Buffy #21 review
Jan. 12th, 2009 02:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moscow_watcherI have to confess that after the flashy preview ("New world where vampires are in and Slayers are out") I was expecting a more radical approach. Something resembling Brave New World by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jamesmfan in which Buffy ends up in the future where vampires are considered regular members of the society and killing them is regarded as crime.
Comics plot is tamer, but, at the same time, more ambiguous.
...Harmony "gets taste of A Dick" (she bites TV personality Andy Dick) and becomes a Paris Hilton-like celebrity. At the same time, a new slayer is called in LA. Andrew tries to recruit her, and she seems to get interested. But when Andrew connects her to Buffy via a phone, she decides, because of a "crappy connection", that she is recruited into a street gang, not unlike the one she has quit recently. The girl becomes a vigilante and attacks Harmony on live TV. Harmony kills her in self-defense and becomes a hero. Moreover, media declares that slayers are bad guys.
This plot twist is a sharp commentary on current situation in the world: today all wars are informational first and foremost. Obviously Buffy didn't know about it and she has to pay for her unconcern. Harmony won the informational war and single-handedly reversed the situation with vampires and slayers.
So, MTV and CNN are responsible for empowering vampires and making slayers pariahs. I don't watch MTV (I don't watch TV at all) but the last thing I read about MTV was Will Smith's declaration: "I truly believe a large part of why Barack is in office has to do—and they’re not getting credit—has to do with MTV." Go figure.
BTW, can writers incorporate real TV personalities (Anderson Cooper, Andy Dick) into their story without permission or they have to ask first? Just curious.
The real question is, are slayers the bad guys in this story? Or are they "heroes with built-in villains", as Harmony aptly puts it? If vampires can live without harming humans (well, relatively) is it right to kill them? Should Buffy look for peaceful settlement of humans/vampires problems? Are we supposed to root for Buffy or for Harmony?
The latter is a hoot. (I wonder if Jane Espenson was inspired by Mercedes McNab's RL persona. In 2006 Jane and Mercedes were guests on Queen Mary con; I remember pics of Mercedes with a small dog in her lap.) Harmony looks like well-groomed Buffy and acts waaaay more clever than Buffy. She even knows the word "zeitgeist". That's what working as Angel's secretary does to people! And - Harm's not actively evil. She doesn't kill anybody, unless it's in self-defense. Her bites are clearly metaphors for sex. Is she evil because she "wants in"?
I'm not sure I understand writers' intentions. The majority of conceptual plot twists Joss comes up with have already been explored by fanfic writers, and it's fun to compare different approaches, but my perception is colored by the stories I read. And I feel confused. Are we supposed to laugh in the scene in which a horse harasses Dawn and Buffy doesn't notice it? Are we supposed to blame Buffy for her failure to recruit the new slayer? Is "crappy connection" a metaphor of Buffy's inability to communicate with people, or it's nothing but a crappy phone connection? Less than 30% of slayers work within Buffy's organization and the rest of them prefer to stay away - but why? The story about the slayer who refuses to join Buffy's army and gets killed - is it a cautionary tale: "Look what happens to those slayers who don't join Buffy" - or?...
Another confusing moment. Obviously, the slayer refused to join Buffy's army because she took her organization for another street gang. Or a terrorist organization. The problem is, formally Buffy's army is a gang of terrorists. They rob banks. They send their agents to provoke wars (Chain). Of course, they fight vampires (Wolves at the Gates) but only when they threaten their well-being. And Buffy takes another vampire, Dracula, as an ally.
Curiously, we still don't know anything about decision-making process within Buffy's organization. Are we supposed to think that Buffy makes all decisions alone? Who's in charge? In issue 1 Buffy says "we", "us", but doesn't specify, thus creating the impression that the decisions are made democratically. But the events that happen later (Giles' estranglement, Willow's shock at discovering that Buffy robs banks) indicate that Buffy may be the one and only decision-maker within her organization. I wonder if Joss has a clear idea of it.
But maybe we aren't supposed to dig that deep. Maybe slayers are good guys because eventually they will win, and history is written by winners.
Anyway, if one can put all the thinky thoughts aside, the issue is funny, dynamic and sparkling with humor. Some details are priceless, such as special folders for various glossy magazines in Harmony's apartment and band-aid on the neck of every member of Harmony's film crew.
On TV, Jane Espenson often wrote "light" episodes about hard moral dilemmas. The most representative is, I think, is Pangs with its lose-lose situation. Thanksgiving spirit, feel-good mood and then "You exterminated his race. What could you possibly say that would make him feel better? It's kill or be killed here. Take your bloody pick." It's not about good and bad. It's about the lesser of two evils. That's what usually happens in extreme situations. And looks like from now on Buffy's slayer army is in an extreme situation.
P.S.
