Well, have 8.13 in hand, and figured I'll give it a quick review before starting the transcript. Let me start by saying this was my least favorite issue of the season so far. Not because there's not a fascinating story being pushed along, but everything feels... a little out of sync. Characters feel off.
The Good
-- Renee -- I love that she is absolutely in Dracula's face and assertive throughout, and also doesn't have any patience for the thrall bullshit coming off of Xander.
-- Buffy -- it's not "good" per se, but it's at least consistent. Makes her plan, rushes headlong into it ignoring the reasoned advice of others, and also their feelings. I'm also glad to see, good or bad, that all illusions anyone in the audience had about the heirarchical nature of the Slayer organization are shattered ("This isn't up for discussion, Satsu... I gave you an order. Get moving."). Also liked that the Aiko character reinforces the mythic concept of Buffy to the other Slayers.
-- The Vampires -- we get the main villain's name, Toru. He and that whole gang are badass. And their plan is, generally speaking, what we thought it was, to reverse the spell. And their demonstration of it was about the most viscerally nasty and symbolically nasty evil act in the Buffyverse in a longtime.
The Bad
-- Xander -- granted, I should have seen this coming, but I was sort of hoping that the thrall thing would be as pervasive. Buttmonkey. Of course. Is he ever elevated at all anymore other than for the pleasure of shoving him back down?
-- Willow -- Probably the biggest WTF in the book is Willow going from a very legitimate (if really pushy, unsolicited) talk with Satsu about Buffy, her general-ness, her not gay-ness, the one-night-standy-ness of it, and the advantages taken... to shaking Satsu down for graphic details of how Buffy is in bad? It's not that Willow having the same curiousity about Buffy in the sack as, say, Xander would is off-putting, but... hello, crass? And kind of undermining the theretofore serious chat?
-- Satsu -- kicked puppy for the foreseeable future, unless she's the traitor.
The Ugly
-- Dracula -- what's the point of the pervasive racism being thrown into this character? Other than how dated he in general, has *any* Dracula myth ever supported this? It's so over the top, Xander metas about it, and he's right -- I don't remember Dracula being a big racist either? Moor? Filthy yellow people? Really?
-- "Antique" retcon -- Wow, and retcon barely begins. "Semester abroad"? Xander decided to mourn Anya in seclusion with Dracula? Occasionally letters? To channel Sam Rockwell from "Galaxy Quest"... did you guys even watch the show?
There's a compelling story going on, like I said -- the villains rock, the peril is high, the threat to the Slayer spell is intense. But it feels like the major characters are all off, except for Buffy, who's only "on" because we can recognize her conforming to the least common denominator of her personal tendencies -- shutting people out and not thinking things through.
I really liked it. Goddard has definitely brought the funny with this arc, and the reveal of what the Tokyo vampires are doing is mega-awesome. I can't wait to see where this goes. Based on the general "big loss" outline for issue 4, and Buffy fighting Fray for the scythe... does anything think it's possible Buffy gets de-Slayered and has to fight to get her powers back?
Just thinkin' out loud here. Anyway, I liked issue 13 quite a bit. The only scene that felt a little weak to me was Andrew's. Otherwise, everything was spot-on.
About 2/3rd into the transcript, which involves pretty close reading, and I think a little better of it. The characterization still doesn't seem spot on with Willow, but Xander's holding up better to the potential character abuse than I initially thought. I'm actually being, unwillingly, swept along into being a bit of a Xander/Renee 'shipper. Don't get me wrong, I still have a drop-everything-and-say-thank-you preference for Buffy/Xander, but Renee is really growing on me. LOVE her complete impatience with and hostility towards Dracula.
Also, best line, easily, in this issue, is Aiko joking that if she can't keep up with the vamps that Buffy should "take her Slayer card". That should be worth a shiver.
The idea that Buffy loses her powers in this arc would be... pretty awesome, actually, but I don't think that it's likely since in 8.16 she appears to be keeping up with Fray in a fight.
And, yeah, Dracula with the soul-having? Interesting.
Just finished it. I liked it a lot. I'm enjoying the upsurge in comedy in Drew's issues. Andrew giving a lecture in a George Hamilton costume, complete with C.O.A., was particularly funny. No major surprises, since I think many of us predicted that the scythe would be used to deactivate slayers. Also, the Willow close-up in which she jokes about the H.G.O.G.A. cookbook may be Jeanty's finest Willow drawing yet. Beautifully done.
I found nothing really bad or ugly in this issue, contra KingofCretins, although Dracula saying "Oh, balls!" doesn't immediately ring true as something he would say.
Re: Dracula's racism, I took it to be more a reflection of his character's outsized ego and self-aggrandizing, his puffed-up sense of himself as the Lord of Darkness, the baddest Big Bad, etc. Just so much boasting, which again, plays up the humor as so much else in the issue does.
Re: Willow's shaking down Satsu for bedroom details, I liked it. It humanizes her, and I think it lightened up Satsu to switch topics from something heavy to something fun.
What those demonic vampires did to poor Aiko - my god. That sent shivers down my spine. So evil....I love how this story is developing. It's epic as all hell.
Dracula's slurs took me aback a little. I don't remember similarly old vampires in the Buffyverse spouting off that way. Oh well. Renee more than held her own. I'm a total Renee-Xander shipper, or at least as much of a them-shipper as I can be, since I'm not the shipper type. She's great.
Butterfield cracks me up. But "H.G.O.G.A. cookbook"- huh? 'Splainy?
Can anyone say what transpires in "Antique" that renders this current issue such a retcon for KingofCretins? I read it ages ago and the details are fuzzy.
Dracula doesn't have a soul. If you read his line that way, read it again. (Sorry short-tempered; I'm trying not to comment in the Angel #6 thread. Worst issue yet by a long, long margin.)
Oh, I see. He risked his soul for ancient magic and lost, therefore becoming a vampire?
Thank you, waxbanks, for urging me to read the line again, although it seems that you could have simply explained it to a comic-book luddite like me in the time you took to comment on your disappointment with AtF.
"...to comment on your disappointment with AtF." The nature of which interests me. I wish you would comment in the #6 thread, waxbanks.
I'm not sure Dracula saying he "risked his very soul" means that it was a soul for ancient magics transaction. I just took Dracula's statement as an over-the-top pronouncement, of which he seems to make many. Such a drama queen, he. Yet maybe I read it wrong. Do most people think karosurly's interpretation is the correct one? I'm happy to be enlightened (I do need a lot of that.)
A long-standing exchange of letters between Dracula and Xander isn't a retcon? April 1st was *yesterday*. Really, that's a very natural extension of the canon, with how Dracula was never mentioned in Xander's presence again after "Real Me". Obviously they were exchanging mail, and obviously Xander's first impulse after losing Anya would be to go hole up for a few months with the guy who brainwashed him. What other explanation could there have been for the complete lack of any textual support for Xander ever having felt anything other than embarrassment and seething resentment? Nope, no retcon there of any kind :)
About Dracula, the line is "These powers you speak of – they’re part of the ancient magics. I risked my very soul to attain them. I am their worldly guardian."
What's the secret password on this that allows it to not suggest that he either has or had a soul? I'm not a comic luddite, and it seems to suggest such.
Do most people think karosurly's interpretation is the correct one?
Dracula seems to have risked his (demon?) soul to obtain the ancient magics (gypsy stuff, as Spike would call them). He obviously won, since he has the powers and considers himself their guardian.
Maybe the gang (Willow and Buffy) told Andrew to say that to the slayers. Maybe they don't want the other Slayers to worry that Xander was or has ever been under the thrall of the Dark Master.
A long-standing exchange of letters between Dracula and Xander isn't a retcon?
I'm not sure how seriously we're supposed to take Andrew, who is a known storyteller, after all. He may have the facts right, but his interpretation may be distorted.
Crazy, I sure hope so. But it doesn't feel that way -- feels more like Andrew was given the role of Don Juan de Exposicion for the backstory and that we're meant to take it at face value. At least the assembled Slayers found it as highly dubious as I did.
I also find it interesting that they recognize Anya's name, like it's a part of Xander's life story they've gotten before.
Regarding the Dracula risking his soul point, I haven't read the book where this was referenced but, just as a thought, is it possible he risked his soul for these magics while still human and that he had possession of them before he ever became a vampire? In the original Stoker story Dracula was something of a living legend, famous warrior, prince, and general of armies and such, a man that even his adversary Van Helsing greatly admired. Possible that he acquired his magic as a human?
I'm baffled by the need to fully canonize the Xander/Dracula thing. Xander was grieving, so...he went to live with Dracula? Voluntarily? I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous, especially just to bring current continuity into line with a 6-page anthology story from 4 years ago that could, in my mind, easily be written off as non-canon.
Regarding Willow's conversation with Satsu, I think it was totally in character. Willow is sometimes crass, and she's admitted as much. Want proof? I mean, besides almost destroying the entire planet?
Crass Willow quotes:
"Great. I'll give Xander a call. What's his number? Oh, yeah, 1-800-I'm-Dating-A-Skanky-Ho."
"It is kind of novel how he'll stay young and handsome forever, although you'll still get wrinkly and die... and oh, what about the children? I'll be quiet now."
"If you hurt her, I will beat you to death with a shovel. A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend. Have fun!"
"Why are you suddenly so worried about looking like an idiot? That came out wrong."
I laughed a lot, which is saying something because obviously we are moving into a serious (dire even) fight! I loved how creepy, stupid, and pitiful Dracula is (but I have to agree, I don't see why Xander would have volunteered for the butt monkey gig).
Great issue, even with the few continuity sticklers. Like always, I find ways to rationalize them in my own mind.
Just because Andrew says that Xander went to live with Drac voluntarily doesn't make it true. That line could be absolute crap with the true story being something about Dracula coming around and putting Xander back under his thrall.
Also, I agree that Dracula probably was being overdramatic when he claims that he risked his soul. Going back to 5.01, he really is dramatic. Or: he got his magicks and stuff when he was human.
And Willow in the HGOGA cookbook panel? Absolutely stunningly amazing. I wanted to marry Jeanty after seeing that panel.
Although I did enjoy the issue, the Xander/Dracula roommate scenario just makes me shake my head. Gotta agree with KoC on that one. No sense does it make. And if Andrew isn't telling the truth, that's going to be very hard for people to pick up on/too much for most people to actually decipher or think about.
I'm 50/50 on Willow asking Satsu for bedroom details. Part of me thinks she would say it, but the other part of me is annoyed at the thought of both of Buffy's best friends being interested in her bedroom antics. I dunno. I think it's more of my feelings toward Buffy (rather than Willow) that make the line annoying. Besides the whole personal/female power importance, I hate when Buffy gets put on a pedestal. /end rant
The Xander and Dracula Odd Couple-ness at first had me raising an eyebrow (even though oh boy, do I love the Xander/Dracula dynamic), but there are some very interesting things about it after mulling it over.
Xander has always been puzzling over what it means to be a man (note his proposal to Anya, his attentiveness to Riley, even his soldier-self and identification through a manly job) and his being drawn to Dracula, a hypermasculine figure may have some echoes of these previous situations (as well as explain some of the thrall).
There are also some similarities between their situations. Dracula is out of time and out of place in the modern world with modern vampires, much as Xander is still slightly out of place with the Scoobies and now at the BHC, so to some extent they are both heroic figures who don't quite fit into the current scheme. Plus, there's also the implication of some sort of Anya bond since she and Dracula used to hang out--so maybe the mourning idea is a possibility. Likewise, I also thought that Dracula is the only vampire who Xander has ever come close to liking (even in a thrall way)--he's been vicious to Spike and Angel, but there's not the same lust for death for him.
(That doesn't mean that they are instantly best friends either, but it is a possibility...and perversely, the thralldom that Xander got in the episode was with him having an important job when Xander didn't actually have one or feel very important. So, there may be an element of strange understanding with them too. Again, thrall is thrall, but there's something interesting in looking at how the thrall is executed. Xander is looked on as a person of value and maybe Dracula actually sees something special in him that remains.)
So, while it seems like a strange idea, there could be some interesting twists to be taken with it. I hope that's what happens.
I also really like Renee. Yay Renee!
(and "shoe sale noise"--I thought that was sextacular and cute and that's all I have to say about that.)
See, to me, the thrall factor completely invalidates any kind of regard Xander is meant to hold for Dracula, because it is, by definition, not his own. I mean, is Buffy turned on by Dracula because he seduced her in her bedroom? I really doubt she'd be held to the same "she is fast friends" with Dracula silliness if it was her struggling in these scenes and calling him master. There is no friendship, no mutual understanding, no admiration -- there is Xander being brainwashed, end of conversation.
Part of why I love Renee in this issue is that she seems to implicitly understand that -- I love her flippance with Dracula, and the fact that she clearly would love to see him try when he's threatening her. I also like that Xander nearly 'girlfriended' Renee. Like I said, I'm being caught up in their 'ship in spite of my own, still much greater preferences.
I just had a sad thought -- could Aiko have been the girl standing up from her table in "Chosen", since Satsu wasn't?
As much as I am liking this series less and less and less, I have to mention that Andrew has never been a reliable source for any interpretation of human actions. He has always gotten everything wrong. As I read it I found myself rolling my eyes at Andrews version of events. I did not read the story, and have no idea of what the true story might be, butI am sure Andrew's version is not it. (Of course with how much I am not enjoying the series, it might turn out that I am wrong and Andrew is the new Keeper of the True History.)
Andrew speaks in 10% truth and 90% embellishment. It would be a retcon if he were suddenly Mr. Just the Facts.
Willow is nosey about Buffy's sex life...as always. LOL
These powers you speak of – they’re part of the ancient magics. I risked my very soul to attain them. I am their worldly guardian.
Bram Stoker's Dracula studied at Scholomance. Kinda like Hogwarts, only for black magic with Satan as the headmaster and he takes the tenth student for payment.
Really gotta read the book and not rely on the movies.
I'm elated! I'm shocked! I'm all kinds of other things that I don't have words for! And I must say, finally, it looks like Willow! I've been waiting for that.
but besides that, poor Aiko, poor Satsu. Poor every other girl that they might possibly take the slayery goodness from. :(
Also, I hope there is much more talking to be done about the whole Batsu thing (love that name), especially between Willow and Buffy.
I loved all the Xander/Dracula/Renee bits as well, it's a good thing Renee went along.
