This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Mist. Cemetery. Halloween. This should end well."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 17 December 2014




Tweet







March 09 2011

Vampires, masculinity & language in Buffy. Another essay in the PopMatters "Spotlight on Joss Whedon" series.

Wrong link. That one is about Buffy's place in the fantasy canon.
Thanks, I was in a rush this morning.
Nice of them to crop and then use one of my old artworks without first seeking permission....:0
Did they really? How rude.
Yeah, I'm suspecting that they must have nicked it from my Flickr album where it explicitly states please ask permission first before reposting elsewhere. But then this is the same artwork that a while back I discovered someone had made into T shirts and was busy selling on eBay, so there yah go.

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2011-03-09 12:06 ]
This essay was a bit er, unenlightening? I mean there doesn't seem to be much depth to it, yeah vampires are all about the braggadocio and overtly masculine behaviour is a useful conduit for that, especially when confronted with a woman who you can forcefully read femininity onto in order to set them up in opposition to all the awesome masculine things about you.

But the essay just reiterates lines of dialogue. It would have been more interesting to have more in depth character studies, especially with Spike who has a pretty interesting relationship with masculinity that is not really touched on (e.g. "I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it").

The essay about Buffy and fantasy that has also been posted today was much more interesting I thought.
I must disagree. First, when did Buffy ever go along with the flow. Seems she always took a different path to reach her end goals. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but I don't think so.
I have to agree with the "not much to it." It might have been more interesting to me if the female vampires on the show had been shown to also used "macho language." (They didn't, did they?... *tries to remember* ...I guess it's been too long since I did a rewatch--plus no brains to speak of, as of late.)

There's a bunch of potential in the portrayal/representation of masculinity in BtVS thing though. Now that would really interest me as an article.

******

I also enjoyed both the fantasy article and the one on Xander's "everyman" status. They made me consider some aspects of the show that I hadn't thought about. (Which isn't unusual for me, since I don't naturally analyze stories beyond their story telling aspects.) I guess that means they did their jobs. Even if I didn't' agree with everything they said. ;-)
Hey hey hey. The scar on Buffy's neck is not from the Master. Buffy knew it, Dracula knew it. I object.
Oh yeah, I remember thinking that when reading it and then forgot. Blates about Angel.
Yeah, bit insubstantial this one unfortunately. Quoting dialogue to justify your points is fine but there doesn't seem to be much meat to the points themselves and a lot of it kind of goes "[insulting quote]" ... "Which is an insult" or "[macho quote]" ... "X is being macho here" as if it's aimed at people who haven't seen the show (who'd be reading it why exactly ?).

Well enough written though and I didn't see many typos so they seem to have got on top of that aspect.

Wasn't terribly impressed with the fantasy one either mainly because maybe i'm missing something - it is a day with a 'y' in it ;) - but I don't see much merit in what seems to be its fundamental premise. E.g.
Given these observations, does the dragon seem more or less real than, say, Blair from Gossip Girl, whose novelty occurs within the projected realities that fantasy uses as its substructure? Blair supposes a “new woman,” (and very effectively, too), whereas a dragon only supposes our old conceptions of fire, breathing, cats, bats, etc. and combines them.

Now I haven't seen 'Gossip Girl' but is this actually saying that dragons are mo more fantastical than a realist character because dragons are made up of preexisting components ? What's the character made up of then, properties that are brand new to the world, no examples of which have ever existed in human kind ? Or
But where fantasists build upon existing realities, realists tear down existing realities only to rebuild them. Again, where realism rewrites, fantasy rearranges.

Eh ? To go with the dragon again, fantasies featuring dragons have created a reality where dragons are physically possible, how is that building on an existing reality (in a way that realists don't also i.e. by using pre-existing components) ?

I love SF&F and don't see it as in any way inferior to realist fiction but the essay's claims just don't seem to be true to me. Am I looking at it the wrong way ?
sueworld2003, my apologies for the use of the graphic. I am responsible for editing the text of each of the essays, but I do none of the design and chose none of the images.

At any rate, I will pass along to her your concern over the use of the graphic and ask her to remove it.
Oh thanks for that but It's already been removed by the looks of it.

For the record folks can use my stuff on their websites If they just seek permission beforehand thats all. :)

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home