Would Freud have seen Buffy as just Buffy?
"The endless pseudo-scholarly theorising over Winnie the Pooh, Harry Potter and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer reflects a culture that finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish between childish entertainment and adult intellectual nourishment."
A tenuous a link to the Whedon-verse given that Buffy is mentioned only briefly in this perspective on the validity of Harry Potter as a metaphor; however, I think it is interesting to apply the same critical eye towards our analysis of the works of Whedon & Co. While I disagree with the notion that Buffy is devoid of subtext, I wonder if we don't create metaphors where there were none intended.
July 18 2004
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
Of course we do, remember all the cheeseman theories? Theres lots of metaphor and literary themes in the show but I doubt Joss thinks about all of this as much as the fans do, BUT he'd probably rather us think about it than not.
eddy | July 18, 08:51 CET
Perhaps some delve too deeply, but I could make the same claim about any litterature.
rabid | July 18, 08:55 CET
I would like for the writer of this article to watch "Restless" and still admit that this show is childish entertainment not worth any form of literary analysis.
rabid | July 18, 09:07 CET
Just keep me the hell away from these cavalier assholes who think they know what they are talking about. They seem to be coming out of the woodwork.
*shaking hands in frustration* grrrrr.
Willowy | July 18, 09:17 CET
Natashia | July 18, 09:25 CET
forcorreo | July 18, 10:21 CET
I find that particular example funny as Whedon specifically stated that their is no meaning behind the cheeseman, yet we insist on connecting dots; however, I think it's great that we do and I think Whedon does too. Better we think too much than too little :)
In one of the commentaries for season 6, Marti Noxon makes a similar declaration of “no hidden meaning” with regard to the numbered shirts worn by several characters.
Of course, it's likely that Whedon and Noxon are just trying to throw us off the trail—the truth is out there TM!
Ubqtous | July 18, 10:32 CET
people like that frustrate me, even though they're really not worth the energy.
orphea | July 18, 10:39 CET
Yeah, he's really stepped in it!
Ubqtous | July 18, 10:40 CET
grrarrgh00 | July 18, 10:42 CET
orphea | July 18, 10:49 CET
And sometimes an uninformed, elitist, cultural generalizer is just an uninformed, elitist, cultural generalizer, eh? ;)
Wiseblood | July 18, 10:55 CET
Exactly. (Btw, are they still actually quoting Freud? He was one to talk by the way since he's the man who saw sexual undertones in literally everything we say or dream)
But this whole article...good grief. Save me from intellectual snobs of that caliber. Note how he writes : "Winnie the Pooh, Harry Potter and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Because Winnie is of course, far more adult than Buffy.....I doubt the man ever looked past the name of 'Buffy' or ever sat down to actually watch the show.
Hey we all have things we think are crap. Or think we know are crap but consider guilty pleasures. But this type of cheap labelling is merely pseudo-intellectual snobbery.
It reminds me of what Stephen King said, when he was chiding the american literary world (in an acceptance speech) for only reading what is 'officially' dubbed "literature" and looking down on everything else in pop culture. He asked if it was really something to be proud of for writers to be deliberately cut off from their own culture and what goes on in other media and genres and in most of the population's minds. Kind of enjoyed that one.
Buffy was filled with symbolism and metaphors. Probably not as much as some fans see, but you'd have to be a complete and utte moron not to see the majority of them. If you actually watch it of course...
EdDantes | July 18, 13:44 CET
prufrock | July 18, 17:00 CET
Yes exactly.
And why should anyone consider children's literature to be of any less value than 'adult literature'? (Say it with me: "Because they're snobs.") If it ever meant anything to us, at any age, why should we consider it something lesser when we grow older? (Imagine if people lived 500 or so years longer than we do - would they act condescendingly towards the works of art that we as adults take so seriously?)
forcorreo | July 18, 18:04 CET
marmoset | July 18, 23:34 CET
Yeah I tried to say the same thing earlier only I used more words and less eloquence.
electricspacegirl | July 19, 02:48 CET
On the other hand, most of the people he points to do kind of sound like idiots.
Still, anything that keeps intellectuals off the streets is probably to the good.
[ edited by bobster on 2004-07-19 02:00 ]
[ edited by bobster on 2004-07-19 02:00 ]
bobster | July 19, 04:00 CET
Now, not all intellectuals are bad. Some of them actually make significant contributions to culture. ;) Being a person "endowed with intellect; having the power of understanding; having capacity for the higher forms of knowledge or thought; characterized by intelligence or mental capacity" (good 'ol Webster) could well describe individuals as diverse as any of us, JW himself, and certainly any of the writers thus far responsible for inspiring our continued devotion.
It's just when analytical ability isn't armed with knowledgeable awareness of a subject, or when that subject is denigrated unfairly or baselessly, the inequities of argument are all the more glaring. We should all hope to be intelligent. I mean, it's not a term I'd consider an insult. A sharp knife in the hand beats a half-dozen dull ones in the kitchen drawer any day.
The gentleman is, however, clearly unacquainted with the particulars of the Whedonverse. If he's truly intelligent, and at all interested in maintaining his credibility, the feedback he'll no doubt be receiving from fans should spur him to enlarge the scope of his assumptions. A little Freud, a little Buffy ... there's room for both and maybe he'll figure that out. Moderation in all things...
Wiseblood | July 19, 10:16 CET