Buffy defies the norm. As usual.

Since everyone is probably going to talk about music and lack of music and talking and lack of talking, I’m going to concentrate more on Buffy’s character, particularly in the context of “Hush.” The peer-reviewed article I found talks about this as well, and discusses Buffy’s character’s place in the world of heroine, concentrating a lot on gender roles. It begins by describing why Joss Whedon essentially created Buffy. We’ve talked a lot about the paradox of Buffy’s appearance and culture and the fact that she also holds this age-old sacred duty / burden to protect the world from evil. Whedon said that he became so frustrated with the stereotypical American girl walking into a dark room and almost immediately being slaughtered in so many horror films. So in spite of all that, Whedon made a character with the same stereotypes, who instead when thrown into a dark room with nasty things, kicks ass and saves everyone else (Early 13).

This push against the norm for Hollywood portrayals isn’t done behind the scenes. As we have discussed before, Joss Whedon is always very aware of what he’s doing with his storylines, dialogue, right down to the musical score and wardrobe. In ‘Hush’ Riley shows his extreme surprise and confusion at Buffy’s role when he and she realize the other is there fighting monsters. When Buffy swings across the room on a hanging rope and kicks a minion many feet into the air, his facial expression tells all. Buffy as a superhero is unique because she’s also very much a normal girl who wants normal things. Thus the surprise. “Hush” really brings out Buffy’s heroism because she’s the only (human) one who, when she finds out she has no voice, doesn’t panic. Willow keeps it calm, simply freaking out and thinking she’s gone deaf. Xander immediately blames others and tries to call for help / reinforcements, asking someone else to fix the problem. The other students we see are busy having total breakdowns. After the initial shock, Buffy quickly recovers herself and immediately begins to look for clues and solutions. She is able to think coherently and form a plan. As my article said about Buffy’s character, “Although Buffy struggles with her fate, in contrast to her male friends and lovers, Buffy (almost) always knows who she is and what she must do.” (Early 19) Buffy shows herself in this episode to be a courageous leader and fearless fighter. Even in the end, when Riley comes in to talk, she accepts and sits down, ready to divulge her darkest secret (which we will see in the next episode, btw).

I think that the lack of speech in “Hush” serves to highlight Buffy’s embracement of her role as female heroine. Even in “The Body,” with no music (bringing into sharp relief the drama of the situation, making it all almost surreal with Buffy’s flashbacks and imaginings) and high emotions, Buffy finds a way to cope. Although we do see her arguably in one of her weakest moments during this episode, she is able to think at least somewhat rationally. She thinks to call for help, then to call for Giles, then to tell Dawn (which she does as well as anyone in such a situation can be expected to). Even when she is most vulnerable, Buffy is still the slayer (she slays a vampire to save her sister) and therein defies the stereotype of damsel in distress. Also we see that Buffy doesn’t need a backing track to slay to. She’s still just as badass.

Early, Frances H. "Staking Her Claim: Buffy the Vampire Slayer as Transgressive Woman Warrior." Journal of Popular Culture 35.3 (2001): 11-27. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 2 Oct. 2011. .

Music as Narration: "Hush"

In class, we talked about the role that music played in the “Hush” episode. We mostly agreed that the music prepared us for what was coming next and gave us something to hold onto. It served as a comfort, breaking the tension, even when it was scary. An episode without music would perhaps be more emotionally intense because we would be left without one of the most useful tools that television has for hinting at what is coming. In an episode without a soundtrack, we are placed on the same level as the characters, losing some of our omniscience. It’s more stressful because it’s more like “real-life.” I don’t know about anyone else, but music doesn’t play when I go on a date, letting me know I should bail because it’s going to be awkward, or when I’m walking down the street giving me a head’s up that I should turn around because there is someone creepy lurking unseen around the corner.
Novels, as written works, obviously don’t have soundtracks. However, serving a similar role to music is the narrator. As we will see in Northanger Abbey, which has an extremely obtrusive narrator, the narrator can and often does , indicate things to the reader that the reader has no way of otherwise knowing. As a result, much like the viewer of “Hush” who hears the music, the reader of Northanger Abbey is in a privileged position above that of the characters.

