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
"She's a tech-head Mag....she's a girl Mag!"
11981 members | you are not logged in | 26 May 2018


March 14 2011

Buffy's Girls - commentary on the final issue of Season 8. A Sequential Tart writer talks about why the ending left her torn.

It's kind of an intriguing point-- and I totally agree that the new Slayers had no personalities-- but I could have sworn that all the Slayers still exist, it's just if they happened to also dabble in magic then they've lost the ability to tap into that connection?

Taking their analogy though, I guess it does kind of fit the series/make sense now. Rather than a unified vision under a single leader, there would be splintered groups of new/third-wave Slayers out and about deciding what to do with their powers. (Or it'd be like that legion of Santas from This American Life/post-Cold War USSR in terms of a unified body totally splintering apart?)

One other point raised in the article about the positive shift back towards characters-- Did Andrew die at some point without me being aware of it? I checked out some wikis and they're weirdly inconclusive.

I'd be bummed if he's completely out of season 9 since I still feel much more affection for [even minor] characters from the TV show than any character created solely for the comics. Granted part of that has been since they all mostly strike me as potential casualties or complete one offs. (That said, I've loved the comic portrayals of Dracula and it seems pretty different from the TV show.)
Interesting point! Do you see third-wave slayers as equivalent to third-wave feminists?
No Andrew didn't die. I think he would have warranted a death panel if that'd happened.

To be honest I don't really care about how right on the ending of the series was. The feminism in Buffy has always been about the individual characters anyway, some grand gesture and large metaphor is fine and all but it doesn't take away from the Buffy being an awesome feminist hero bit.
Andrew is not dead. In an interview one of thew writers was surprised when someone assumed he was.
I'm a little confused about this part:

The source of slayer power turns out to be the Seed of Wonder, which acts as a stopper between realms...Buffy decides that the safety of the world is not worth the trouble the seed enables. Buffy destroys it, but the action that saves the girls literally disempowers them...

But they all kept their Slayer powers, didn't they? What fragmented them was the way the world treated Slayers and Buffy's controversial judgment, not being literally disempowered when the Seed was destroyed. Or am I wrong?
Your not wrong prophecygrrl. The current Slayers weren't disempowered (except maybe on a metaphoric level with the "Slayer army" viewed as an abject failure). When Buffy destroyed the Seed all current Slayers stayed Slayers, the consequences of her actions is that no new Slayers will be call. Until Fray's time, at least.
Kaan's right. When Willow spoke to her goddess friend, the goddess specifically said that the examples of remaining magic after the destruction of the seed would include vampires, and 'Slayers already called'. So, we get no new Slayers, but anyone who became a Slayer prior to the Seed's destruction remains a Slayer.
I think that's what the article means, though. "The Chain" is broken, no more connection between the slayers, ergo their collective empowerment is broken. (At least that is what the article states as the "feminist fantasy".)
Hmm, no more new SLayers at all, or just one passing via Faith? Glad I stopped taking this seriously a long way back.

And turning Kennedy into the self-centered bitch most Kittens always thought she was? Sigh.

I'll read S-9, but emotionally I'm done.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

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