The cover for this issue is still mysterious to me, but whatever, it's beautiful anyway!
and, one last thing, I love Andrew! Even though this wasn't his greatest scene ever, it's just good to see him again.
Re: Dracula's "racist" remarks. As far as his referring to Renee as a "moor", remember that, originally, "Moor" did not have the racist connotations it has now, rather referred to the people of a specific region of North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, portions of which later became part of the Ottoman empire; this is important to the Dracula story because, once Stoker decided to use the name Dracula for his vampire, he explicitly identified him with Vlad the Impaler, who was, for most of his life, in direct conflict with the Ottomans. Vlad was even held hostage by the Turkish sultan for several years. Given the connections between Moors and Ottomans, I don't really think Dracula's attitude is too far out of character.
Re: Willow being crass - um, not really all that unusual; besides the previously mentioned examples, there's Willow:
in "Where The Wild Things Are", announcing to Giles as Buffy and Riley make lame excuses to disappear, (with a grin) "They, they're probably going to-"
in "Forever", "You had two eggs sunny-side-up. I remember 'cause they were wiggling at me like little boobs."
Also, just two other points about Willow's talk with Satsu:
1. Willow has often been guilty of inappropriate timing, and
2. At least now we can stop arguing about whether Willow's ever thought about Buffy in "that way." :-D
I'd be surprised if she hadn't, actually; since she's familiar with Buffy's "shoe-sale noise", I take it that Riley's Initiative buddies weren't the only ones being kept awake...
Ah, so Dracula did get his magic before he was a vampire then. That explains a great many things. I really must re-read the novel, it's been twenty years since I read it.
^_^ Buffy does like sales. If she already knew Buffy made that sound during sex... why ask about it? Methinks Willow thinks of that sound in her own fantasies.
You know... I thought the usage of racial slurs, and generally taboo language in this issue actually made it better than the last. For one, the writing is once again pushing certain boundaries, hedging in on comfort zones. Satsu's usage of that word that can also mean a dam is refreshing, and heck, from personal experience, we (homos, that is) aren't the most PC people in the world. I mean heck, our very existence threatens the moral core of the world upon which everything is built. Or so they'll tell you in some circles I avoid.
But on with the un-PC, I thought Willow's talk with Satsu was very well done. I'm with MadetoLoveJoss on this one: "I'm a breast girl myself."
Also, it's a nice break from the mopey-ness.
As for retcon... I hardly think so. Andrew was probably bloody euphemising the entire situation... or throwing his own crazy spin on things, as per usual.
I did enjoy the visceral brutality that came right after the revoking of Aiko's slayer card. There was almost a sense of poetic justice (this may rub some of you wrong, but it is a personal reading)... she obviously enjoys a good kill (ref: her comments about the Kabuki demons), and it seemed that she was probably one of the wetworks gals the Slayer organization now has.
As for the hierarchy of power in slayerhood... it is to be expected. I mean, it's not just Buffy. Even when fun-loving Faith took charge, she told Kennedy to stuff it and fall in line. Plus, Buffy's almost like Santa Claus in terms of the slayer mythos, shown by Aiko's reverence.
Also, it's been getting progressively more obvious, but Buffy is meant to be alone. She's cutting more and more ties, and that's probably the way the overall season arc's supposed to go for now.
*shrug* not bad. Nothing great, but not bad at all.
I don't really have a problem with the whole Xander/Dracula relationship, because I just thought back to the Tales of Vampires comic that featured them. I don't know if that counts as canon, but it makes the whole thing easier to swallow. Besides, that part of the book was more interesting to me than the Buffy parts.
I am rather confused as to what exactly happened to Aiko and what the shiny red thing is. I don't have a problem reading comics usually, but after read that part two more times I'm still lost.
Nolan, the shiny red thing took Aiko's slayerness away, undid what the scythe gave her (hence the "normal girl" line as well as the inability to defend herself).
It's terrifying to me that they've managed to do this, but it seems to only work with the scythe, which I'm confident Buffy will get back, so I don't feel all too worried... yet... maybe.
I have to say that I don't know how I feel about this issue. I thought the stories were structurally good, but I can't make a decision on how I feel about it until the arc is complete.
This issue feels like it is the first part of a two part episode. I know that sounds weird considering this is part two or a four-part story, but this issue seems like it is building to something bigger even more than part one. I think part one is more self-contained.
I loved Renee in this episode. She really didn't take any of Dracula's b.s. lying down. She was ready to thrown down with Dracula and any moment. She really has come into her own since issue 1, and she may actually become Xander's equal. While I still have problems with their relationship, i.e. the power-structure thing, I do love them together. Hopefully, she doesn't die in this arc, which I have a feeling might happen.
While, I don't think Xander's butt-monkeyery is all that great, I fell that he isn't completely under the thrall of Dracula. I felt that he was standing up to him at some points, so maybe it's only residual thrall that he's under because he wasn't all hump-backy in this issue.
I do feel bad for Satsu. Buffy shut her down there, and Satsu had a really good idea with keeping some slayers at the BHC to protect it. And I loved Willow's conversation with Satsu, being reassuring and crass at the same time. It was endearing.
I really love the current villains in this arc. They are the right mix of scary, creepy and entertainment. That deslayering panel was visceral and disturbing, which made it work. I also love how they managed to get Dracula's powers, they stole it through a rigged card game. I wonder who's the witch who helped them.
Buffy is a whole 'nother story. Buffy's isolating herself even more. [sing song]She's Ms. Lonely[/sing song]. I think this whole incident with Satsu might actually make isolating herself even more. It really does feel that the only person she can open herself up to emotionally at a small level is Xander. I feel like if Xander was on that plane ride, she'd be sitting or standing next to the Xan man. (BTW, who's flying that thing? Wash? And how did they get a plane?)
I also noticed that Willow considers herself part of the army, does that mean she doesn't view herself as equals to Buffy, which is a shame because I feel that the four core Scoobs as equals.
Too bad we have to wait a month to get the next installment. Joss loves the comic because he can can make our withdrawals even longer. That's why I liked having Angel, Buffy and Serenity all come out in different weeks, so the wait times wasn't as bad.
Vow, what a day - I teared up more than once over Angel:ATF, and laughed like crazy over Buffy. Each one was great in its own way!
Xander and Dracula were absurdly hilarious together, and so was Andrew - I forgot how much fun he could be. :)
And the twist in the end? Something I saw coming, but great nevertheless. And Willow/Satsu banter? Priceless.
And Buffy is still a General and still not like the others - I guess also because her powers couldn't be taken away with the Scythe, because she's the source of it all somehow.
I too am a little uncomfortable, if not disappointed, with the Dracula part of the story. While in general I like Goddard's work, I never much cared for "Antique." Sure, the ending bit when Dracula is alone is nice. But the story also dials up Xander's butt-monkeydom to 11, if not 12 or 13. I hate seeing any of the previously 3-dimensional core cast members reduced to joke. And now it's made canon. Sigh.
Well, now that it's canon, let's deal with it. I'm glad that Xander is not exactly under Dracula's thrall anymore, but teetering on the brink of rethralldom. It ends up mostly a reference to past butt-monkeydom, which is more acceptable than full-fledged current BM. And I liked learning that Dracula's cool sophisticated persona is at least partly a conscious pose. (Is Dracula gaining dimensions as Xander loses them?) I think his comment about risking his "soul" could have been metaphorical -- maybe he risked becoming some other villain's slave if he lost. As for his racist comments, I took that mainly as a way of showing him to be a creature of, not his own, but Bram Stoker's time. I wonder how he'll fare in 21st century Japan?
I read Andrew's lecture as a seriously biased and unreliable account of the Xander-Dracula relationship. Remember in The Real Me when Dawn told her diary about Xander "going undercover" to stop Dracula? Well, this is probably similar. (Though the reasons aren't quite the same. Dawn had a crush on Xander, while Andrew just likes to dramatize life's sordid events.) I think we're supposed to read between the lines that Xander's "friendship" for Dracula was entirely thrall-based.
As for Andrew himself, I dunno.... He had a nice little character arc in S6-7, and a couple of decent guest appearances on Angel. But I'm not at all sure that he's justified the amount of space he gets in the comics, where he's been mostly just a joke dispensing machine. Sure, usually I laugh at the jokes. But if he appeared half as often and got half as many panels when he does appear, I'd be just as happy. Especially if the saved panels went to further illuminating the old core four, Dawn and Faith.
On the plus side, I liked Renee's part when standing up to Dracula. I liked Buffy's part. And I bought Willow's part too -- sure, pumping Satsu for info (ahem) is a bit insensitive, but how could Willow resist this once-in-a-lifetime chance to hear about Buffy's performance from a fellow lesbian? My only problem there is that she didn't draw Satsu out of the other Slayers' earshot before asking....
The vampires' plot to attack the Slayers could be a great story. And it had better be. Because the Dracula part has now put Wolves at the Gate at a disadvantage, and it's going to have to make up that lost ground to prove itself equal the previous storylines of Season 8.
I don't think of Xander's thrall as any different from what Glory and Willow did to Tara or what Warren did to Katrina with the cerebral dampener. Not one bit. I'd love to have the rational difference between mind control/enslavement as serious moral issues and as comic relief explained to me.
I can't even speculate on Buffy and Faith probably being safe from Toru's toy -- it seems logical, scythe giveth, scythe taketh away, and that doesn't affect them.
I've been more focused on the new issue of Angel today that I haven't had a chance to comment on Buffy season 8 #13 which I also read.
I liked the issue but not as much as issue 12.This seems to be more set up although I do like the setup with the Scythe and what it's going to be used for and the Xander/Dracula stuff.I loved Renee in this issue.
The Willow/Satsu conversation was interesting but it was a little jarring to see Willow ask Satsu how Buffy was in bed although I can understand Willow's interest.I sort of would expect Xander to ask something like that over Willow.
It seems sleeping with Buffy hasn't given Satsu any special points in the work related area.Buffy is still the boss.
I don't know... Satsu got something very special, professionally speaking -- she's joined the Scoobies in the luxury of having very intelligent points ignored by Buffy when the Slayer is in a foul mood :)
I would not be surprised if the BHC doesn't survive this arc.
KoC: I don't think that Whedon actually ever thinks his plot devices all the way through enough for a fully rational, coherrent explanation. My personal opinion is that he uses whatever is convenient and necessary to move the internal story/tension along, and the details are more like props for the actual character stories.
Warren's cerebral dampener was a device to finally propel the "supervillains" into an act that truly violated another person's right (not saying that playing mind games with Buffy wasn't infringement of some sort, but it was played to comedic effect).
What Glory did to Tara was to allow Willow to finally have to care for someone else who completely depended on her, so that she could finally truly understand a part of Buffy's burden, with Dawn, and the world.
And as for what Willow did to Tara, it was simply to move Willow in the direction that she was set up to go in Season 6, down the road to addiction, and the long battle back after.
I guess what I'm saying is that there is no fundamental difference there, except pending the outcome.
Renee is awesome, but I just hope Xander's loss of Anya is addressed sometime before they go full on date-mode. I hate seeing my favourite character get tossed aside and forgotten like this...
At first I was a little disappointed with this issue, but reading it again, I like it quite a bit (probably didn't help that I was in a very sour mood when originally reading it, plus my comics shop's orders got shorted and I didn't get the variant).
Some thoughts before I hop on over to .Org:
I love Renee.
I don't have any problem with Xander being under Dracula's thrall, nor did I ever. It's funny, it makes sense continuity-wise (unlike the whole time they spent together, which still makes me scratch my head), and it's used to good effect in the issue.
It was initially jarring to see Willow ask Satsu for Buffy sex details, but it's funny.
The ending is fucking great.
wenxina:
I don't think that Whedon actually ever thinks his plot devices all the way through enough for a fully rational, coherrent explanation. My personal opinion is that he uses whatever is convenient and necessary to move the internal story/tension along, and the details are more like props for the actual character stories.
...Yet all of the examples you give clearly show how well thought out and important they were in the grand scheme of things. Not really getting your criticism.
I'm like a dog with a bone on this, if Xander under Dracula's thrall is funny, then Katrina under cerebral dampening is funny.
Renee and what happened to Aiko save the issue. I acknowledge that Willow does have that crass streak -- and pumping Satsu for info about Buffy in the sack is nothing if not callous and strange. It just seems incongruent that she'd be trying to get Satsu to let go of any high hopes than asking her for girl-talk gossip about it.
Oh come on, that Dracula beginning was friggin' classic. That's the first time in a long time that I've ever laughed out loud at a comic. I liked how they even merged the Tales of the Slayers Xander into this issue. Each character (just like each person in real life) has ups and downs, and being enslaved by Dracula is just one of Xander's unfortunate events that happen to him. He willingly put himself in this situation for the good of the team.
The de-Slayer bit was pretty cool in a bad way, and I actually liked that Aiko Slayer the most of any Slayer introduced since Buffy, Faith, and Fray, so I'm sad to see her go like that, even if it was obvious she was toast.
Is the whole forcible override of free will thing funny because he's a man, or just because he's Xander? Would it still be funny if it was Gunn or Giles or Wes? Once I realized the lack of any meaningful difference between Xander being under Dracula's thrall and the events of "Tough Love", "All The Way", and "Dead Things", I can't un-realize it. It's either whacky fun every time or none of them. Maybe we could make a matching game out of Katrina's "Dead Things" dialogue and Xander's dialogue in this arc and in "Buffy vs. Dracula" and see who gets them all right.
UnpluggedCrazy: You misunderstood me. It wasn't so much criticism as an observation. The examples given illustrate how well he does what he does, as in move character stories along. The details as to how are less important. The question/comment was: "I'd love to have the rational difference between mind control/enslavement as serious moral issues and as comic relief explained to me."
My point was that in all cases, they're violations of another person. Is there really a difference between the "funny" ones and the evil ones? I was saying no, but it's the outcome that is important.
KoC: I think it's probably the image of Nick Brendon's Xander that keeps the chuckles going. Plus, the whole exchange between Dracula and Xander over tea that's amusing.
As for whether it'd be funny with some other male character... I guess it depends on how farcical it gets.
But if you have to have the dichotomy, then in the words of Faith as Buffy: "It's WRONG!"
Each time with the mind control mojo has been to the selfish advantage of one party over the other, and so no, in that case, thinking of it all as whacky fun would probably be well... wrong.
And for the benefit of your matching game, I think Katrina only said "Yes, Master" about 5 times on air. I didn't keep track, but I remember feeling kinda grossed out by it.