Actions Louder than Words

In the beginning of the critically acclaimed episode, Hush, Buffy’s college professor gives a lecture on the complexities of language, and how words are sometimes inadequate for proper communication. It is my belief that it is the goal of Joss Whedon in this episode to prove precisely that. Having had their voices taken by the horrifying Gentlemen, the populace of Sunnydale erupts in anarchy, as they are unsure of how to function without oral language. Through the use of irony, Whedon attempts to show the viewer that our modern society relies far too greatly on the spoken word when there are times when action can prove much more fruitful. The primary example of this of course is Buffy and Riley’s inability to get past awkward conversation to share a kiss. This changes however, when the town is reduced to silence and Buffy and Riley have nothing to prevent them from acting upon their desires. This example show the deficiencies of the spoken word, as societal norms insisting they must speak before expressing their feeling has limited their interactions greatly. In addition to this statement, I also believe that Whedon is intending to express the point that our society today is far more concerned with talk rather than action, a commentary that extends to anywhere from the household to the government.

"Buffy vs. Dracula" vs. Dracula

Sorry for the lateness (and rambling-ness) of this post. Anyways....

I think what makes the episode "Buffy vs. Dracula" is clearly laid out in the title - literally Buffy coming up against Dracula. When Janelle asked in class why Joss Whedon waited until the 5th season to have Dracula show up in Buffy, I started to think about it a lot. I finally came to the conclusion that it has to do with the fact that one of the most satisfying moments of the episode is, in fact, the fight between Buffy and Dracula. Iconic figures from different stories meeting always gets people's attention - from Marvel Comics' Justice League of America bringing most of their superheroes together to fight crime to the musical Into the Woods bringing famous fairy tale characters together to sing to the mystery computer game I happen to be playing called Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper (don't judge me, guys), the meeting of iconic characters is always intriguing. If Buffy hadn't been as well established as a butt-kicking slayer of vampires and demons du jour, then a dimension of the, for lack of a better word, epic-ness of the episode would be lost.

Of course, the other huge aspect of the episode is poking fun at the Gothic tradition and acknowledging Buffy as part of that tradition. In fact, the episode really does exactly what the point of our class is - it uses Buffy as a lens to study the Gothic tradition. But again, this wouldn't work as well if Buffy and her world weren't so well established. This is made blatantly obvious by the moment where Spike complains to Riley about Dracula doing more damage to vampires than any slayer. In this moment, Whedon acknowledges that Dracula is bigger than Buffy, but at the same time plants Dracula firmly within the Buffy-verse, and thereby appropriates him, making Buffy bigger than Dracula.

In some ways you could say that the tension between the characters Buffy and Dracula displays the tension between Buffy the show and Dracula the novel which shows tension present in all Gothic literature of creating a world that contains the supernatural but still seems real enough to the immersed reader that he or she can look at tensions in human nature present in the Gothic world. So basically there's a lot of tension and everyone should go get a massage :)

Deus ex machina

When Dracula comes to town, you can be sure he’ll bring his whole entourage. This means that there should be a castle for Dracula to live in. Castle represents royalty, ancient, and power, which is a reflection of Dracula’s qualities. The two are linked together so strongly that in order to introduce Dracula into the world of Buffy, a castle appeared in Sunnydale out of nowhere. Xander and Willow has lived their whole lives in the town of Sunnydale, yet they are shocked to find a castle in Sunnydale. The castle is important for the plot to advance, as that’s where Buffy will confront with Dracula and triumph.

Similarly, Stoker used deus ex machina to allow Van Helsing to know the where about of Dracula. Just when everyone thought that all hope was lost after Dracula escaped their ambush, Mina said, “ I have an idea. I suppose it must have come in the night, and matured without my knowing it. He must hypnotize me before the dawn.” Out of blue, Mina was able to know where about of Dracula just at a time when they lost the track of Dracula, and she was also giving very specific instructions as to how the Professor could extract that information. It is safe to say that without Mina’s sudden realization of her link with Dracula, Van Helsing would not be able to track Dracula.

