within the themes of the show. They're also all different in other ways. I can't see Andrew ever facing Buffy alone in a fair fight like Anya did, or at least not from what we know of Andrew currently. So he's not entirely like Anya-- what she gets done, he still mostly daydreams about. Except the giant robot fight that needed his geek knowledge, he can check that one off his list.

Dawn gets deliberately paralleled with Buffy and Xander in different parts of S7. I was pretty surprised when she started ordering the Slayers not to retreat in #15 though.

Sunfire | July 12, 01:05 CET

zeitgeist, anyone else who was offended: sorry, did not mean to come off as a know-it-all (maybe as a know-it-a-little? ?) ).

RavenU, completely agree that this Q&A report -- along with any other interview/report that doesn't purport to be an unedited transcript -- reflects the views of the writer, and very likely the writer's editor as well. In context, things may have sounded different.

Dana5140 et al, I think Buffy's empowerment decision is more like a doctor who gives a patient an emergency appendectomy when the patient is unconscious. Who knows, maybe the patient belongs to some religious group that objects to surgery or has other reasons for objecting, but without the surgery, the patient will die. Without the empowerment, most of the world's population (including unempowered Potentials) would die. The choices by that point seemed to be a) living as women with Slayer powers, b) dying as unempowered Ubervamp victims or c) committing suicide. There wasn't an "if I don't do anything, their lives will go on as normal" choice.

Shapenew | July 12, 02:22 CET

sn- but that only begs the question and again is simply justifying what was done. I am not saying that no good came from that decision, only that the moral basis for it is suspect. And to simply address your analogy, the law is written so that consent is not necessary (it is implied) when a patient is unconscious and efforts to contact next of kin cannot be made due to the immediacy of the problem. So again, I don't feel this analogy is right, but I understand the point you are trying to make. I am still getting at the morality of this decision, made for many by one, and in order to use them in a fight as cannon fodder, knowing that some of them will die. Which is about where we are in S8, right? :-)

Dana5140 | July 12, 02:57 CET

Dana5140 Good points. I'm completely agree with you.

sueworld2003 | July 12, 03:15 CET

I am still getting at the morality of this decision, made for many by one, and in order to use them in a fight as cannon fodder, knowing that some of them will die. Which is about where we are in S8, right? :-)
Dana5140 |

No it isn't, not in my opinion. It is done so all of them will be able to defend themselves and some of them will choose to fight on the front lines. Your scenario never even mentions the fact that these women and girls were being targeted throughout S8 long before they had any powers. Even if Buffy did not open the Hellmouth, activating the potentials was a way of giving them a chance of avoiding being murder victims. Throughout the season they said a number of times that Buffy could not protect them all, they were all going to be picked off one by one, etc. They were given a means to stay alive, not a way to die.

newcj | July 12, 03:17 CET

Dana5140, fair enough. Just as long as I'm clear. ;D

I'll admit that I'm probably a little biased in this discussion because I know in my heart I'd have made the same decision as Buffy. Truthfully I'd probably have made it a lot sooner and with less debate on the rights and wrongs. Given the situation they were up against it wouldn't even be an issue for me once I knew that it was possible to activate all the potential slayers into weapons in the war I was steadily losing. I absolutely believe that winning the war and saving the world was a just reason for making this morally dubious decision concerning the lives of these girls. Honestly, the moral issue of the decision wouldn't even be a second thought for me, given the alternative outcome that I would be facing.

For me, personal morals have to be weighed against logic and reason. Sure, it may be that I'm changing the lives of a couple of thousand girls who may or may not be happy with slayer power but if I don't act then they will almost certainly die and the world as we know it dies with them. With that in mind I'd be left with no choice but to act in exactly the same way that Buffy did.

Mind you, I'm also one of those people who thinks Dexter has the right idea, so moral values may not be my strong point at the best of times. ;)

The Highlander | July 12, 03:20 CET

That's actually not what I meant, Shapenew - someone had said "We don't know these are even from the same interview/con/appearance?" and you know 'cause you were there. I wasn't tweaking you, I promise!

Sunfire - neat, though I'm not sure I agree, I see where you are coming from. Thank you for sharing that, it was fascinating to see from another angle.