Not a bad issue. And I thought Dracula's racism fit the character pretty well. He's an old school evil European douche bag, after all. He seems like the type of guy who would use the term "lower races" in casual conversation.
Having not read the Tales of the Slayers issue that every one has mentioned, I might be missing some info here but...I have no trouble with the notion that Xander would have exchanged letters with Dracula. In fact, I can see him doing it easily without being under a thrall of any kind.
I'm like a dog with a bone on this, if Xander under Dracula's thrall is funny, then Katrina under cerebral dampening is funny.
Xander under the thrall of Dracula is funny because it's a man under the thrall of another man. It's satirical. It takes the notion that men cannot fall under such thralls or be manipulated because they're men, and pokes a stick at it.
For centuries men and women have been led to believe that women are the lesser sex because they can be overpowered, while men are the greater sex because they can't be overpowered (lest they be gayish). Any woman who manages to overpower/manipulate a man surely has had help from the Devil. But when a man overpowers/manipulates a woman they are righteous.
By reversing the scenerio it reveals the absurdity, and laughing commences.
Satire is not always humorous however. Katrina under the control of a mysogynist is not funny because that behavior is generally tolerated by society.
The satirical element is Warren actually having the real power to do such a thing with a cerebral dampening device. This takes it to the extreme in which most rational people would begin to object. Would any misogynist take such an opportunity if they had that power? Yes. Which then causes people to question whether it is ever okay to tolerate such attempts with or without a device.
If you have to stop and wonder why one is considered funny and the other is not, the point is still made. Just with less laughter.
But if Xander under the thralls of Dracuala is just not funny to people who are offended by the notion that men might possibly have the same weaknesses as women, then it's simply a matter of "pissing off all the right people." That is mostly why it's funny to me....because I know it would rub certain people the wrong way.
ETA: Just for clarity, Xander is one of my favorite characters. I don't think he is a butt monkey. I love him because he doesn't take things as a threat to his masculinity. Not Buffy or Willow's power, nor that they've slept with women makes him feel he is less of a man. Which makes him a better man than most many.
quick note on the credibility of Andrew: I thought the entire C.O.A. mention early in the scene was not simply about Andrew being geeky enough to carry that on his person, but specifically, Andrew would need tangible proof to back up anything he said, and even he acts as if that is the case, whether or not he'd ever admit it. The COA being more or less the equivalent of: hey, remember Andrew completely exaggerates so don't panic when he turns info-new-to-you (that has normal subtext) into a shippy fanfic that's only held back by the fact that eventually Xander would hear about it so he couldn't outright lie.
also yay to the return of crass Willow! I was so ready for her to stop processing for a moment and yknow... gossip. heh. really though, most of the Willow conversations we've seen have been Willow processing- with Dawn, with Buffy, with Kennedy. Almost felt like she was glad she was talking about someone else's relationship for once.
Also, I think the Xander under Dracula's thrall works so well because Xander has no issues questioning the people he cares about and holding them accountable. The really big Buffy-Xander scenes usually feature him doing exactly that. Sure he's not super well-read, but he's always mentally in the game. To watch him struggle with independent thought in the presence of a stranger, a foreign legendary campy vampire is hilarious. So yknow- it's funny because it's opposing character.
The Katrina-Warren storyline is creepy because it's more about Warren's character, than Katrina, and Warren is creepy. The storyline is primarily about showing that Warren isn't just delusional and power-hungry, he's dangerous.
Katrina is in service to Warren's story; whereas, Dracula is in service to Xander's. And, there in lies the difference.
Is the whole forcible override of free will thing funny because he's a man, or just because he's Xander?
Both. *g*
I thought that element was quite cute in a way, and subtlety handled given the circumstances. To draw comparisons with Katrina seems to be taking things far, far too seriously.
I'm like a dog with a bone on this, if Xander under Dracula's thrall is funny, then Katrina under cerebral dampening is funny.
Nope. The reason that Xander under Dracula's thrall is funny, isn't because of the situation as it stands, it's because of how it's played. Obviously, morally, one person controlling another against their will is wrong in any of these cases. That's a given.
It's just that in the case of Katrina, the wrongness was emphasized (and - yes - enhanced because Katrina was a woman, and the situation had echoes of many reallife situations) in the story. With Xander, it's the funny that's being played up. The reason that works, is because Nicholas Brendon is very good with the whole comedic timing and line delivery. It also worked because Dracula is already evil - it's a given. There's no "oh no, and now this soulless vampire has stooped to this" added to the mix, whereas with Warren, it was a different situation completely.
But the fact that Xander under thrall is funny, in this case, does nothing to change the fact that it's still objectionable and wrong, just like the other examples you mentioned, King of Cretins. Playing it for laughs may seem like an implicit lack-of-judgement of the event, because there's no emphasis on the whole moral dilemma, but that doesn't mean that the dilemma disappears completely.
Xander under the thrall of Dracula is funny because it's a man under the thrall of another man. It's satirical. It takes the notion that men cannot fall under such thralls or be manipulated because they're men, and pokes a stick at it.
I'm not sure if I agree with you there, GrrrlRomeo. Maybe I'm just not a person who's hip to the standard pre-conceptions, but if any person would have that notion, they'd be fairly silly. Men have been manipulated by other, charismatic men (leaders), all through history. So I guess I don't see how another example of this should, by definition, be funny.
The only reason that this particular case is funny, is because it is made funny by the dialogue and the exact way Xander reacts. Again, that still doesn't make it right in any way.
Also:
But if Xander under the thralls of Dracuala is just not funny to people who are offended by the notion that men might possibly have the same weaknesses as women, then it's simply a matter of "pissing off all the right people." That is mostly why it's funny to me....because I know it would rub certain people the wrong way.
I'd say that if people didn't find this funny, they simply have a different sense of humour from mine (and most of Whedon's fans) or - just as valid - are not able to laugh at it because there's still an underlying moral wrongness to what's happening on screen (like I feel is the case for King of Cretins - but correct me if I'm wrong). I, however, don't think there's anyone reading this (or watching Buffy vs. Dracula, for that matter) who'd not see the funny because they're thinking 'Bah! This should be a woman who's under Dracula's thrall! Not a superior man! They have inbuilt resistance against this kind of nonsense!'. It's hard to imagine anyone picking up a Buffy comic, thinking along those lines.
Underlying moral wrongness, and it has nothing to do with it being a man and therefore 'implausible'. It has to do with the rape of someone's free will, any someone's. My challenge was to ask if it's different for the people who *do* think it's funny because it's happening to a man instead of a woman (as if to say that makes it a fair comeuppance of a de facto beneficiary of a patriarchal society), or if it's just funny because it happens to Xander (as if to say that nothing that happens to Xander really matters, because he counts less than the other characters somehow). It's just one more 'funny syphilis'.
Really, if Xander doesn't end up getting the 'win' over Dracula in some way -- be it killing him after they presumably learn how to kill vampires with these powers or simply giving him a proper insulting that gets his power back -- it will have been a wasted arc for the character. When Willow or Buffy have a story where they get humiliated somehow, it inevitably ends with them getting the "win" and their power back. See Buffy taking down Sunday by herself in "The Freshman", or even bonking Parker in "Beer Bad". Willow roughing up Glory in "Tough Love", doing the big scary threatening on Amy in "Doublemeat Palace", or telling off Faith in "Choices". I hope that Xander will be shown the same simple amount of respect in this arc.
I'm not sure if I agree with you there, GrrrlRomeo. Maybe I'm just not a person who's hip to the standard pre-conceptions, but if any person would have that notion, they'd be fairly silly. Men have been manipulated by other, charismatic men (leaders), all through history. So I guess I don't see how another example of this should, by definition, be funny.
It's not about being hip to standard pre-conceptions. It's about knowing the history of inequality between men and women and how "silly" it is indeed. It's funny because in this example Xander knows and admits that he is manipulated by Dracula where other's would be too proud to and get a full on case of denial. It's silly because the notion that men are too strong willed to be manipulated (while women are not) is absurd...yet has been a commonly held belief...or denial rather.
This sort of manipulation is never right, of course. The difference in the way it's treated, denied, or allowed to happen is what's silly.
I, however, don't think there's anyone reading this (or watching Buffy vs. Dracula, for that matter) who'd not see the funny because they're thinking 'Bah! This should be a woman who's under Dracula's thrall! Not a superior man!
Neither do I. I just tend to think outside the Buffy box and see the cultural signficance and not just the effect on Buffy fans specifically. You'll never see me make an absurd blog post outlining how Joss is an anti-feminist, because I do believe he is a feminist and I appreciate whatever positive cultural impact he makes. This stuff is more than creating fodder for fans.
To draw comparisons with Katrina seems to be taking things far, far too seriously.
Plus Dracula isn't sexually assaulting Xander. What Faith did to Xander was quite unfunny and serious in comparison to Dracula.
That's a whole separate complaint, because there is a ton of slasher intrigue in this that I find grotesque for exactly this reason. Any slash fantasy about these two is by definition a rape fantasy.
Dracuala isn't sexually assaulting Xander within the canon. And I do hope you are not characterizing gay slash as rape fantasy on the basis that it's gay...because that is truely absurd. Xander is a fictional character. He's not a real boy. It's no different than slashing RJ/Buffy.
No, that's explicitly the opposite of what I said. I said it's a rape fantasy because consent is as impossible here as it was between Warren and Katrina. If anything, it's the ones finding amusement in the slash and ignoring the obvious and insurmountable consent issue that are doing a disservice to homosexuality -- it's tantamount to saying that the consent issue is only "real" if it comes up between a man and a woman.
Xander under the thrall of Dracula is funny because it's a man under the thrall of another man. It's satirical. It takes the notion that men cannot fall under such thralls or be manipulated because they're men, and pokes a stick at it.
I wasn't aware that anyone had any such notion. At least not in such sweeping terms ("men cannot fall under such thralls"). And if the intent was to satirize such a notion, wouldn't it work better with a consistently strong-willed man like Giles, rather than a man who already gets butt-monkeyed on a frequent basis, like Xander?
My problem with the Dracula storyline is not the man-on-manness of the thrall. It's not even really the idea of finding humor in such profound personal violation (though that is an issue). No, my problem is simply annoyance at writers who think that humiliating Xander over and over again is automatic comedy gold. It's not. This is a major character in a rich fictional universe who's been developing for over seven seasons. He should be more than just comic relief. All of the continuing characters should be more than just comic relief.
In Buffy vs. Dracula it works because it set up Xander's character arc for the season, as he tries to grow up and stop being the constant BM. (NB's performance helps too.) What's the character significance here? I really hope that Xander gets a "win" over Dracula, as KoC mentions. But even if he does, I'm afraid it just puts him back where he was at the end of The Replacement. Oh, well. Maybe the Renee relationship will give Xander a chance to turn back into a 3-dimensional character again.
Does anyone think it would be funny for Buffy to get turned back into CaveBuffy anytime the writers wanted to lighten things up? Or for Dawn to fall under the spell of some jock's magical letter jacket again and again? I don't think so. But IMO what's being done to Xander is pretty similar.
That's a whole separate complaint, because there is a ton of slasher intrigue in this that I find grotesque for exactly this reason. Any slash fantasy about these two is by definition a rape fantasy.
Just because you have 'issues' about slash doesn't mean you should read so much into this side of the story.
I think this was handled really lightly, and is meant to be viewed as such. You can't honestly think that Joss and co are trying to deal with any other issues apart from humor here. "Rape fantasy" it is obviously not.
I think the writers would be amazed to hear such a strong reaction to such a light hearted element of the plot.
As I think I've said to you on other boards, I believe that by the end of this arc Joss will leave Xander's character in a better place in regard to his 'relationship' with Dracula, then he was before. The whole 'manservant' thing will be a thing of the past, and they part as equals.
idiot jed, the really inexplicable part is that this all started with what was, on its face, a Xander episode, "The Zeppo". That episode is supposed to be this big character moment, but it first had to basically pretend that the past... 46 episodes of Xander's arc never happened and that he was suddenly useless in a fight and in constant danger and not worth having around. That set a storytelling norm of artificially reducing Xander to something less than he was, restoring him to where he started at the end of the episode, and then acting like it was "growth".
Really, his big moment in "The Zeppo" was supposed to be feeling comfortable about his contribution and not being bothered by Cordy anymore... but would anybody have even thought either of those would be a problem for him late in Season 2? Oy.
Sue, my subsequent post definitively refutes any attempt to make my criticism of the rape aspect of the Xander/Dracula slash an issue about the homosexual aspect. Warren/Katrina slash is rape fantasy, too.
No, that's explicitly the opposite of what I said. I said it's a rape fantasy because consent is as impossible here as it was between Warren and Katrina. If anything, it's the ones finding amusement in the slash and ignoring the obvious and insurmountable consent issue that are doing a disservice to homosexuality -- it's tantamount to saying that the consent issue is only "real" if it comes up between a man and a woman.
Xander is not completely unable to control himself. There is ambiguity in how much he is actually in control of himself. How much control one interprets he has is based on bias. Katrina was pretty much cut and dry not in control...she was practically a robot.
I wasn't aware that anyone had any such notion. At least not in such sweeping terms ("men cannot fall under such thralls"). And if the intent was to satirize such a notion, wouldn't it work better with a consistently strong-willed man like Giles, rather than a man who already gets butt-monkeyed on a frequent basis, like Xander?
100 Dracula films later...the notion exists. See the George Hamilton costume and the Dracula parody it symbolizes.
Xander is not completely unable to control himself. There is ambiguity in how much he is actually in control of himself. How much control one interprets he has is based on bias. Katrina was pretty much cut and dry not in control...she was practically a robot.
So just... partial rape? Buffy was able to struggle with Dracula's thrall in her bedroom, but it is at least pretty reasonable to guess he could have had sex with her had he been so inclined. S'okay, s'allright?
Sue, my subsequent post definitively refutes any attempt to make my criticism of the rape aspect of the Xander/Dracula slash an issue about the homosexual aspect. Warren/Katrina slash is rape fantasy, too.
But the difference is this is clearly being played for laughs, whether you like it or not. Whilst Katrina's situation was delt with far more seriously.
You may think there's a problem here, but obviously the writers do not.
So what, sue? I think that went without saying -- you act as though the fact that the writers choose to treat Xander like a joke makes it right that they should. You've got... on your nose... there's a thing. That it's played for laughs is the problem, not the solution.