Vampires and the Darkness Within

Hey all, sorry for the lateness of this Dracula post. Missing class Friday got my Buffy clock all out of whack.

Watching Buffy vs. Dracula I started to feel more than ever that Vampires are embodiments of all those deep, dark feelings we as humans feel the need to hide away in order to function in society. It seems that when humans become vampires the self is lost, giving way to the rather less than savory traits of lustfulness, hunger for flesh, and guilt-free crime sprees that are characteristic of vampires. While Van Helsing and the others may claim that Lucy as a vampire is no longer Lucy, what may truly be the case is Lucy is now the embodiment all of the dark qualities she previously had to suppress to be accepted by her fellow humans. There are certain parallels: for example, Lucy as a human attracts essentially every man who looks upon her, and Lucy as a vampire is a seductress.

We also see a few examples of this in Buffy. The best is when we see Willow as a vampire in the parallel universe wished for by Cordelia and created by Anya as a vengeance demon. Willow is seductive and cruel, but also has a bit of that shy smiley quality we see when she's a human (although with an evil twist... it's difficult to explain but if you see the episode she almost has a sweetness to her seduction). In the episode Doppelgangland, when Willow's vampire self ends up in our dimension and terrorizes Sunnydale, she demonstrates and unrefined sexuality, even towards herself (as in her doppelgang, our friend human Willow). Human Willow notices this and makes the comment "I think I'm kinda gay." Spike says that when vampires are turned they keep certain characteristics of their human selves, and it seems likely that the parts they embody are those darkest desires we keep hidden from other. Indeed, not long after meeting her seductive and homosexual self, Willow develops feelings for Tara. This suggests as a vampire a dark urge was awakened, which Willow lets show through eventually. Similarly, when Willow turns evil after Tara is murdered and seeks to avenge her lover's death, she even uses the catch phrase of her vampire self, "bored now." This also suggests her vampire doppelganer tapped into as of yet undiscovered dark powers, which Willow was capable of from the beginning.

This is likely why the characters are so attracted to Dracula, because of all that he represents. In fact, in any vampire story I'm familiar with, the vampires are always dark and brooding, personifying our hidden desires to explore the darkness in our souls.

Watching The Watcher "But Not In The Creepy Way"

Maybe it’s just my love of Alyson Hannigan (I’m an huge fan of How I Met Your Mother), but her line is the one that sticks with me from the episode “Living Conditions.” In that bluntly innocent Willow style, she says “he’s our adult friend, but not in the creepy way.” She’s talking about Giles, Buffy’s Yoda dressed as Mr. Rogers with Jude Law’s accent thrown in for kicks. If the archetypal nature of the show wasn’t apparent from the start, for me Joss Whedon seals the deal with this character. As Buffy’s “Watcher”, Giles serves as teacher and protector, all while rocking tweed like it’s nobody’s business.

As a new Buffy (no pun intended) watcher, I find that Giles actually makes the show. His old world, nutty professor style foils nicely to Buffy’s valley girl exterior and raised inflections. In fact, I would venture to say that this contrast is what makes many of Buffy’s lines so funny. It is the clash of the old school and the new school. It is Buffy babbling about a “super bad rub on tan”, and the intellectual Giles having to ask for a translation to understand her. This sort of inversion is a struggle that seems very common in my very limited perception of the Gothic.

So what happens when Buffy grows up? This episode proves that she really does need her trusty protector to guide her as a slayer. But what about 4 years down the road, what about when Buffy graduates from college? Where does Giles go? I am eager to watch more episodes and to see how this might affect the viewers, Buffy, and of course the man of the hour himself. It will be interesting to see if with time the relationship between the Scooby Gang and Giles crosses the line from helpful to “creepy.” Rut-ro!