No mention of Spike, but in a recent Q&As Scott Allie told that "we can assume that Buffy knows everything that any characters in her organization, like Andrew, know, or could find out". Obviously, Buffy knows Spike is alive but doesn't care. Maybe it's for the better. The continuation of Buffy and Spike's story in a universe where Harmony "gets taste of a dick" and Dawn is harassed by a horse? Thanks, but no thanks.
jamesmfan in which Buffy ends up in the future where vampires are considered regular members of the society and killing them is regarded as crime.Comics plot is tamer, but, at the same time, more ambiguous.
...Harmony "gets taste of A Dick" (she bites TV personality Andy Dick) and becomes a Paris Hilton-like celebrity. At the same time, a new slayer is called in LA. Andrew tries to recruit her, and she seems to get interested. But when Andrew connects her to Buffy via a phone, she decides, because of a "crappy connection", that she is recruited into a street gang, not unlike the one she has quit recently. The girl becomes a vigilante and attacks Harmony on live TV. Harmony kills her in self-defense and becomes a hero. Moreover, media declares that slayers are bad guys.
This plot twist is a sharp commentary on current situation in the world: today all wars are informational first and foremost. Obviously Buffy didn't know about it and she has to pay for her unconcern. Harmony won the informational war and single-handedly reversed the situation with vampires and slayers.
So, MTV and CNN are responsible for empowering vampires and making slayers pariahs. I don't watch MTV (I don't watch TV at all) but the last thing I read about MTV was Will Smith's declaration: "I truly believe a large part of why Barack is in office has to do—and they’re not getting credit—has to do with MTV." Go figure.
BTW, can writers incorporate real TV personalities (Anderson Cooper, Andy Dick) into their story without permission or they have to ask first? Just curious.
The real question is, are slayers the bad guys in this story? Or are they "heroes with built-in villains", as Harmony aptly puts it? If vampires can live without harming humans (well, relatively) is it right to kill them? Should Buffy look for peaceful settlement of humans/vampires problems? Are we supposed to root for Buffy or for Harmony?
The latter is a hoot. (I wonder if Jane Espenson was inspired by Mercedes McNab's RL persona. In 2006 Jane and Mercedes were guests on Queen Mary con; I remember pics of Mercedes with a small dog in her lap.) Harmony looks like well-groomed Buffy and acts waaaay more clever than Buffy. She even knows the word "zeitgeist". That's what working as Angel's secretary does to people! And - Harm's not actively evil. She doesn't kill anybody, unless it's in self-defense. Her bites are clearly metaphors for sex. Is she evil because she "wants in"?
I'm not sure I understand writers' intentions. The majority of conceptual plot twists Joss comes up with have already been explored by fanfic writers, and it's fun to compare different approaches, but my perception is colored by the stories I read. And I feel confused. Are we supposed to laugh in the scene in which a horse harasses Dawn and Buffy doesn't notice it? Are we supposed to blame Buffy for her failure to recruit the new slayer? Is "crappy connection" a metaphor of Buffy's inability to communicate with people, or it's nothing but a crappy phone connection? Less than 30% of slayers work within Buffy's organization and the rest of them prefer to stay away - but why? The story about the slayer who refuses to join Buffy's army and gets killed - is it a cautionary tale: "Look what happens to those slayers who don't join Buffy" - or?...
Another confusing moment. Obviously, the slayer refused to join Buffy's army because she took her organization for another street gang. Or a terrorist organization. The problem is, formally Buffy's army is a gang of terrorists. They rob banks. They send their agents to provoke wars (Chain). Of course, they fight vampires (Wolves at the Gates) but only when they threaten their well-being. And Buffy takes another vampire, Dracula, as an ally.
Curiously, we still don't know anything about decision-making process within Buffy's organization. Are we supposed to think that Buffy makes all decisions alone? Who's in charge? In issue 1 Buffy says "we", "us", but doesn't specify, thus creating the impression that the decisions are made democratically. But the events that happen later (Giles' estranglement, Willow's shock at discovering that Buffy robs banks) indicate that Buffy may be the one and only decision-maker within her organization. I wonder if Joss has a clear idea of it.
But maybe we aren't supposed to dig that deep. Maybe slayers are good guys because eventually they will win, and history is written by winners.
Anyway, if one can put all the thinky thoughts aside, the issue is funny, dynamic and sparkling with humor. Some details are priceless, such as special folders for various glossy magazines in Harmony's apartment and band-aid on the neck of every member of Harmony's film crew.
On TV, Jane Espenson often wrote "light" episodes about hard moral dilemmas. The most representative is, I think, is Pangs with its lose-lose situation. Thanksgiving spirit, feel-good mood and then "You exterminated his race. What could you possibly say that would make him feel better? It's kill or be killed here. Take your bloody pick." It's not about good and bad. It's about the lesser of two evils. That's what usually happens in extreme situations. And looks like from now on Buffy's slayer army is in an extreme situation.
P.S.
No mention of Spike, but in a recent Q&As Scott Allie told that "we can assume that Buffy knows everything that any characters in her organization, like Andrew, know, or could find out". Obviously, Buffy knows Spike is alive but doesn't care. Maybe it's for the better. The continuation of Buffy and Spike's story in a universe where Harmony "gets taste of a dick" and Dawn is harassed by a horse? Thanks, but no thanks.