I will give credit for this much -- whether Joss and Drew meant for it to be that way or not, at least Renee is there as a stand-in for those in the audience who realize the very unfunny truth of Xander being brainwashed and victimized by Dracula. And, I call that a win, since she was the best thing in the issue in the first place. Excluding for the moment the possible 'she's the traitor' thing, my love for her goes way up in this issue.
So just... partial rape? Buffy was able to struggle with Dracula's thrall in her bedroom, but it is at least pretty reasonable to guess he could have had sex with her had he been so inclined. S'okay, s'allright?
*sigh* But he didn't, did he.
That episode was also just played for laughs. Sometimes folks just have to try and take a step back and just accept something for what it is, a piece of humor, rather then the 'play for today'.
It's called a hypothetical, and you are blowing clear past the point. I really doubt they *would* have written Dracula sleeping with Buffy in that episode precisely because it would have obviously been rape. And, there's certainly no large component of the fandom who thinks "gee, it would be great if Dracula still has Buffy under his thrall and they hooked up".
Comedy is not restricted to a moral-neutral realm; it inevitably gets tangled up with things moral and not. In the real world, yes, someone controlling someone else's mind is not inherently amusing. But in a fictional story, we take our cues on how to judge a narrative element from what the writers give us. Drew clearly has coded the entire Dracula/Xander bit as ha-ha, not AH! (I'm not sure I would even call what's happening to Xander in 8.13 "mind control." Xander seems in possession of his wits, except for the occasional "Master" relapse.)
The fact that what would only be played for its moral severity with Buffy or Willow is being played for a joke with Xander is the thing I am complaining about. It's this pervasive sense that, despite being presumably equal to them in stature as the main characters of the Buffy series, he is the one specially held out as the punchline pretty much any time there's a whacky subplot to be drawn out.
My reassurance here is that, with the exception of "Antique", Drew Goddard has always played pretty fair with Xander -- has taken the character seriously and given him some real moments of heroism and autonomy (tackling Buffy in "Selfless", solid work in the fight in "Never Leave Me", pretty much all of "Dirty Girls"). But this arc feels like the referendum on Xander's place in the Buffy franchise. If, after 12 issues of being really well-written and mature and important again in more than just a moral support way, he comes out of "Wolves at the Gate" as just the punchline, it feels like that's all he'll ever be. Of course, if he's just treated as significant again as a set up to being turned villain, that's not really any better.
It's called a hypothetical, and you are blowing clear past the point.
No I'm not, but I've said my peace. This conversation is just going round and round in circles. As I said, maybe you should just 'loosen up' a wee bit, and just accept that sometimes things aren't meant to have too much read into them.
Excellent post by the way 1starbuckstown. I agree with all your points.
Buffy S8 #13, fulfills my primary criteria for a good story, it brings the funny and it makes me wonder what's going to happen next.
Here is an interesting idea, in all fairness isn't it time for Andrew to be sent on a dangerous mission sometime soon ? I think it's very unfair that he gets to stand around telling stories while the slayers get sent out to sacrifice themselves fighting the undead.
IMO it's time for Andrew to volunteer for a dangerous mission to some exotic locale, get torn to pieces by large animals, stomped on by elephants and eaten by locals with a interesting new recipe using peanuts and fava beans.
I suspect this very special 'Tuckers brother dies' issue could gather (almost) the same audience as the one where Buffy wakes up in bed naked with Willow and Satsu, saying "Wow, Willow thanks for lending us the instruction manual and pointing out the errors, we really appreciate your help" - Willow "no problems, why dont you lean over here and let me show you whats wrong with page 55".
"Shoe sale noise", heh funny, a nice tip from Willow to future slayer layers, the way to Buffys heart clearly goes through good footwear.
Which issue is this Xander/Drac story in? In which series?
What's a retcon?
And a little rant,
I thought Willow's questioning Satsu about Buffy's bedroom performance was odd. Not only did it seem more like an Anya thing to ask, it also brings a (I think) very stereotypical bent to the Willow/Buffy relationship. It posits that a gay woman and a straight woman can't just be friends. That passage implies that the gay woman in such a relationship would, of course, want to have sexual knowledge of the straight woman. There is no previous text (of the tv show or comic) to support this sudden Willow desire to have sexual knowledge (even secondhand) of Buffy. Her question implies sexual attraction on some level. Sexual attraction that for seven seasons and 12 comic book issues has been completely hidden. I just think it's too big of an issue to be a throwaway line for jokes. I've come to expect more consideration in Whedon's exploration of gender, sex, and sexual orientation than this issue provided.
Not to mention that this brings the total of people who desire Buffy to everyone minus Giles. (Which, by the way, if they ever go there, I'll vomit - he's her "dad"!) Buffy may be isolating herself but the expectations of desire (sexual, authorial, etc.) that everyone is placing on her probably isn't helping her very much. With desire often comes the propensity to objectify. Buffy has always had so many problems being a real, human person. With so many desire scopes focused on her, it may create even more of a desire within her to withdraw.
If, after 12 issues of being really well-written and mature and important again in more than just a moral support way, [Xander] comes out of "Wolves at the Gate" as just the punchline, it feels like that's all he'll ever be.
KingofCretins, can't Xander, or any of the characters, occasionally be the punchline? As you have acknowledged, he is treated respectfully most of the time (12 out of 13 issues). Once in a while, he gets played for laughs. It happens to all the characters at some point or another. On the TV show, Xander may have been played for laughs more than the others, but I think that had more to do with Nick Brendon's flair for comedy than anything else.
The story with Dracula and Xander that's referred to is called "Antique", it's part of the Dark Horse published "Tales of the Vampires" anthology. In that story, Dracula keeps Xander as his "manservant" for an unclear amount of time until Buffy shows up and saves him.
A "retcon" is "retroactive continuity" -- a revision of story history to accomodate a previously unestablished set of facts that weren't true at the time earlier story was told. In this case, the retcon is that Dracula and Xander became penpals or something, despite Xander hating and wanting to kill Dracula for making him a "spider-eating man-bitch".
1starbucks, you say 'occasionally' as though Xander being the punchline was the exception and not the rule. I refer again to the spider-eating manbitch speech, and the countless references to demon women and his rotten dating luck. From "The Zeppo" on, turning Xander into the buttmonkey has been as common a device in the Buffyverse as Put Willow/Dawn In Peril was. I already discussed this above, but when Buffy or Willow gets to be the butt of the joke, the story invariably ends with them getting their power back in some measure -- conking Parker in "Beer Bad". Heck, even staking the vampire that tells Buffy she smells bad. When Xander gets to be the punchline, it always seems to stand. The closest he got to getting his power back in any of those buttmonkey stories was throwing oranges at Hus in "Pangs".
I don't want to get embroiled in the discussion you have going on. I'm new and don't want to offend quite yet. But do you think the whole Xander being the butt of jokes and not recovering from that, while Buffy and Willow always do, has partially to do with the women's magical powers? Is Xander never able to emerge from the punchline zone because he was not imbued with extra abilities? Kind of like Buffy and Willow could get out of a box if they were trapped because they were given tacks, scissors, and razor blades, but Xander couldn't get out because all he was given was tape?
When Xander gets to be the punchline, it always seems to stand.
How? I see nothing in the TV show or in the comics to suggest that any of the characters see him as a fool (or "buttmonkey"). Occasionally (and I do think it is only occasionally), he is made the fool. (His bad luck with dates goes back at least as far as Teacher's Pet from Season 1.) But that is not his permanent status. For an example of a permanent fool, see Andrew, who gets (deservedly) no respect at all and is virtually always a punchline.
KingofCretins, and also Idiot Jed you put this quite well, I think you’re striking on something with Xander that I’ve often wondered about with Andrew... why is something happening to one character funny because it’s that character when it would be upsetting if it happened to another? The way that the Scoobies treat Andrew in season 7 is pretty terrible, and it’s played up for laughs in a series that otherwise has a lot to say about the strength of friendship and sticking up for the underdog...I’ve never quite understood this. Anyway. Just a thought.
It's occurred to me to wonder if they are differentiated by gender like that, but never the superpowers/special abilities angle. I could see, however ham-handed it would be, that there's a decision to make the women incapable of being held down while the guy sort of stumbles through on account of the female empowerment theme. I tend to hope that's not what's going on, though.
1starbucks, would you not concede that this arc goes better for the Xander character if he gets the proverbial last word in this whole thrall/brainwashing thing with Dracula? Tells him off, kills him, something?
[W]ould you not concede that this arc goes better for the Xander character if he gets the proverbial last word in this whole thrall/brainwashing thing with Dracula?
KingofCretins, Xander's "wonkiness" around Dracula is an acknowledged weakness. It may be embarrassing for him, but it's hardly necessary for his character to triumph over that weakness in some decisive way. In fact, the weakness serves a comic purpose. Xander's weakness is a strength for the purposes of creating a bit of humor. Take that away and you may have a stronger Xander, but no humor. Since humor is the intended objective, Xander pretty much has to stay Dracula's buttmonkey when Dracula is around.
Why wasn't Buffy being obsessed with thinking Parker actually liked her but didn't realize it just an "acknowledged weakness" that she didn't have to triumph over decisively? I mean, it was played for laughs, too, right? Dreams of ice cream and flowers? Amusing fixation on pumpkin guts? I'm sure they could still squeeze laughter blood from that comedy stone.
The implication being that humor in the Buffyverse is only achievable at Xander's expense. There's really nothing I can do with that.
I wonder if Dawn is going to be brought in to bring down that giant red disk that poses the threat to the Slayers, and that will be her CloverDawn/DawnKey Kong moment, scaling that building and swatting flying vampires.
Also, not to get bogged down in the exposition, but just how many banks did Buffy rob? Aside from the castle, the villa Andrew was at in Tuscany, their other locations, and all their equipment, we've now seen two large helicopters, one smaller one, and now what appears to be a C-5 Galaxy transport jet (which Wikipedia shows has a unit cost of $167.7 million). Are they, like, hiring pilots for these things, or just training all these late-teens and early-20s folk to pilot them? Sometimes I have to sing the MST3K theme song to myself when I think of these things.
For what it's worth: I thought Xander/Dracula stuff was completely consentual on both sides, Xander wasn't under a thrall more than he wanted to be - but the problem as it was presented there was that Xander wanted to be under that thrall more than he wanted to admit to himself or to Renee, and that's what made it so hilarious and silly.
I didn't see any rape scenario there at all, as Dracula himself was pretty tame and didn't push Xander more than Xander himself wanted it. They really made a cute couple there, and somehow you could feel it wasn't going to be nasty to any of them. Just some weird guy thing, some strange emotional bond without any sexual undertones. My most enjoyable part of the issue - brilliantly done by Drew!
I haven't read the issue yet (waiting for it to arrive here in Germany ...), but following the discussion, I'm actually looking forward to the Xander/Dracula part. For one thing, I always felt that what makes him a strong character is his ability to deal with his occasional lapses into silliness. I felt that his character was never seriously diminished by being played for laughs, because Xander is the kind of person who knows when and how it is the best choice to make fun of himself. Even when he's silly, he's at the sime time kind of above it. And I can imagine this beautfully with the whole Dracula-scenario.
And regarding the moral wrongness of mind control: I think the buffyverse is full of these kinds of internal contradictions. Similar situations are played absolutely different - take for example Angel 3.1. Here the dusting of a quite normal, soulless vampire is played for tragedy - while in most of both series, it's played for laughs. Now, are we supposed to take the typical soulless vampire, despite being evil and all, as a rounded personality with some entitlement to respect for his life and feelings? Characters like not-ensouled Spike, Gunn in Angel:AtF and ocassionally even Drusilla seem to reinforce this notion. But how can the dusting of such beings be played for fun then?
I think the point is that the buffyverse simply doesn't have a mimetic or straightrforward metaphorical relationship to reality. "Mind control" is not simply "mind control" (as we would have to assume if Buffy were a work of mainstream realism); and it's also not necessarily a metaphor for psychological control and violence (Though, in the case of Warren and Katrina, it quite clearly IS). It can be many things, depending on what the situation is played for. In the Xander/Drac case, I would guess that it is being played to make fun at masculinty. We know from the series that certain conservative concepts of masculinty have some appeal to Xander (the military, being a hard-working husband, laying someone, being a hero ...), but that he also constantly experiences and reflects upon the fact that most of these concepts just don't work for him and the people around him and might not be that desirable after all. Dracula's thrall could be seen as a kind of metaphor for Xander's melancholical longing for an overblown, conservative, aristocratic model of masculinity. However, following such a model is obviously not what smart Xander would do normally. Nevertheless, there is a part of him that wants to do so - why else would he be so vulnerable to Dracula's thrall?
I would expect that, in the end, Xander turns out to be above that. But somewhere inside, there's a small part of him that actually wants to follow Dracula. And that seems to be the point of the thrall thing to me, and not whether mind control is is intrinsically funny or not.
OK, may that's all totally missing the point - as I said, I haven't read the issue yet. But that's what I gather from Buffy 4.1., from "Antique" and from reading this thread.
the retcon is that Dracula and Xander became penpals or something, despite Xander hating and wanting to kill Dracula for making him a "spider-eating man-bitch".
This really does not fit the definition of retcon, because it's easily explained by story we simply didn't ever see. The fact that we haven't ever seen the story which gets us from "wanting to kill" to "became penpals" (presuming Andrew's story is correct, of course) does not mean that such a story doesn't exist.
The fact that there might be stories which fill in the gaps perfectly well, but we just have not seem them yet, does not make any and every alleged inconsistency into a retcon.
Bix, since it is in direct contradiction of what we know to be true of Xander's feelings toward Dracula at the time he's last mentioned in his presence, yes, it's a retcon. Even if we get a story. That story would be, by definition, continuity that's made retroactive.
You can't get much farther apart than hoping to chase the guy down with a torch and calling him a creep, and being penpals so tight that Xander chooses to mourn Anya not with his lifelong friends, but with the guy who brainwashed him in the first place.
There is nothing "alleged" about the inconsistency. Res ipsa loquitur, it *is* inconsistent. And clearly a retcon, since, again, with the being great penpals and confidants despite Xander never saying his name again after "Real Me".
Keep in mind, it's precisely the obvious inconsistency that got people talking about whether Andrew's account could possibly be true earlier in the thread. In a way, it's not even consistent from 8.12 to 8.13... how many times have you said "aw, crap" about seeing your "fast friend"?