*Forgetting to post blogs is a problem. I'll be starting a support group for all those interested. We'll meet in the Opus, drink coffee, and probably forget what we meant to do in the first place. Basically, sorry for the tardy posts*

Cristabel

Hey everyone! If anyone is interested in reading a little "vampire" poetry, I suggest checking out Samuel Taylor Coleridge's, "Cristabel." There are certainly many resonances between this poem and Carmilla. I've posted a link below. Enjoy!

http://www.online-literature.com/coleridge/655/

Buffy vs. Dracula: humanity vs. excessiveness

I thought our discussion of how Dracula has come to represent excessiveness and over-abundance/passion was really interesting, especially because you wouldn't really expect it from "the Undead." I think the concept of humanity in Buffy is actually quite complicated because of this weird paradox (that Dracula is simultaneously immoderate and -- dare I say it? -- attractive in an all-too-human sense). Of anything Buffy has had to slay so far, Dracula has had the most personal affect on her; she is most certainly "seduced" by him. And conversely, I think Dracula is legitimately intrigued by Buffy on a human level, even if it manifests itself in the form of violent blood lust. So the idea that Dracula is also on this higher plane in terms of how he lives his life makes for a fascinating contrast between opposites -- one that I think must be crucial to an understanding of the Dracula archetype. And the point we brought in class about how Dracula seeks someone whose power rivals his own seems to me to confirm that interesting juxtaposition; although Dracula is extremely powerful and passionate, he seeks a human who can serve as a good match for him. And fortunately, that results in Buffy having to relinquish some of her defense mechanisms (whether she wants to or not) in order to meet him halfway (all of which is ironic!).

Buffy and Mina, Two of a Kind

I think Mina is not given enough credit for her role in conquering Dracula. Yes, we have talked extensively about how she has a “man’s brain” and how she provides vital help in compiling a typewritten version of everyone’s accounts, yet we still say that the men finished the job. I think Mina’s awareness and hold on humanity, even after she is “unclean”, prove to be the defining characteristics that allow Dracula to be defeated. Just like Buffy, Mina conceals what she suspects are dreams, but are in reality nighttime visits by Dracula to suck her blood. Buffy, while under his thrall, even goes to the extent of covering up her bite marks with a handkerchief. Mina is incredibly ashamed of herself when she realizes that she has fallen pray to Dracula and she is nearly inconsolable when she understands the implications of drinking his blood as well. However, through her torment, she tries to remain strong, for the sake of her husband, Jonathan, who is crumbling under the thought of losing his wife to the beast that held him captive, and all the men that pledge to save her. After that fateful night, Mina starts to realize, along with Van Helsing and Dr. Seward, that she is losing herself to Dracula and his control over her, and she takes many precautions in assuring that Dracula is not aware of the plans of the men. She even tells Jonathan that he is not to tell her their exact intentions for she fears that Dracula will read her mind and escape them once more. Furthermore, she uses Dracula’s own power against him at dawn and dusk by asking Van Helsing to hypnotize her so she can channel Dracula and give the men information about his location. Mina uses her curse, if you will, to her best advantage in order to try and defeat Dracula. Finally, Mina always has humanity’s best interests in mind and does the most valiant thing imaginable for any human, man or woman. She is willing to sacrifice herself, and makes all the men, including her husband, swear that they will essentially slay her if she is unable to be saved. This demonstrates her bravery and her intent to save mankind, even if she cannot be rescued. Without Mina’s help and support throughout the novel, the men would have had an incredibly hard time capturing and disposing of Dracula and therefore, I think Mina is the true hero (or heroine) of the story, just like Buffy is in the 1990s.

Buffy vs. Dracula... and a whole bunch of other bad guys

I see Dracula as representing something different in the context of Buffy and the novel. In the novel, he and the three sisters under his command are presumably the only vampires, or at least the only ones that the Dracula equivalent of the Scooby gang is worried about. Buffy, on the other hand, lives on a hellmouth, where her life is defined by the steady stream of vampires and other demons that come to wreak havoc. In this context, he seems a little less intimidating. Sure, he’s built up by what Spike calls his “showy Gypsy stuff,” and because of him, medieval castles appear in Sunnydale, and Buffy falls under his “thrall”… ok, so he’s a big deal. But nevertheless, his ultimate place in Buffy’s world is just another one of many supernatural forces she has to deal with. He provides an excellent catalyst for reconsidering her darker nature and reaffirming her bond with Giles as her watcher, but he’s just another bad guy. He doesn’t even seem to have much of an agenda after he sees that Buffy isn’t as vulnerable as he thought. He is, ultimately, a plot device (and a convenient way to intelligently mock gothic literary conventions).