Hold on a minute there, Mr. over-reach ;) She called them to give them a chance at surviving and so that any who chose to could help her. She didn't call them up thinking, "Whew, more meat between me and sharp, pokey, agonizing death,", although certainly she hoped some of them would stand with her.

zeitgeist | July 12, 05:32 CET

ZG, and newcj- but that was what happened, irrefutably. Again, I m not dumb here; I understand that the potentials were given means to defend themselves against a great evil. My argument is, is this enough, in moral terms? The arguments being advanced here touch perilously close to the arguments being made by the current administration to justify spying on Americans, to torturing suspects, to not allowing those held in Gitmo from legally arguing their captivity- it is the same argument, that we are doing this for the security and safety of our country. Now, I honestly don't want this comment to ignite a political discussion, since I don't feel that is productive, but everyone should understand I am what would be termed a "liberal democrat," proud and out on that issue- and this is why, or partly why, I had so much trouble with S7, where Buffy was all, I am the law- words to that effect were also used by Bush at times. And I do not feel that the ends justify the means. I understand realpolitik, but that is not my issue; morality is my issue- most people here are arguing in consequentialist/utilitarian terms, but that is scarcely the only way to argue- you could argue in Kantian (deontologial) terms as well, considering the Categorical Imperative and am I the single most boring person in the world? :-) (highlander, you do not get to answer that ;-))

Sheesh, all this from one James Marsters interview!

Dana5140 | July 12, 06:01 CET

Yeah, but the world really was in danger of ending ;) I think people are more concerned with the utility because we all agree that it was a grey area morally. Some of us just really do believe that the girls were better off empowered without their consent vs. dead without their consent no matter how much it upsets you that you think Buffy seems to be sliding closer to the Minear end of the scale than the Joss one.

Authoritarianism doesn't really care what end of the political spectrum its on. Unilateral decisions are not by their nature politically to the right. So, yeah, I think the political baggage can probably go away in this question.

As far as what happened irrefutably? Buffy made the choice to empower these girls hoping that some of them would stand by her. She could no more order someone unwilling to do so to do so than I could levitate a hamburger in Davenport from New Jersey (I would have to be in at least Ohio for my far reaching meat levitation powers to reach the Quad Cities).

zeitgeist | July 12, 06:14 CET

Don't know if this will be read, having fallen off the main page, but I absolutely agree with the people who said Buffy made the right choice, activating the potentials and as such saving them from "sharp, pokey, agonizing death", as our own man-in-orange would say ;-). And yes, the moral discussion is interesting: did Buffy have the right to make this decission for the Potentials even if it saved their lives? To which I'd also awnser "yes", by the way. This is not 'the end justifies the means' in the same way as Dana5140 uses it here, for this particular case (other decissions of Buffy in S7 might fit the bill, though). I think the medical analogies were much more to-the-point. Without Buffy's 'treatment', the potentials would have died. And in that case, you don't need an 'end of the world, big-old-war-going-on' scenario to justify her actions morally.

But there's another interesting question that I feel is slipping through the cracks: given the fact of Buffy as a work of fiction, where the situation itself is a construct created by a writer, is what Chosen portrayed really the most effective way of driving home the message of empowerment to the public? In the way it was portrayed on the episode itself - Willow going 'white', like she was some kind of ultimate force for good, the montage of women showing them rising above their previous stations to swelling music and the triumphant defeat of evil - this was certainly portrayed as something great that needed to be applauded, while foregoing the moral objections that have been fittingly raised in this thread. That - apart from Buffy being right or moral in the show itself, which is an interesting enough question in and of itself - is what bothered me more than anything else: was this the best way to end Buffy on an empowering note? To which I'd answer: I'm not sure.

(and then I'd even like to ask the question if empowerment was the note on which Buffy should have ended its seven year journey. Did it epitomize what Buffy was about? Surely female empowerment was important to the show in subtle ways during its run and it was an implicit part of anything Buffy did and was, from the central premise onwards. But was it truly necessary to be so literal, in the end, and drive the point home quite unsubtely? I'm not sure on that count either, but that's probably a whole other discussion yet again, not to be had in a thread that's already dropped from the main page).



Heh :)

GVH | July 12, 06:17 CET

Dana5140:
Too late. As another (more or less) liberal Democrat, I call bullshit on that statement. Seeing as how all those arguments about spying on Americans, torturing suspects, etc, etc, have not one damn thing to do with giving me the means and ability to defend myself, and everything to do with increasing governmental powers while giving lip service to "liberty," trying to compare the two situations stretches credulity to the breaking point and beyond.

I've looked down the barrel of a gun before - that's why I carry one religiously and learned to use it very well. I look at it like this: If I'm actively being hunted by someone intent on taking my head, anyone who gives me a weapon that increases my odds of survival is on my side; anyone who tries to waffle about my having that weapon is on the other. Regardless of what excuses they might want to make for it.