As to the earlier question of Xander deserving to "triumph" here, here's a different angle -- Dracula is clearly still a bad dude. He hunts frightened Albanian boys (yeah, it's consistent with Xander's character that he'd tolerate this ina friend. He wants the Slayers wiped off the face of the earth. Call me crazy, but it's just as worth wiping him out at the end of this arc as it would be to wipe out Toru, Raidon, and Kumiko*. I'd say Xander should do the honors, or if not him, Renee.
*If those three are really just one-offs for this arc, they easily jump ahead of Sunday as absolutely coolest one-off vampires in the history of the Buffyverse.
Wow, that's a big conversation caused by a whole lot of deep infering. All I'll say about it is I am sorry for those that are reading all the negativity into it, as that makes for less enjoyment and fun. I'll not claim you are wrong, but I do see it differently. And I will point this out: If you care so deeply for Xander and what happens to him, then the writing team as a whole must have certainly done a lot right with his character over the previous seven seasons.
Also, Willow's comment to Satus. Such a humanizing thing. What's the problem here? Of course she's sexually attracted to Buffy. Buffy is an attractive, powerful woman. Doesn't mean Willow wants her. But why can't the girl be curious?
I'm a hetero male and I have a hetero female friend I've known for 7 1/2 years (a little less time than Willow has known Buffy to this point) and it's completely platonic. We've had people (a whole lot) think we were together over the years because we are so close. We've never explored anything other than friendship though and we both have no interest in such. Am I curious? Sure! Is she? Probably! How could we not? Do we ever talk about it on screen? No! And barely ever has it come up off screen, and then only as a joke (like when others think we're dating).
There's really no such thing as a platonic relationship where at least one person isn't attracted on some level (only when sexual alignment allows for attraction of course).
Willow played the concerned friend/mother figure first, and had Satsu not responded in the way she did, Willow would not have asked what she asked because it would have made Satsu uncomfortable. Asking the way she did though, takes the edge away from the conversation, forms a bond. Satsu is much more likely to trust Willow and take her advice to heart now. They'll be fast friends. Uh oh! Two homosexual females! Maybe they'll sleep together! No, doubtful, but will they both wonder at some point? Probably, physical attraction is only human.
Phew, sorry. I just was so pleased by this wonderful, normal, human moment, that I have become quite upset at the negative response to it. I'm sure I wasn't even too clear. If I am greatly challenged, I'll try to clarify.
My problem with Xander/Dracula is not any deep, moral or philosophical revulsion; it's that it is utterly, completely, and totally implausible for Xander to have spent as much as a year living with Dracula. There is simply no way (that I can see) to make it make any narrative sense. And I'm a top notch fanwanker.
The implication being that humor in the Buffyverse is only achievable at Xander's expense.
Xander as Dracula's manservant = humor. If Xander fully disenthralls himself from Dracula -- or kills him -- the equation changes, and the writers have to find humor elsewhere. It may be satisfying to see Xander reclaim his dignity and give Dracula his comeuppance, but it would eliminate what amounts to a running gag dating back to Buffy vs. Dracula. The gag is legitimate, in my view, and I would miss not having it around. Not every gag works for everyone, but this one works for me just fine. Because Buffy or Willow are not subject to comparable running gags is really not even relevant. Why should they be? Some characters are made to carry the comic burden more than others--Andrew, Cordelia (in her stint on BtVS), Anya, Wesley (for a while anyway). If no one was allowed to be silly and funny, there would be virtually no humor in the Buffyverse. Who wants that?
I'm not totally digging Xander's thrall, but I think we should all wait for the end of the arc. I'm sure he's gonna have a Zeppo moment and either kick Drac's ass or just make him realize what a sad, pathetic old man he is and wipe himself clean of it for good.
Re: Willow/Satsu moment, I thought it was great. I mean, do the people who are complaining about it ever talk about sex with other people? Sex is goofy, exciting, and people love talking about it. It doesn't matter if their friend is the subject. I know people who talk openly about sex with their siblings or parents. Not everyone takes it so seriously.
And I think Dracula talking about his soul can be written off as him being overly dramatic.
I forgot to mention, I really liked having a reference to how Xander reacted after Anya's death. It's one of the things I was really hoping the comic would spend some time on after I finished watching the series.
Nolan, well, I liked having a reference to the fact that Xander reacted to Anya's death, although we already could have assumed that. The apparent form of his reaction was rather ridiculous and incongruent with the character and preexisting canon, though. I mean, he wouldn't have tromped off into the jungle to hang out with Riley, who was *actually* his friend, or gone and meditated about his hyena experience with Oz, who was *actually* his friend? Seriously, isn't him deciding to go back to dancing at the Fabulous Ladies' Night Club more in character than pretending he had a long-standing friendship with Dracula?
1starbucks, so you're saying it would be great for Xander to have a moment that gets his dignity back except for the end result being that he'd have his dignity back? Is he really not as important a character as Buffy and Willow to anyone else anymore? I think I've been pretty clear, and pretty repetitive, that the problem isn't using the characters for occasional sport, it's the fact that Xander, alone, seems to be the only one that isn't made whole again at the end of the story.
dingoes8, I can honestly say that I've never tried to give someone a difficult message about not getting their hopes up of ever sleeping with someone again and then immediately asked them to gossip about the sex they had. It's not the conversation, it's the context that I found really off.
Okay I really liked Georges' artwork. It was just magnificent, his Buffy is spot on (it's that nose!!!) The story does seem great but this issue just didn't appeal to me much, Aiko senes, I loved.
I got the last issue in the shop (twas in the window), I really enjoyed the issue. I really enjoyed it. Xander was the comic foil which made a nice change. Dracula was his usual pompous self and Willow was just being a brat.
Xander being the comic foil was a change from... Season 2? I get enjoying the issue, I enjoy it more on re-reading and after having bitten down on the jagged little buttmonkey pill, but... change?
GrrrlRomeo, re: gendered vampire-thrall -- Maybe I just haven't seen enough vampire movies, but I never thought that "only chicks can fall under vampires' thrall, never guys" was a standard trope. And they don't seem to be emphasizing the butt-monkey's sex here, so if it is meant to be a satire of some only-women-get-enthralled convention, it's an extremely subtle satire.
KingofCretins, re: The Zeppo -- I used to be really torn about this episode, loving the humor (and sex) but hating the inconsistency in Xander's character that you mention. Finally I found a new way of looking at TZ: it's all symbolic. Of course Xander wasn't useless in the previous 46 episodes, but he's portrayed that way in The Zeppo because at that time he feels useless. Who knows if that's what ME intended; but it works well enough as a way for me to thoroughly enjoy The Zeppo now.
Jakob Schmidt -- If I can just quibble with one word there, I don't think being a hardworking husband, wanting to get laid, or being a hero are "conservative" masculine values. Even military service isn't a conservative-only value.
Re: lots of posts, the problem with Xander's frequent butt-monkeydom is not just that he gets into humiliating situations more often than other characters (though he does). It's also that the writers seem more willing to throw character continuity out the window to get in a joke with Xander than with the others. "Xander's grown to be an effective fighter over four years, but now we have a chance to put him in a hair-pulling contest with Harmony? Cool!"
Re: lots of other posts, I think we have to wait and see how "friendly" Xander really feels toward Dracula. Andrew is the very model of an unreliable narrator. It could be that the whole "friendship" is a figment of Andrew's imagination, or it could be that it existed but only as a result of lingering thralldom. Personally I hope one of those two options turns out to be the truth. Or else there'd better be one hell of a story to explain the friendship. Remember what I said about character continuity? The Xander Harris we know does not befriend vampires, especially ones that aren't fighting on Buffy's side, and especially especially not the one who made Xander h
The Good
-- Renee -- I love that she is absolutely in Dracula's face and assertive throughout, and also doesn't have any patience for the thrall bullshit coming off of Xander.
-- Buffy -- it's not "good" per se, but it's at least consistent. Makes her plan, rushes headlong into it ignoring the reasoned advice of others, and also their feelings. I'm also glad to see, good or bad, that all illusions anyone in the audience had about the heirarchical nature of the Slayer organization are shattered ("This isn't up for discussion, Satsu... I gave you an order. Get moving."). Also liked that the Aiko character reinforces the mythic concept of Buffy to the other Slayers.
-- The Vampires -- we get the main villain's name, Toru. He and that whole gang are badass. And their plan is, generally speaking, what we thought it was, to reverse the spell. And their demonstration of it was about the most viscerally nasty and symbolically nasty evil act in the Buffyverse in a longtime.
The Bad
-- Xander -- granted, I should have seen this coming, but I was sort of hoping that the thrall thing would be as pervasive. Buttmonkey. Of course. Is he ever elevated at all anymore other than for the pleasure of shoving him back down?
-- Willow -- Probably the biggest WTF in the book is Willow going from a very legitimate (if really pushy, unsolicited) talk with Satsu about Buffy, her general-ness, her not gay-ness, the one-night-standy-ness of it, and the advantages taken... to shaking Satsu down for graphic details of how Buffy is in bad? It's not that Willow having the same curiousity about Buffy in the sack as, say, Xander would is off-putting, but... hello, crass? And kind of undermining the theretofore serious chat?
-- Satsu -- kicked puppy for the foreseeable future, unless she's the traitor.
The Ugly
-- Dracula -- what's the point of the pervasive racism being thrown into this character? Other than how dated he in general, has *any* Dracula myth ever supported this? It's so over the top, Xander metas about it, and he's right -- I don't remember Dracula being a big racist either? Moor? Filthy yellow people? Really?
-- "Antique" retcon -- Wow, and retcon barely begins. "Semester abroad"? Xander decided to mourn Anya in seclusion with Dracula? Occasionally letters? To channel Sam Rockwell from "Galaxy Quest"... did you guys even watch the show?
There's a compelling story going on, like I said -- the villains rock, the peril is high, the threat to the Slayer spell is intense. But it feels like the major characters are all off, except for Buffy, who's only "on" because we can recognize her conforming to the least common denominator of her personal tendencies -- shutting people out and not thinking things through.
KingofCretins | April 02, 19:53 CET
And am I totally misreading a joke, or does Dracula have a soul?!?!
karosurly | April 02, 20:45 CET
Just thinkin' out loud here. Anyway, I liked issue 13 quite a bit. The only scene that felt a little weak to me was Andrew's. Otherwise, everything was spot-on.
The Dark Shape | April 02, 22:34 CET
Also, best line, easily, in this issue, is Aiko joking that if she can't keep up with the vamps that Buffy should "take her Slayer card". That should be worth a shiver.
The idea that Buffy loses her powers in this arc would be... pretty awesome, actually, but I don't think that it's likely since in 8.16 she appears to be keeping up with Fray in a fight.
And, yeah, Dracula with the soul-having? Interesting.
KingofCretins | April 02, 22:54 CET
I found nothing really bad or ugly in this issue, contra KingofCretins, although Dracula saying "Oh, balls!" doesn't immediately ring true as something he would say.
Re: Dracula's racism, I took it to be more a reflection of his character's outsized ego and self-aggrandizing, his puffed-up sense of himself as the Lord of Darkness, the baddest Big Bad, etc. Just so much boasting, which again, plays up the humor as so much else in the issue does.
Re: Willow's shaking down Satsu for bedroom details, I liked it. It humanizes her, and I think it lightened up Satsu to switch topics from something heavy to something fun.
1starbuckstown | April 02, 23:01 CET
Dracula's slurs took me aback a little. I don't remember similarly old vampires in the Buffyverse spouting off that way. Oh well. Renee more than held her own. I'm a total Renee-Xander shipper, or at least as much of a them-shipper as I can be, since I'm not the shipper type. She's great.
Butterfield cracks me up. But "H.G.O.G.A. cookbook"- huh? 'Splainy?
Can anyone say what transpires in "Antique" that renders this current issue such a retcon for KingofCretins? I read it ages ago and the details are fuzzy.
phlebotinin | April 02, 23:08 CET
patxshand | April 02, 23:26 CET
waxbanks | April 02, 23:28 CET
waxbanks | April 02, 23:29 CET
Thank you, waxbanks, for urging me to read the line again, although it seems that you could have simply explained it to a comic-book luddite like me in the time you took to comment on your disappointment with AtF.
karosurly | April 02, 23:38 CET
I'm not sure Dracula saying he "risked his very soul" means that it was a soul for ancient magics transaction. I just took Dracula's statement as an over-the-top pronouncement, of which he seems to make many. Such a drama queen, he. Yet maybe I read it wrong. Do most people think karosurly's interpretation is the correct one? I'm happy to be enlightened (I do need a lot of that.)
phlebotinin | April 02, 23:44 CET
karosurly | April 02, 23:47 CET
About Dracula, the line is "These powers you speak of – they’re part of the ancient magics. I risked my very soul to attain them. I am their worldly guardian."
What's the secret password on this that allows it to not suggest that he either has or had a soul? I'm not a comic luddite, and it seems to suggest such.
KingofCretins | April 03, 00:15 CET
Dracula seems to have risked his (demon?) soul to obtain the ancient magics (gypsy stuff, as Spike would call them). He obviously won, since he has the powers and considers himself their guardian.
1starbuckstown | April 03, 00:19 CET
Maybe the gang (Willow and Buffy) told Andrew to say that to the slayers. Maybe they don't want the other Slayers to worry that Xander was or has ever been under the thrall of the Dark Master.
Bator.
crazygolfa | April 03, 00:24 CET
I'm not sure how seriously we're supposed to take Andrew, who is a known storyteller, after all. He may have the facts right, but his interpretation may be distorted.
1starbuckstown | April 03, 00:26 CET
I also find it interesting that they recognize Anya's name, like it's a part of Xander's life story they've gotten before.
KingofCretins | April 03, 00:26 CET
phlebotinin | April 03, 00:27 CET
KingofCretins | April 03, 00:29 CET
Furball | April 03, 00:40 CET
jlp | April 03, 01:13 CET
Crass Willow quotes:
"Great. I'll give Xander a call. What's his number? Oh, yeah, 1-800-I'm-Dating-A-Skanky-Ho."
"It is kind of novel how he'll stay young and handsome forever, although you'll still get wrinkly and die... and oh, what about the children? I'll be quiet now."
"If you hurt her, I will beat you to death with a shovel. A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend. Have fun!"
"Why are you suddenly so worried about looking like an idiot? That came out wrong."
quantumac | April 03, 01:19 CET
embers | April 03, 01:22 CET
"I'm a breast girl myself."