In the novel, on the other hand, he is “the most not probable,” the inconceivable incarnation of all things unholy. Most of the time, he is not even present—he is simply an evil shadow lurking around, causing offstage action. The literary representation of Dracula is darker because it is more singular. He preys on fairly helpless female victims (Buffy has ways of fighting back that Lucy and Mina, obviously, are incapable of simulating) and his seductive nature and desire to corrupt are much more incriminating in Victorian England than in California in the 1990s.

It all comes down to the fact that the culture has changed. For vampires to seem scary, there must be a network of them, or they must belong to some complex supernatural category with other similar members (such as the varied kinds of demons in Buffy). They must represent more of a social group than simply radical, satanic outliers. One sexy vampire with a couple of seductive sidekicks doesn’t really scare us anymore, at least not the way it used to. Buffy acknowledges this fact by making fun of Dracula’s glamorous proclivities while simultaneously recognizing that the dark, seductive power of the vampire (and the effect of prolonged proximity to darkness) is worth exploring further.

Buffy vs. Dracula, + bonus post

I once read an article about the nature of literary monsters – I think it was on JSTOR somewhere – and I wish, wish, wish I remembered the name of it, or what text it was analyzing, because it was such a great essay. (If I find/remember it, I’ll absolutely post it.) Nonetheless, it contained a treatise on how to define of a literary monster – a definition I found so simple and yet so utterly truthful. The author explained that monsters are just entities that exist “in between” the cultural binaries that we too often take for granted. Therefore they serve to conflate those binaries: Monsters are not quite male and not quite female; or not quite alive and not quite dead; or not quite human and not quite nonhuman. You get the idea. The heroes battle the monsters in order to restore the sanctity of these dualities. To let live a being that breaks them down is to allow the continued disruption of our own fragile theories regarding who we are, and where we stand in the larger context of society and of nature. (Society vs. nature… another binary!)

I think that the better literary works out there carefully dissect their monsters without having to destroy them; killing something that ultimately threatens the “self” in the name of order and stability is the easy way out. Rather, we should accept that the very foundations of “self” and “other” (yet another binary!) are shaky at best. “Monsters” are just facets of ourselves that we keep, both consciously and unconsciously, separated: like peas and mashed potatoes on my dinner plate. Perhaps for merely a false peace of mind.

“Buffy vs. Dracula” (the title itself is the echo of a binary, no?) is a neat example of how good writers can utilize monsters in order to break down our concept of the “self” vs. the “other.” That is, there’s a lot of “You and I are not so different after all” going on in this episode. When Buffy and Dracula first meet, he explains to her that “your powers are rooted in darkness…” In so doing, he effectively begins to close the gap between Buffy, the “Heroine” and the “Force of Good”, and himself, the “Villain” and the “Force of Evil.” (Heavy quotation marks.) The episode continues to push the two closer and closer together: though Buffy is under the “thrall” (hypnosis?) of Dracula, the Count himself is nonetheless attracted to Buffy… and he eventually bites her, closing the distance between their physical bodies (and pushing toward some kind of sexual consummation, which is arguably the closest that two beings can ever get, physically and spiritually). Later in the episode, Buffy even licks the blood off his injured wrist, inverting the show’s primary duality and placing her in the position of a vampire. The writers seem to imply that apparently Buffy isn’t all that different from those entities that she stakes in the middle of the night; as a result, the viewer is a little unnerved. But she’s supposed to be the good guy! (er, girl!) What the hell is she doing?

That having been said, I was a little disappointed when Buffy suddenly comes to realize her innate Goodness at the end of the episode and chooses to fight against Dracula, who is again reinstated as the Big Baddie. I would have much preferred if she was forced to reevaluate herself and her “duty” in a meaningful way rather than reverting back into, well, a kickass heroine. I mean, that’s great and all, but it just reestablished the overarching binary that the episode had hitherto worked so hard to deconstruct. It felt like a step backward. Oh well!