Rowan Hawthorn | July 12, 06:23 CET

I have also looked down a barrel of a gun,and that's why I don't own one. All kidding aside. But that is by the by, and not a discussion I will have here, since this is all Buffy all the time. :-) And also, I think it is unfair and perhaps a bit emotional to say that I have stretched credulity to the breaking point and beyond; I have been very careful here to argue clearly and without any ire about this issue, which honestly I am not invested in, but which I find simply interesting. It has helped me codify a lot of what I felt about S7 but could not articulate; to do so has been useful for me, and I hope, 125 posts in, interesting to others as well. Remember, fun is the game here. I only mentioned my political views because I think, and I am an honest fellow, it colors how I view the things we are talking about. It was in the sense of a disclosure to whedonesque, that's all.

I am delving into a major debate in philosophy and one I think the actual philosophers here can discuss better than I can, since I have to contextualize things in medical terms. My issue, which has evolved as this discussion has gained depth, is: which approach to decision making do we use: one that is consequentialist/utilitarian (ie, given the risks and benefits, which decision do we make based on creating the greatest good?) or a Kantian/deontological one (based on universalizing what we do to all such similar circumstances). And this is what I think Joss was beginning to get at in S7, if he were able to have devoted more time to it- the nature of power and of how decisions are made. The beauty of course is that there are no clear answers here; everything is shaded grey in moral terms. And so we all might disagree about what Buffy and Willow did- some are okay and some are not, but I am not sure there is one correct answer.

and the question asked by gvh is fascinating! I have to think about it, though it is likely we will lose this thread.

And we still never really dealt with Willow and whether she was redeemed... :-)

Dana5140 | July 12, 07:15 CET

Dana5140:
Why? My credulity was certainly stretched by that comparison. Granted, not as much as by the snake-oil salesman who tried to sell those arguments to us to begin with, but the fact remains that those two situations are, IMO, not even remotely similar in either intent or execution.


As was mine: You see, my experiences color how I view the things we discuss. An opinion was expressed, I disagree with it, and I said so - and why.

(And, on the subject of redemption, I don't think you'd get a positive answer one way or the other from Willow, either.)

Rowan Hawthorn | July 12, 07:50 CET

Dana I get what you were saying. If you try and look at the morality of what went on Buffy was on very dodgy ground. I'm amazed that more folks can't see that, but oh well. :)

Also, as Buffy once said about guns, "nothing good ever came from one of these"...*shudder*

sueworld2003 | July 12, 12:35 CET

Saje - Aren’t all distinctions arbitary in some sense? But I wasn’t being clear. I wasn’t meaning that the difference between liberating and suppressing interventions was a difference between good and bad just that it *was* a difference and an interesting one in that on Joss’s shows liberation tends to be depicted positively. Actually its more complicated than that. Individual liberation in the form of vampires being liberated from conscience is a bad thing but mass liberation whether in the form of Buffy setting her people free or Mal letting people know what their government has done has been shown as a good thing to have done. Which is not to say that all the consequences of those acts would be good or good enough.

Links to interviews:
http://homepage.mac.com/merussell/iblog/B835531044/C1592678312/E20050916182427/index.html




http://movies.aol.com/celebrity-interview/serenity-joss-whedon




[ edited by hayes62 on 2008-07-12 10:00 ]

hayes62 | July 12, 12:59 CET

"Dana I get what you were saying. If you try and look at the morality of what went on Buffy was on very dodgy ground. I'm amazed that more folks can't see that, but oh well. :)"

Again though, sueworld2003, as zeitgeist suggested above, I think that most people in this discussion understand what Dana5140 is saying and agree with the idea that morally Buffy may have been wrong. I'm certainly not going to agrue that. What I am saying is that even if she was morally wrong, she was still right to so what she did. I'm saying that the moral choice would have got her and everyone else killed, in this particular case.

If it turns out during season 8 that Buffy is forced to face the consequences of that same choice then so be it. I've no doubt that we will see exactly that. Had Buffy not made it though, there wouldn't be a Buffyverse to enjoy for an eighth season and every single one of the girls we are discussing would now be dead and buried, most with no idea why they were being hunted in the first place. Therefore I doubt anyone will ever convince me that the moral choice for Buffy to make, the choice to not activate the slayers, was also the correct one.

The Highlander | July 12, 14:08 CET

Oh, and Dana5140? See how I avoided answering that question? ;D

The Highlander | July 12, 14:10 CET

LOL, highlander. :-)

Rowan- I simply meant I felt your response was emotional and personal and could have been made without it seeming that way. We all have opinions here, right? That's all we can offer and for all of us they are colored by our beliefs- I simply wanted to make mine overt. Thank you for noting yours, but again, I want to avoid getting into politics save for its relevance to the issue at hand.