MadeToLoveJoss | April 03, 01:23 CET
Just because Andrew says that Xander went to live with Drac voluntarily doesn't make it true. That line could be absolute crap with the true story being something about Dracula coming around and putting Xander back under his thrall.
Also, I agree that Dracula probably was being overdramatic when he claims that he risked his soul. Going back to 5.01, he really is dramatic. Or: he got his magicks and stuff when he was human.
And Willow in the HGOGA cookbook panel? Absolutely stunningly amazing. I wanted to marry Jeanty after seeing that panel.
d_gryphon | April 03, 01:40 CET
jlp | April 03, 02:00 CET
I'm 50/50 on Willow asking Satsu for bedroom details. Part of me thinks she would say it, but the other part of me is annoyed at the thought of both of Buffy's best friends being interested in her bedroom antics. I dunno. I think it's more of my feelings toward Buffy (rather than Willow) that make the line annoying. Besides the whole personal/female power importance, I hate when Buffy gets put on a pedestal. /end rant
I want Giles back.
bknick | April 03, 02:14 CET
Hmm, what's that on page 13?
/set tangent off
theonetruebix | April 03, 02:32 CET
Xander has always been puzzling over what it means to be a man (note his proposal to Anya, his attentiveness to Riley, even his soldier-self and identification through a manly job) and his being drawn to Dracula, a hypermasculine figure may have some echoes of these previous situations (as well as explain some of the thrall).
There are also some similarities between their situations. Dracula is out of time and out of place in the modern world with modern vampires, much as Xander is still slightly out of place with the Scoobies and now at the BHC, so to some extent they are both heroic figures who don't quite fit into the current scheme. Plus, there's also the implication of some sort of Anya bond since she and Dracula used to hang out--so maybe the mourning idea is a possibility. Likewise, I also thought that Dracula is the only vampire who Xander has ever come close to liking (even in a thrall way)--he's been vicious to Spike and Angel, but there's not the same lust for death for him.
(That doesn't mean that they are instantly best friends either, but it is a possibility...and perversely, the thralldom that Xander got in the episode was with him having an important job when Xander didn't actually have one or feel very important. So, there may be an element of strange understanding with them too. Again, thrall is thrall, but there's something interesting in looking at how the thrall is executed. Xander is looked on as a person of value and maybe Dracula actually sees something special in him that remains.)
So, while it seems like a strange idea, there could be some interesting twists to be taken with it. I hope that's what happens.
I also really like Renee. Yay Renee!
(and "shoe sale noise"--I thought that was sextacular and cute and that's all I have to say about that.)
[ edited by JessicaMelusine on 2008-04-02 23:40 ]
[ edited by JessicaMelusine on 2008-04-02 23:49 ]
JessicaMelusine | April 03, 02:39 CET
Part of why I love Renee in this issue is that she seems to implicitly understand that -- I love her flippance with Dracula, and the fact that she clearly would love to see him try when he's threatening her. I also like that Xander nearly 'girlfriended' Renee. Like I said, I'm being caught up in their 'ship in spite of my own, still much greater preferences.
I just had a sad thought -- could Aiko have been the girl standing up from her table in "Chosen", since Satsu wasn't?
[ edited by KingofCretins on 2008-04-02 23:50 ]
KingofCretins | April 03, 02:49 CET
newcj | April 03, 02:51 CET
MadeToLoveJoss | April 03, 02:56 CET
Willow is nosey about Buffy's sex life...as always. LOL
These powers you speak of – they’re part of the ancient magics. I risked my very soul to attain them. I am their worldly guardian.
Bram Stoker's Dracula studied at Scholomance. Kinda like Hogwarts, only for black magic with Satan as the headmaster and he takes the tenth student for payment.
Really gotta read the book and not rely on the movies.
GrrrlRomeo | April 03, 03:30 CET
An utter waste of panels. Sorry Joss, I just don't why he gives you such a 'happy'.
sueworld2003 | April 03, 03:33 CET
but besides that, poor Aiko, poor Satsu. Poor every other girl that they might possibly take the slayery goodness from. :(
Also, I hope there is much more talking to be done about the whole Batsu thing (love that name), especially between Willow and Buffy.
I loved all the Xander/Dracula/Renee bits as well, it's a good thing Renee went along.
The cover for this issue is still mysterious to me, but whatever, it's beautiful anyway!
and, one last thing, I love Andrew! Even though this wasn't his greatest scene ever, it's just good to see him again.
nicetomeatyou | April 03, 03:38 CET
Re: Willow being crass - um, not really all that unusual; besides the previously mentioned examples, there's Willow:
in "Where The Wild Things Are", announcing to Giles as Buffy and Riley make lame excuses to disappear, (with a grin) "They, they're probably going to-"
in "Forever", "You had two eggs sunny-side-up. I remember 'cause they were wiggling at me like little boobs."
Also, just two other points about Willow's talk with Satsu:
1. Willow has often been guilty of inappropriate timing, and
2. At least now we can stop arguing about whether Willow's ever thought about Buffy in "that way." :-D
I'd be surprised if she hadn't, actually; since she's familiar with Buffy's "shoe-sale noise", I take it that Riley's Initiative buddies weren't the only ones being kept awake...
Rowan Hawthorn | April 03, 03:42 CET
Marion the Geek | April 03, 03:49 CET
I feel old now...
Furball | April 03, 03:58 CET
We-ell, yeah, BUT: she must have some reason for associating the two events (of course, maybe a shoe sale is an orgasmic event for Buff...)
Rowan Hawthorn | April 03, 04:07 CET
Marion the Geek | April 03, 04:11 CET
2. Of course, she does. Why'd you think she asked? ;-)
Rowan Hawthorn | April 03, 04:20 CET
But on with the un-PC, I thought Willow's talk with Satsu was very well done. I'm with MadetoLoveJoss on this one: "I'm a breast girl myself."
Also, it's a nice break from the mopey-ness.
As for retcon... I hardly think so. Andrew was probably bloody euphemising the entire situation... or throwing his own crazy spin on things, as per usual.
I did enjoy the visceral brutality that came right after the revoking of Aiko's slayer card. There was almost a sense of poetic justice (this may rub some of you wrong, but it is a personal reading)... she obviously enjoys a good kill (ref: her comments about the Kabuki demons), and it seemed that she was probably one of the wetworks gals the Slayer organization now has.
As for the hierarchy of power in slayerhood... it is to be expected. I mean, it's not just Buffy. Even when fun-loving Faith took charge, she told Kennedy to stuff it and fall in line. Plus, Buffy's almost like Santa Claus in terms of the slayer mythos, shown by Aiko's reverence.
Also, it's been getting progressively more obvious, but Buffy is meant to be alone. She's cutting more and more ties, and that's probably the way the overall season arc's supposed to go for now.
[ edited by wenxina on 2008-04-03 02:18 ]
wenxina | April 03, 05:16 CET
I don't really have a problem with the whole Xander/Dracula relationship, because I just thought back to the Tales of Vampires comic that featured them. I don't know if that counts as canon, but it makes the whole thing easier to swallow. Besides, that part of the book was more interesting to me than the Buffy parts.
I am rather confused as to what exactly happened to Aiko and what the shiny red thing is. I don't have a problem reading comics usually, but after read that part two more times I'm still lost.
Nolan | April 03, 05:50 CET
nutterbudgie | April 03, 05:56 CET
It's terrifying to me that they've managed to do this, but it seems to only work with the scythe, which I'm confident Buffy will get back, so I don't feel all too worried... yet... maybe.
nicetomeatyou | April 03, 06:11 CET
This issue feels like it is the first part of a two part episode. I know that sounds weird considering this is part two or a four-part story, but this issue seems like it is building to something bigger even more than part one. I think part one is more self-contained.
I loved Renee in this episode. She really didn't take any of Dracula's b.s. lying down. She was ready to thrown down with Dracula and any moment. She really has come into her own since issue 1, and she may actually become Xander's equal. While I still have problems with their relationship, i.e. the power-structure thing, I do love them together. Hopefully, she doesn't die in this arc, which I have a feeling might happen.
While, I don't think Xander's butt-monkeyery is all that great, I fell that he isn't completely under the thrall of Dracula. I felt that he was standing up to him at some points, so maybe it's only residual thrall that he's under because he wasn't all hump-backy in this issue.
I do feel bad for Satsu. Buffy shut her down there, and Satsu had a really good idea with keeping some slayers at the BHC to protect it. And I loved Willow's conversation with Satsu, being reassuring and crass at the same time. It was endearing.
I really love the current villains in this arc. They are the right mix of scary, creepy and entertainment. That deslayering panel was visceral and disturbing, which made it work. I also love how they managed to get Dracula's powers, they stole it through a rigged card game. I wonder who's the witch who helped them.
Buffy is a whole 'nother story. Buffy's isolating herself even more. [sing song]She's Ms. Lonely[/sing song]. I think this whole incident with Satsu might actually make isolating herself even more. It really does feel that the only person she can open herself up to emotionally at a small level is Xander. I feel like if Xander was on that plane ride, she'd be sitting or standing next to the Xan man. (BTW, who's flying that thing? Wash? And how did they get a plane?)
I also noticed that Willow considers herself part of the army, does that mean she doesn't view herself as equals to Buffy, which is a shame because I feel that the four core Scoobs as equals.
Too bad we have to wait a month to get the next installment. Joss loves the comic because he can can make our withdrawals even longer. That's why I liked having Angel, Buffy and Serenity all come out in different weeks, so the wait times wasn't as bad.
crazygolfa | April 03, 06:18 CET
Xander and Dracula were absurdly hilarious together, and so was Andrew - I forgot how much fun he could be. :)
And the twist in the end? Something I saw coming, but great nevertheless. And Willow/Satsu banter? Priceless.
And Buffy is still a General and still not like the others - I guess also because her powers couldn't be taken away with the Scythe, because she's the source of it all somehow.
Nata | April 03, 06:21 CET
Well, now that it's canon, let's deal with it. I'm glad that Xander is not exactly under Dracula's thrall anymore, but teetering on the brink of rethralldom. It ends up mostly a reference to past butt-monkeydom, which is more acceptable than full-fledged current BM. And I liked learning that Dracula's cool sophisticated persona is at least partly a conscious pose. (Is Dracula gaining dimensions as Xander loses them?) I think his comment about risking his "soul" could have been metaphorical -- maybe he risked becoming some other villain's slave if he lost. As for his racist comments, I took that mainly as a way of showing him to be a creature of, not his own, but Bram Stoker's time. I wonder how he'll fare in 21st century Japan?
I read Andrew's lecture as a seriously biased and unreliable account of the Xander-Dracula relationship. Remember in The Real Me when Dawn told her diary about Xander "going undercover" to stop Dracula? Well, this is probably similar. (Though the reasons aren't quite the same. Dawn had a crush on Xander, while Andrew just likes to dramatize life's sordid events.) I think we're supposed to read between the lines that Xander's "friendship" for Dracula was entirely thrall-based.
As for Andrew himself, I dunno.... He had a nice little character arc in S6-7, and a couple of decent guest appearances on Angel. But I'm not at all sure that he's justified the amount of space he gets in the comics, where he's been mostly just a joke dispensing machine. Sure, usually I laugh at the jokes. But if he appeared half as often and got half as many panels when he does appear, I'd be just as happy. Especially if the saved panels went to further illuminating the old core four, Dawn and Faith.
On the plus side, I liked Renee's part when standing up to Dracula. I liked Buffy's part. And I bought Willow's part too -- sure, pumping Satsu for info (ahem) is a bit insensitive, but how could Willow resist this once-in-a-lifetime chance to hear about Buffy's performance from a fellow lesbian? My only problem there is that she didn't draw Satsu out of the other Slayers' earshot before asking....
The vampires' plot to attack the Slayers could be a great story. And it had better be. Because the Dracula part has now put Wolves at the Gate at a disadvantage, and it's going to have to make up that lost ground to prove itself equal the previous storylines of Season 8.
idiot jed | April 03, 07:02 CET
I can't even speculate on Buffy and Faith probably being safe from Toru's toy -- it seems logical, scythe giveth, scythe taketh away, and that doesn't affect them.
KingofCretins | April 03, 07:02 CET
I liked the issue but not as much as issue 12.This seems to be more set up although I do like the setup with the Scythe and what it's going to be used for and the Xander/Dracula stuff.I loved Renee in this issue.
The Willow/Satsu conversation was interesting but it was a little jarring to see Willow ask Satsu how Buffy was in bed although I can understand Willow's interest.I sort of would expect Xander to ask something like that over Willow.
It seems sleeping with Buffy hasn't given Satsu any special points in the work related area.Buffy is still the boss.
Buffyfantic | April 03, 07:15 CET
I would not be surprised if the BHC doesn't survive this arc.
KingofCretins | April 03, 07:19 CET
Warren's cerebral dampener was a device to finally propel the "supervillains" into an act that truly violated another person's right (not saying that playing mind games with Buffy wasn't infringement of some sort, but it was played to comedic effect).
What Glory did to Tara was to allow Willow to finally have to care for someone else who completely depended on her, so that she could finally truly understand a part of Buffy's burden, with Dawn, and the world.
And as for what Willow did to Tara, it was simply to move Willow in the direction that she was set up to go in Season 6, down the road to addiction, and the long battle back after.
I guess what I'm saying is that there is no fundamental difference there, except pending the outcome.
wenxina | April 03, 07:31 CET
septopus | April 03, 07:32 CET
Some thoughts before I hop on over to .Org:
I love Renee.
I don't have any problem with Xander being under Dracula's thrall, nor did I ever. It's funny, it makes sense continuity-wise (unlike the whole time they spent together, which still makes me scratch my head), and it's used to good effect in the issue.
It was initially jarring to see Willow ask Satsu for Buffy sex details, but it's funny.
The ending is fucking great.
wenxina:
...Yet all of the examples you give clearly show how well thought out and important they were in the grand scheme of things. Not really getting your criticism.
UnpluggedCrazy | April 03, 08:27 CET
Renee and what happened to Aiko save the issue. I acknowledge that Willow does have that crass streak -- and pumping Satsu for info about Buffy in the sack is nothing if not callous and strange. It just seems incongruent that she'd be trying to get Satsu to let go of any high hopes than asking her for girl-talk gossip about it.