***

Now for a belated post about "Inca Mummy Girl", which I just realized I had never posted about. Better late than never, though...

I quite liked the “Inca Mummy Girl” episode; it reminded me of the old school Nickelodeon show Are You Afraid of the Dark? (which remains singularly creepy to this day, mind you) as well as certain episodes of The X-Files.

There was a nice flip-floppy gender dynamic that was sustained throughout the entire episode. Aside from the obvious one, in which the mummy girl only preys on men (at least until the very end, but more on that later), I thought it was quite interesting that she takes on the name Impata (spelling?), which is apparently the name of the would-be male exchange student. It nicely blurs the male/female duality as well as underscores the cultural cluelessness of the main characters, who are essentially all Whitey McWesterners.

It seems that, by very nature of being a mummy, one somewhat lacks a gender identity. She is the Inca Mummy Girl, yes, but as a mummified cadaver she’s been stripped of everything that would identify her such – she’s just paper and bone, really. The nature of Impata’s character beings less overtly disconcerting the more human (and, thus, identifiably womanly) she becomes. Though I guess that’s what she’s been longing for after all – the ability to become a part of Western society, and thus “fit in” with our cultural definition of femininity. I mean, she keeps magically getting more and more make-up applied to her face as she sucks the life-force out of her unfortunate victims.

Interesting: I almost just typed “unfortunate suitors” – but, of course, Impata doesn’t actually seduce or otherwise engage romantically with any of her three victims: the juvenile delinquent, the foreign-exchange student, and the bodyguard. The only person she feels romantically toward is Xander, and he’s the last person she wants to “drain.” In that respect, she’s somewhat different than Carmilla… in that she doesn’t have a sexual dynamic with her victims.

Tall, Dark, and Deadly

Both in the book and in the episode, “Buffy vs. Dracula,” women go all "googly-eyed” for Dracula. However, it’s not just his “penetrating eyes” and foreign charm that have knees knocking and palms sweating. I think it’s the fact that Dracula and vampires present the opportunity for a complete loss of control. We see this especially for Buffy who, starting from a very young age, makes life or death decisions that impact the people around her. Each day, she has to fight for life: for her own life and for the lives of everyone in Sunnydale and the world. She expends enormous amounts of energy pushing against the very thing that vampires represent. She represses her darkest desires, particularly her desire for death. In the fifth season, Buffy asks Spike to tell her how he killed the last slayer, and he tells her that the last slayer died because she wanted to die. He says:

Death is your art. You make it with your hands, day after day. That final gasp. That look of peace. Part of you is desperate to know, what's it like? Where does it lead you? And now you see, that's the secret. Not the punch you didn't throw or the kicks you didn't land. She merely wanted it. Every Slayer... has a death wish. (Spike, S05 E07)

We are at once fascinated and repulsed by what we push against, and I think Buffy is drawn to Dracula because he exudes death.

In class we talked about sharing blood as a sexual act, and how vampires are innately sexual beings because of this. I think this same fascination for the desires we repress or dread can be seen in the novel. Women in the Victorian era were not supposed/allowed to be sexual. As we see from the novel, the feminine ideal is a woman like Mina who is chaste and devoted to her husband. When Dracula bites Mina, she falls from grace and becomes tainted. Women, like Lucy, who share blood with more than one man become vampires. Thus, perhaps a modern interpretation of the allure/power of the vampire over women in the Victorian era stems from the promise of sexual liberation. Once again, the vampire represents a loss of control, a giving into the most primal instincts. Stroker wrote Dracula at a time when England prided itself on being the model of a cultivated society. A cultural fear, as seen in Dracula, seems to be the presence of wanton women who have let go of all inhibitions and act on their darkest urges. I think the timeless (no pun intended) appeal of vampires relates to the idea that people will always be attracted to their shadow self or the part of themselves that they repress.

Where Buffy is Now

I found this in the LA Times.  Thought you guys might like it:

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/09/23/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-stars-where-they-are-now/#/21