I think Willow could not even begin to think in terms of redemption. In Buffy, who has been redeemed? We could argue Spike has, and only Spike. Not Angel, since Angelus still lurks inside. But Willow? I think we are led to believe she has been- that was the point of her turning white when she cast that spell, to indicate that SOMETHING just happened. And we have Kennedy's word "goddess." But I never saw how that was atonement for what she did, and if S8 is any indication, it meant nothing.

(PS. I cannot seem to understand how to place a tag to italicize a word. I know, dumb me. But when I use and then place it again after a word, all remain italicized past the word I want to do it to. See how it works here? Help!)

Dana5140 | July 12, 16:20 CET

In fact, one may even argue that given the circumstances and with the possibility of empowering the potentials out there (and no alternatives available at that time), doing nothing would have been an implicit choice to end the world and kill the potentials. Although neither of those would have been by her hand, she would have still allowed them to happen. Buffy had the power to stop it - and had to balance a fine moral line to do so, agreed - but I would say that stopping it at all is the moral choice here. But I agree that it's certainly open to debate (as this thread has shown :)). To quote Spider-Man: "with great power, comes great responsibility".



Most things on whedonesque are cyclic anyway, so chances are we'll still get to discuss it somewhere in the future :)

Also, Dana: you have to type an / at the beginning of your end-tag like so: < i > < / i >

GVH | July 12, 16:23 CET

... so chances are we'll still get to discuss it somewhere in the future :)

And have done before. Truly cyclic ;).

Incidentally, most of the pro arguments are based on a fairly large logical fallacy in that they're "false dichotomies" i.e. they claim that the choices are "do the spell" OR "all the potentials die". Of course, that doesn't need to be the case, the empowerment spell is only one solution, there may well have been others (if Buffy had found another we'd probably be creating false dichotomies over that too ;).

And to me the connection between e.g. torture and the empowerment spell that Dana5140 is making is transparently clear - if you justify one act based on pragmatism (a means/ends argument) then it's fairly trivial to justify any act on the same basis including slavery, terrorism, torture, rape etc. What we're wrestling with is where you draw the line (there're no answers of course, no calculus of morality that we didn't invent. Fairness didn't come with our universe unfortunately, sometimes I think we should send it back for a refund ;).

To my mind, in the real world everyone that doesn't subscribe to some arbitrary moral absolutism (i.e. religious or philosophical edict) makes decisions on a utilitarian basis - we all act morally when it can't hurt us or those we care about but if there're real consequences then we act pragmatically and then live with it afterwards. If some sicko handed you a gun and said "Shoot your child or shoot this total stranger, those are your options" then i'd call anyone a liar that said they wouldn't (probably after an inner struggle) shoot the total stranger. But morally i'd say one isn't any better than the other.

Aren’t all distinctions arbitary in some sense?

Absolutely hayes62, that's precisely my point. Which is to say, I find it very difficult to accept any claims of one interference being unequivocally a moral good and other kinds being unequivocally a moral bad (which is what I thought you were saying but it seems we actually basically agree, except on trifling details like precisely where we sit on the arbitrary moral spectrum ;).

Thanks for your quotes BTW but they don't answer my question. As I mentioned, we already knew Joss disagreed with Mal, those quotes don't tell us what about beyond the very broad and vague "politics". In fact "But that's sort of the point. I mean, if the movie's about anything, it's about the right to be wrong. It's about the messiness of people. And if you try to eradicate that, you eradicate them." indicates that Joss feels interference is morally bad so he does agree with Mal that you shouldn't "make people better". But I bet he's for compulsory primary education and universal suffrage so what he actually means (as with most liberals, of which i'm definitely one BTW - in the UK sense ;) is "You shouldn't make people better ... unless it's in the good way for 'good' - i.e. our - reasons". Which is inconsistent, especially given the arbitrary nature of the beast (if Mal is "every schmuck" and the point is, he should be allowed to be a schmuck if he wants, then shouldn't he also be allowed to be an uneducated schmuck if he wants ?).

[ edited by Saje on 2008-07-12 13:45 ]

Saje | July 12, 16:42 CET

Ah, but that was in The First Age Of Whedonesque, a time now long forgotten and turned into legend, which became myth and then faded from memory because we drank to much and killed the braincells desperately clinging to that last bit of information.



But in fact, in Chosen, there were only two options. The one of doing nothing and the one solution they had come up with during the given timeframe. Sure, there could have been alternatives (and probably they should have been looking for alternatives all along), but that was a choice made at another point in the decission making process. At the point where they activated the potentials, it truly was a dichotomy.

GVH | July 12, 16:59 CET