KingofCretins | April 03, 09:03 CET
The de-Slayer bit was pretty cool in a bad way, and I actually liked that Aiko Slayer the most of any Slayer introduced since Buffy, Faith, and Fray, so I'm sad to see her go like that, even if it was obvious she was toast.
archon | April 03, 09:20 CET
KingofCretins | April 03, 09:32 CET
My point was that in all cases, they're violations of another person. Is there really a difference between the "funny" ones and the evil ones? I was saying no, but it's the outcome that is important.
wenxina | April 03, 09:45 CET
As for whether it'd be funny with some other male character... I guess it depends on how farcical it gets.
But if you have to have the dichotomy, then in the words of Faith as Buffy: "It's WRONG!"
Each time with the mind control mojo has been to the selfish advantage of one party over the other, and so no, in that case, thinking of it all as whacky fun would probably be well... wrong.
And for the benefit of your matching game, I think Katrina only said "Yes, Master" about 5 times on air. I didn't keep track, but I remember feeling kinda grossed out by it.
wenxina | April 03, 09:53 CET
NekoDono | April 03, 10:28 CET
menomegirl | April 03, 10:54 CET
Xander under the thrall of Dracula is funny because it's a man under the thrall of another man. It's satirical. It takes the notion that men cannot fall under such thralls or be manipulated because they're men, and pokes a stick at it.
For centuries men and women have been led to believe that women are the lesser sex because they can be overpowered, while men are the greater sex because they can't be overpowered (lest they be gayish). Any woman who manages to overpower/manipulate a man surely has had help from the Devil. But when a man overpowers/manipulates a woman they are righteous.
By reversing the scenerio it reveals the absurdity, and laughing commences.
Satire is not always humorous however. Katrina under the control of a mysogynist is not funny because that behavior is generally tolerated by society.
The satirical element is Warren actually having the real power to do such a thing with a cerebral dampening device. This takes it to the extreme in which most rational people would begin to object. Would any misogynist take such an opportunity if they had that power? Yes. Which then causes people to question whether it is ever okay to tolerate such attempts with or without a device.
If you have to stop and wonder why one is considered funny and the other is not, the point is still made. Just with less laughter.
But if Xander under the thralls of Dracuala is just not funny to people who are offended by the notion that men might possibly have the same weaknesses as women, then it's simply a matter of "pissing off all the right people." That is mostly why it's funny to me....because I know it would rub certain people the wrong way.
ETA: Just for clarity, Xander is one of my favorite characters. I don't think he is a butt monkey. I love him because he doesn't take things as a threat to his masculinity. Not Buffy or Willow's power, nor that they've slept with women makes him feel he is less of a man. Which makes him a better man than
mostmany.[ edited by GrrrlRomeo on 2008-04-03 09:40 ]
[ edited by GrrrlRomeo on 2008-04-03 09:42 ]
GrrrlRomeo | April 03, 12:05 CET
also yay to the return of crass Willow! I was so ready for her to stop processing for a moment and yknow... gossip. heh. really though, most of the Willow conversations we've seen have been Willow processing- with Dawn, with Buffy, with Kennedy. Almost felt like she was glad she was talking about someone else's relationship for once.
Also, I think the Xander under Dracula's thrall works so well because Xander has no issues questioning the people he cares about and holding them accountable. The really big Buffy-Xander scenes usually feature him doing exactly that. Sure he's not super well-read, but he's always mentally in the game. To watch him struggle with independent thought in the presence of a stranger, a foreign legendary campy vampire is hilarious. So yknow- it's funny because it's opposing character.
The Katrina-Warren storyline is creepy because it's more about Warren's character, than Katrina, and Warren is creepy. The storyline is primarily about showing that Warren isn't just delusional and power-hungry, he's dangerous.
Katrina is in service to Warren's story; whereas, Dracula is in service to Xander's. And, there in lies the difference.
MelissaC5 | April 03, 13:42 CET
chicago-apz | April 03, 13:51 CET
Simon | April 03, 14:12 CET
Both. *g*
I thought that element was quite cute in a way, and subtlety handled given the circumstances. To draw comparisons with Katrina seems to be taking things far, far too seriously.
sueworld2003 | April 03, 15:23 CET
Nope. The reason that Xander under Dracula's thrall is funny, isn't because of the situation as it stands, it's because of how it's played. Obviously, morally, one person controlling another against their will is wrong in any of these cases. That's a given.
It's just that in the case of Katrina, the wrongness was emphasized (and - yes - enhanced because Katrina was a woman, and the situation had echoes of many reallife situations) in the story. With Xander, it's the funny that's being played up. The reason that works, is because Nicholas Brendon is very good with the whole comedic timing and line delivery. It also worked because Dracula is already evil - it's a given. There's no "oh no, and now this soulless vampire has stooped to this" added to the mix, whereas with Warren, it was a different situation completely.
But the fact that Xander under thrall is funny, in this case, does nothing to change the fact that it's still objectionable and wrong, just like the other examples you mentioned, King of Cretins. Playing it for laughs may seem like an implicit lack-of-judgement of the event, because there's no emphasis on the whole moral dilemma, but that doesn't mean that the dilemma disappears completely.
I'm not sure if I agree with you there, GrrrlRomeo. Maybe I'm just not a person who's hip to the standard pre-conceptions, but if any person would have that notion, they'd be fairly silly. Men have been manipulated by other, charismatic men (leaders), all through history. So I guess I don't see how another example of this should, by definition, be funny.
The only reason that this particular case is funny, is because it is made funny by the dialogue and the exact way Xander reacts. Again, that still doesn't make it right in any way.
Also:
I'd say that if people didn't find this funny, they simply have a different sense of humour from mine (and most of Whedon's fans) or - just as valid - are not able to laugh at it because there's still an underlying moral wrongness to what's happening on screen (like I feel is the case for King of Cretins - but correct me if I'm wrong). I, however, don't think there's anyone reading this (or watching Buffy vs. Dracula, for that matter) who'd not see the funny because they're thinking 'Bah! This should be a woman who's under Dracula's thrall! Not a superior man! They have inbuilt resistance against this kind of nonsense!'. It's hard to imagine anyone picking up a Buffy comic, thinking along those lines.
GVH | April 03, 15:45 CET
Really, if Xander doesn't end up getting the 'win' over Dracula in some way -- be it killing him after they presumably learn how to kill vampires with these powers or simply giving him a proper insulting that gets his power back -- it will have been a wasted arc for the character. When Willow or Buffy have a story where they get humiliated somehow, it inevitably ends with them getting the "win" and their power back. See Buffy taking down Sunday by herself in "The Freshman", or even bonking Parker in "Beer Bad". Willow roughing up Glory in "Tough Love", doing the big scary threatening on Amy in "Doublemeat Palace", or telling off Faith in "Choices". I hope that Xander will be shown the same simple amount of respect in this arc.
[ edited by KingofCretins on 2008-04-03 13:23 ]
KingofCretins | April 03, 16:22 CET
It's not about being hip to standard pre-conceptions. It's about knowing the history of inequality between men and women and how "silly" it is indeed. It's funny because in this example Xander knows and admits that he is manipulated by Dracula where other's would be too proud to and get a full on case of denial. It's silly because the notion that men are too strong willed to be manipulated (while women are not) is absurd...yet has been a commonly held belief...or denial rather.
This sort of manipulation is never right, of course. The difference in the way it's treated, denied, or allowed to happen is what's silly.
Neither do I. I just tend to think outside the Buffy box and see the cultural signficance and not just the effect on Buffy fans specifically. You'll never see me make an absurd blog post outlining how Joss is an anti-feminist, because I do believe he is a feminist and I appreciate whatever positive cultural impact he makes. This stuff is more than creating fodder for fans.
Plus Dracula isn't sexually assaulting Xander. What Faith did to Xander was quite unfunny and serious in comparison to Dracula.
GrrrlRomeo | April 03, 16:25 CET
That's a whole separate complaint, because there is a ton of slasher intrigue in this that I find grotesque for exactly this reason. Any slash fantasy about these two is by definition a rape fantasy.
KingofCretins | April 03, 16:34 CET
[ edited by GrrrlRomeo on 2008-04-03 13:54 ]
GrrrlRomeo | April 03, 16:53 CET
KingofCretins | April 03, 17:04 CET
I wasn't aware that anyone had any such notion. At least not in such sweeping terms ("men cannot fall under such thralls"). And if the intent was to satirize such a notion, wouldn't it work better with a consistently strong-willed man like Giles, rather than a man who already gets butt-monkeyed on a frequent basis, like Xander?
My problem with the Dracula storyline is not the man-on-manness of the thrall. It's not even really the idea of finding humor in such profound personal violation (though that is an issue). No, my problem is simply annoyance at writers who think that humiliating Xander over and over again is automatic comedy gold. It's not. This is a major character in a rich fictional universe who's been developing for over seven seasons. He should be more than just comic relief. All of the continuing characters should be more than just comic relief.
In Buffy vs. Dracula it works because it set up Xander's character arc for the season, as he tries to grow up and stop being the constant BM. (NB's performance helps too.) What's the character significance here? I really hope that Xander gets a "win" over Dracula, as KoC mentions. But even if he does, I'm afraid it just puts him back where he was at the end of The Replacement. Oh, well. Maybe the Renee relationship will give Xander a chance to turn back into a 3-dimensional character again.
Does anyone think it would be funny for Buffy to get turned back into CaveBuffy anytime the writers wanted to lighten things up? Or for Dawn to fall under the spell of some jock's magical letter jacket again and again? I don't think so. But IMO what's being done to Xander is pretty similar.
idiot jed | April 03, 17:10 CET
Just because you have 'issues' about slash doesn't mean you should read so much into this side of the story.
I think this was handled really lightly, and is meant to be viewed as such. You can't honestly think that Joss and co are trying to deal with any other issues apart from humor here. "Rape fantasy" it is obviously not.
I think the writers would be amazed to hear such a strong reaction to such a light hearted element of the plot.
As I think I've said to you on other boards, I believe that by the end of this arc Joss will leave Xander's character in a better place in regard to his 'relationship' with Dracula, then he was before. The whole 'manservant' thing will be a thing of the past, and they part as equals.
[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-04-03 14:19 ]
sueworld2003 | April 03, 17:14 CET
Really, his big moment in "The Zeppo" was supposed to be feeling comfortable about his contribution and not being bothered by Cordy anymore... but would anybody have even thought either of those would be a problem for him late in Season 2? Oy.
Sue, my subsequent post definitively refutes any attempt to make my criticism of the rape aspect of the Xander/Dracula slash an issue about the homosexual aspect. Warren/Katrina slash is rape fantasy, too.
KingofCretins | April 03, 17:20 CET
Xander is not completely unable to control himself. There is ambiguity in how much he is actually in control of himself. How much control one interprets he has is based on bias. Katrina was pretty much cut and dry not in control...she was practically a robot.
100 Dracula films later...the notion exists. See the George Hamilton costume and the Dracula parody it symbolizes.
GrrrlRomeo | April 03, 17:25 CET
So just... partial rape? Buffy was able to struggle with Dracula's thrall in her bedroom, but it is at least pretty reasonable to guess he could have had sex with her had he been so inclined. S'okay, s'allright?
KingofCretins | April 03, 17:33 CET
But the difference is this is clearly being played for laughs, whether you like it or not. Whilst Katrina's situation was delt with far more seriously.
You may think there's a problem here, but obviously the writers do not.
sueworld2003 | April 03, 17:36 CET
I will give credit for this much -- whether Joss and Drew meant for it to be that way or not, at least Renee is there as a stand-in for those in the audience who realize the very unfunny truth of Xander being brainwashed and victimized by Dracula. And, I call that a win, since she was the best thing in the issue in the first place. Excluding for the moment the possible 'she's the traitor' thing, my love for her goes way up in this issue.
[ edited by KingofCretins on 2008-04-03 14:42 ]
KingofCretins | April 03, 17:42 CET
*sigh* But he didn't, did he.
That episode was also just played for laughs. Sometimes folks just have to try and take a step back and just accept something for what it is, a piece of humor, rather then the 'play for today'.
sueworld2003 | April 03, 17:43 CET
KingofCretins | April 03, 17:51 CET
1starbuckstown | April 03, 18:10 CET
My reassurance here is that, with the exception of "Antique", Drew Goddard has always played pretty fair with Xander -- has taken the character seriously and given him some real moments of heroism and autonomy (tackling Buffy in "Selfless", solid work in the fight in "Never Leave Me", pretty much all of "Dirty Girls"). But this arc feels like the referendum on Xander's place in the Buffy franchise. If, after 12 issues of being really well-written and mature and important again in more than just a moral support way, he comes out of "Wolves at the Gate" as just the punchline, it feels like that's all he'll ever be. Of course, if he's just treated as significant again as a set up to being turned villain, that's not really any better.
[ edited by KingofCretins on 2008-04-03 15:24 ]
KingofCretins | April 03, 18:21 CET
It's called a hypothetical, and you are blowing clear past the point.
No I'm not, but I've said my peace. This conversation is just going round and round in circles. As I said, maybe you should just 'loosen up' a wee bit, and just accept that sometimes things aren't meant to have too much read into them.
Excellent post by the way 1starbuckstown. I agree with all your points.
[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-04-03 15:32 ]
sueworld2003 | April 03, 18:24 CET
Here is an interesting idea, in all fairness isn't it time for Andrew to be sent on a dangerous mission sometime soon ? I think it's very unfair that he gets to stand around telling stories while the slayers get sent out to sacrifice themselves fighting the undead.
IMO it's time for Andrew to volunteer for a dangerous mission to some exotic locale, get torn to pieces by large animals, stomped on by elephants and eaten by locals with a interesting new recipe using peanuts and fava beans.
I suspect this very special 'Tuckers brother dies' issue could gather (almost) the same audience as the one where Buffy wakes up in bed naked with Willow and Satsu, saying "Wow, Willow thanks for lending us the instruction manual and pointing out the errors, we really appreciate your help" - Willow "no problems, why dont you lean over here and let me show you whats wrong with page 55".
"Shoe sale noise", heh funny, a nice tip from Willow to future slayer layers, the way to Buffys heart clearly goes through good footwear.
jpr | April 03, 18:26 CET
Which issue is this Xander/Drac story in? In which series?
What's a retcon?
And a little rant,
I thought Willow's questioning Satsu about Buffy's bedroom performance was odd. Not only did it seem more like an Anya thing to ask, it also brings a (I think) very stereotypical bent to the Willow/Buffy relationship. It posits that a gay woman and a straight woman can't just be friends. That passage implies that the gay woman in such a relationship would, of course, want to have sexual knowledge of the straight woman. There is no previous text (of the tv show or comic) to support this sudden Willow desire to have sexual knowledge (even secondhand) of Buffy. Her question implies sexual attraction on some level. Sexual attraction that for seven seasons and 12 comic book issues has been completely hidden. I just think it's too big of an issue to be a throwaway line for jokes. I've come to expect more consideration in Whedon's exploration of gender, sex, and sexual orientation than this issue provided.
Not to mention that this brings the total of people who desire Buffy to everyone minus Giles. (Which, by the way, if they ever go there, I'll vomit - he's her "dad"!) Buffy may be isolating herself but the expectations of desire (sexual, authorial, etc.) that everyone is placing on her probably isn't helping her very much. With desire often comes the propensity to objectify. Buffy has always had so many problems being a real, human person. With so many desire scopes focused on her, it may create even more of a desire within her to withdraw.
peepstone | April 03, 18:28 CET
KingofCretins, can't Xander, or any of the characters, occasionally be the punchline? As you have acknowledged, he is treated respectfully most of the time (12 out of 13 issues). Once in a while, he gets played for laughs. It happens to all the characters at some point or another. On the TV show, Xander may have been played for laughs more than the others, but I think that had more to do with Nick Brendon's flair for comedy than anything else.
1starbuckstown | April 03, 18:30 CET
bennyboi91 | April 03, 18:32 CET
A "retcon" is "retroactive continuity" -- a revision of story history to accomodate a previously unestablished set of facts that weren't true at the time earlier story was told. In this case, the retcon is that Dracula and Xander became penpals or something, despite Xander hating and wanting to kill Dracula for making him a "spider-eating man-bitch".
1starbucks, you say 'occasionally' as though Xander being the punchline was the exception and not the rule. I refer again to the spider-eating manbitch speech, and the countless references to demon women and his rotten dating luck. From "The Zeppo" on, turning Xander into the buttmonkey has been as common a device in the Buffyverse as Put Willow/Dawn In Peril was. I already discussed this above, but when Buffy or Willow gets to be the butt of the joke, the story invariably ends with them getting their power back in some measure -- conking Parker in "Beer Bad". Heck, even staking the vampire that tells Buffy she smells bad. When Xander gets to be the punchline, it always seems to stand. The closest he got to getting his power back in any of those buttmonkey stories was throwing oranges at Hus in "Pangs".
KingofCretins | April 03, 18:37 CET
I don't want to get embroiled in the discussion you have going on. I'm new and don't want to offend quite yet. But do you think the whole Xander being the butt of jokes and not recovering from that, while Buffy and Willow always do, has partially to do with the women's magical powers? Is Xander never able to emerge from the punchline zone because he was not imbued with extra abilities? Kind of like Buffy and Willow could get out of a box if they were trapped because they were given tacks, scissors, and razor blades, but Xander couldn't get out because all he was given was tape?
peepstone | April 03, 18:42 CET
How? I see nothing in the TV show or in the comics to suggest that any of the characters see him as a fool (or "buttmonkey"). Occasionally (and I do think it is only occasionally), he is made the fool. (His bad luck with dates goes back at least as far as Teacher's Pet from Season 1.) But that is not his permanent status. For an example of a permanent fool, see Andrew, who gets (deservedly) no respect at all and is virtually always a punchline.
1starbuckstown | April 03, 18:51 CET
qui_ca | April 03, 18:53 CET
1starbucks, would you not concede that this arc goes better for the Xander character if he gets the proverbial last word in this whole thrall/brainwashing thing with Dracula? Tells him off, kills him, something?
KingofCretins | April 03, 18:54 CET
KingofCretins, Xander's "wonkiness" around Dracula is an acknowledged weakness. It may be embarrassing for him, but it's hardly necessary for his character to triumph over that weakness in some decisive way. In fact, the weakness serves a comic purpose. Xander's weakness is a strength for the purposes of creating a bit of humor. Take that away and you may have a stronger Xander, but no humor. Since humor is the intended objective, Xander pretty much has to stay Dracula's buttmonkey when Dracula is around.
1starbuckstown | April 03, 19:14 CET
The implication being that humor in the Buffyverse is only achievable at Xander's expense. There's really nothing I can do with that.
I wonder if Dawn is going to be brought in to bring down that giant red disk that poses the threat to the Slayers, and that will be her CloverDawn/DawnKey Kong moment, scaling that building and swatting flying vampires.
Also, not to get bogged down in the exposition, but just how many banks did Buffy rob? Aside from the castle, the villa Andrew was at in Tuscany, their other locations, and all their equipment, we've now seen two large helicopters, one smaller one, and now what appears to be a C-5 Galaxy transport jet (which Wikipedia shows has a unit cost of $167.7 million). Are they, like, hiring pilots for these things, or just training all these late-teens and early-20s folk to pilot them? Sometimes I have to sing the MST3K theme song to myself when I think of these things.
[ edited by KingofCretins on 2008-04-03 16:40 ]
KingofCretins | April 03, 19:36 CET
I didn't see any rape scenario there at all, as Dracula himself was pretty tame and didn't push Xander more than Xander himself wanted it. They really made a cute couple there, and somehow you could feel it wasn't going to be nasty to any of them. Just some weird guy thing, some strange emotional bond without any sexual undertones. My most enjoyable part of the issue - brilliantly done by Drew!
[ edited by Nata on 2008-04-03 16:50 ]
Nata | April 03, 19:47 CET
And regarding the moral wrongness of mind control: I think the buffyverse is full of these kinds of internal contradictions. Similar situations are played absolutely different - take for example Angel 3.1. Here the dusting of a quite normal, soulless vampire is played for tragedy - while in most of both series, it's played for laughs. Now, are we supposed to take the typical soulless vampire, despite being evil and all, as a rounded personality with some entitlement to respect for his life and feelings? Characters like not-ensouled Spike, Gunn in Angel:AtF and ocassionally even Drusilla seem to reinforce this notion. But how can the dusting of such beings be played for fun then?
I think the point is that the buffyverse simply doesn't have a mimetic or straightrforward metaphorical relationship to reality. "Mind control" is not simply "mind control" (as we would have to assume if Buffy were a work of mainstream realism); and it's also not necessarily a metaphor for psychological control and violence (Though, in the case of Warren and Katrina, it quite clearly IS). It can be many things, depending on what the situation is played for. In the Xander/Drac case, I would guess that it is being played to make fun at masculinty. We know from the series that certain conservative concepts of masculinty have some appeal to Xander (the military, being a hard-working husband, laying someone, being a hero ...), but that he also constantly experiences and reflects upon the fact that most of these concepts just don't work for him and the people around him and might not be that desirable after all. Dracula's thrall could be seen as a kind of metaphor for Xander's melancholical longing for an overblown, conservative, aristocratic model of masculinity. However, following such a model is obviously not what smart Xander would do normally. Nevertheless, there is a part of him that wants to do so - why else would he be so vulnerable to Dracula's thrall?
I would expect that, in the end, Xander turns out to be above that. But somewhere inside, there's a small part of him that actually wants to follow Dracula. And that seems to be the point of the thrall thing to me, and not whether mind control is is intrinsically funny or not.
OK, may that's all totally missing the point - as I said, I haven't read the issue yet. But that's what I gather from Buffy 4.1., from "Antique" and from reading this thread.
Jakob Schmidt | April 03, 19:48 CET
This really does not fit the definition of retcon, because it's easily explained by story we simply didn't ever see. The fact that we haven't ever seen the story which gets us from "wanting to kill" to "became penpals" (presuming Andrew's story is correct, of course) does not mean that such a story doesn't exist.
The fact that there might be stories which fill in the gaps perfectly well, but we just have not seem them yet, does not make any and every alleged inconsistency into a retcon.
theonetruebix | April 03, 20:05 CET
You can't get much farther apart than hoping to chase the guy down with a torch and calling him a creep, and being penpals so tight that Xander chooses to mourn Anya not with his lifelong friends, but with the guy who brainwashed him in the first place.
There is nothing "alleged" about the inconsistency. Res ipsa loquitur, it *is* inconsistent. And clearly a retcon, since, again, with the being great penpals and confidants despite Xander never saying his name again after "Real Me".
Keep in mind, it's precisely the obvious inconsistency that got people talking about whether Andrew's account could possibly be true earlier in the thread. In a way, it's not even consistent from 8.12 to 8.13... how many times have you said "aw, crap" about seeing your "fast friend"?
As to the earlier question of Xander deserving to "triumph" here, here's a different angle -- Dracula is clearly still a bad dude. He hunts frightened Albanian boys (yeah, it's consistent with Xander's character that he'd tolerate this ina friend. He wants the Slayers wiped off the face of the earth. Call me crazy, but it's just as worth wiping him out at the end of this arc as it would be to wipe out Toru, Raidon, and Kumiko*. I'd say Xander should do the honors, or if not him, Renee.
*If those three are really just one-offs for this arc, they easily jump ahead of Sunday as absolutely coolest one-off vampires in the history of the Buffyverse.
KingofCretins | April 03, 20:17 CET
Also, Willow's comment to Satus. Such a humanizing thing. What's the problem here? Of course she's sexually attracted to Buffy. Buffy is an attractive, powerful woman. Doesn't mean Willow wants her. But why can't the girl be curious?
I'm a hetero male and I have a hetero female friend I've known for 7 1/2 years (a little less time than Willow has known Buffy to this point) and it's completely platonic. We've had people (a whole lot) think we were together over the years because we are so close. We've never explored anything other than friendship though and we both have no interest in such. Am I curious? Sure! Is she? Probably! How could we not? Do we ever talk about it on screen? No! And barely ever has it come up off screen, and then only as a joke (like when others think we're dating).
There's really no such thing as a platonic relationship where at least one person isn't attracted on some level (only when sexual alignment allows for attraction of course).
Willow played the concerned friend/mother figure first, and had Satsu not responded in the way she did, Willow would not have asked what she asked because it would have made Satsu uncomfortable. Asking the way she did though, takes the edge away from the conversation, forms a bond. Satsu is much more likely to trust Willow and take her advice to heart now. They'll be fast friends. Uh oh! Two homosexual females! Maybe they'll sleep together! No, doubtful, but will they both wonder at some point? Probably, physical attraction is only human.
Phew, sorry. I just was so pleased by this wonderful, normal, human moment, that I have become quite upset at the negative response to it. I'm sure I wasn't even too clear. If I am greatly challenged, I'll try to clarify.
bobw1o | April 03, 20:22 CET
jlp | April 03, 20:52 CET
Xander as Dracula's manservant = humor. If Xander fully disenthralls himself from Dracula -- or kills him -- the equation changes, and the writers have to find humor elsewhere. It may be satisfying to see Xander reclaim his dignity and give Dracula his comeuppance, but it would eliminate what amounts to a running gag dating back to Buffy vs. Dracula. The gag is legitimate, in my view, and I would miss not having it around. Not every gag works for everyone, but this one works for me just fine. Because Buffy or Willow are not subject to comparable running gags is really not even relevant. Why should they be? Some characters are made to carry the comic burden more than others--Andrew, Cordelia (in her stint on BtVS), Anya, Wesley (for a while anyway). If no one was allowed to be silly and funny, there would be virtually no humor in the Buffyverse. Who wants that?
1starbuckstown | April 03, 20:59 CET
Re: Willow/Satsu moment, I thought it was great. I mean, do the people who are complaining about it ever talk about sex with other people? Sex is goofy, exciting, and people love talking about it. It doesn't matter if their friend is the subject. I know people who talk openly about sex with their siblings or parents. Not everyone takes it so seriously.
And I think Dracula talking about his soul can be written off as him being overly dramatic.
[ edited by dingoes8 on 2008-04-03 18:03 ]
dingoes8 | April 03, 21:01 CET
Nolan | April 03, 21:18 CET
1starbucks, so you're saying it would be great for Xander to have a moment that gets his dignity back except for the end result being that he'd have his dignity back? Is he really not as important a character as Buffy and Willow to anyone else anymore? I think I've been pretty clear, and pretty repetitive, that the problem isn't using the characters for occasional sport, it's the fact that Xander, alone, seems to be the only one that isn't made whole again at the end of the story.
dingoes8, I can honestly say that I've never tried to give someone a difficult message about not getting their hopes up of ever sleeping with someone again and then immediately asked them to gossip about the sex they had. It's not the conversation, it's the context that I found really off.
KingofCretins | April 03, 21:38 CET
bennyboi91 | April 03, 22:10 CET
Simon | April 03, 22:12 CET
KingofCretins | April 03, 22:16 CET
GrrrlRomeo, re: gendered vampire-thrall -- Maybe I just haven't seen enough vampire movies, but I never thought that "only chicks can fall under vampires' thrall, never guys" was a standard trope. And they don't seem to be emphasizing the butt-monkey's sex here, so if it is meant to be a satire of some only-women-get-enthralled convention, it's an extremely subtle satire.
KingofCretins, re: The Zeppo -- I used to be really torn about this episode, loving the humor (and sex) but hating the inconsistency in Xander's character that you mention. Finally I found a new way of looking at TZ: it's all symbolic. Of course Xander wasn't useless in the previous 46 episodes, but he's portrayed that way in The Zeppo because at that time he feels useless. Who knows if that's what ME intended; but it works well enough as a way for me to thoroughly enjoy The Zeppo now.
Jakob Schmidt -- If I can just quibble with one word there, I don't think being a hardworking husband, wanting to get laid, or being a hero are "conservative" masculine values. Even military service isn't a conservative-only value.
Re: lots of posts, the problem with Xander's frequent butt-monkeydom is not just that he gets into humiliating situations more often than other characters (though he does). It's also that the writers seem more willing to throw character continuity out the window to get in a joke with Xander than with the others. "Xander's grown to be an effective fighter over four years, but now we have a chance to put him in a hair-pulling contest with Harmony? Cool!"
Re: lots of other posts, I think we have to wait and see how "friendly" Xander really feels toward Dracula. Andrew is the very model of an unreliable narrator. It could be that the whole "friendship" is a figment of Andrew's imagination, or it could be that it existed but only as a result of lingering thralldom. Personally I hope one of those two options turns out to be the truth. Or else there'd better be one hell of a story to explain the friendship. Remember what I said about character continuity? The Xander Harris we know does not befriend vampires, especially ones that aren't fighting on Buffy's side, and especially especially not the one who made Xander h