W/T and stereotypes

[Cipher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FrenchRose:
Hmm ok, but let's not forget 'Forever' - showing Dawn the book was not a huge immoral act in itself, but it is clear in the conversation she and Tara have with Dawn, that she doesn't consider the questionable morality of certain acts an obstacle in the way of knowledge, success and maybe some sort of power.

---

But it was also revealed that Willow hadn't expected the book to help Dawn actually do what she wanted. She appeared to be surprised when Tara said that book had references to specific books/spells which Dawn happened to then track down. It was a bad idea, but I don't see it as "immoral", especially given Willow's knowledge and motivations at the time.

Even Dawn doing the spell doesn't seem to be strictly immoral (other than stealing the eggs from the demon), unless you consider Joyce to have been harmed by being resurrected imperfectly (if you consider what was brought back to actually be Joyce).

This is from my perspective and definition of morality. Those with a different perspective might have a different take on it. Of course, one important question is what is Willow's perspective and definition of morality?quote:

[FrenchRose]

Cypher I agree with you on the book thing - that's what I said, showing Dawn the book isn't immoral, it's more like maybe a little irresponsible, anyway it's not exactly a good idea.

But call me old-fashioned, but I think that yes, raising the dead form their grave is a bad thing, an immoral thing. I'm totally with Tara on this one, science - and magic in this case - can be tools, aids and weapons, but just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*. The resurrection spell is immoral, it's plain.. well wrong. I agree that the exact idea of morality differs from a aperson to another, but I'd think that pretty much everyone agrees that for example, killing people, cruelty against the defensless, or digging people out of their grave, is immoral.

[Dazey]

smelly cheese wrote: "I was thinking more along the lines of the fight she had with Willow, and asserting herself in that direction, or at least showing some apprehensions about things that Willow was doing or going through."

Oh. Okay.

Cipher wrote: "Will's will spell in Something Blue was not immoral either; it was selfish...."

I would argue that using power for selfish ends is, in fact, immoral. In the particular case of Willow, I might argue that any use of magick not imperative to actually preventing harm from befalling her or others is immoral, as she is well aware of its tendency to backfire and cause unexpected, sometimes harmful, results.

"The temporal fold spell was Anya's idea, and was supposed to just get back Anya's lost necklace. Nothing immoral there...."

You seem to be equivocating somewhat here. Let's look at a bit of the scene in question. From Psyche's Transcripts:

Anya: I just need a secondary to create a temporal fold. I heard you
were a pretty powerful wicca, so... (shrugs again)

Willow: (smiles excitedly) You heard right, mister! I-I-I'm always
ready to work some dark mojo. (hopefully) So, tell me, is it dangerous?

Anya: (dismissively) Oh, no. (shakes her head)

Willow: (disappointed) Well, could we pretend it is?

You seem to be judging Willow here on the morality of the situation. It's like, say you give a guy a gun, and say, "Let's go rob a bank," and he says, "Yeah, okay!" Then you say, "Oh but that's a starter pistol, and actually we're just going to sit on my couch and eat Cheetos and watch Dog Day Afternoon." Is that guy a moral person simply because he wasn't given the opportunity to engage in an immoral act that he clearly wanted to engage in? I judge Willow on her intent in this matter, and her intent was to brew up some dark mojo. Which is immoral.

"The exception was Willow going after Glory in Tough Love. Again, not immoral. Glory is an evil hellgod who is harming innocent people right and left and has to be stopped."

True, but that's not why Will went after her. She had one very clear motive, and that was revenge. In my book, revenge is an immoral act. (Which is not to say that I wouldn't have done the exact same thing were I her.)

Finally, I'm with French Rose--raising the dead is inherently immoral. I think Tara herself made that pretty clear and gave good reasons as to why.

[tyche]

Ooh, lots of interesting replies to this thread.
First, I should clarify a couple of points.
My reservations about stereotypes (and here, I’m talking about TV shows and films that make no effort to go beyond stereotypical characters or situations) stem from the fact that:
a) Using stereotypes and making no effort to go beyond them is lazy writing and b) stereotypical portrayals can make audiences lazy too. If you’re only used to seeing a certain group of people portrayed in a certain way, then eventually you begin to expect to see them portrayed in that way. I think a lot of hostility towards W/T stems from the fact that they can’t fit easily into the stereotypes I mentioned, and that they can’t be put into a neat, non-threatening pigeonhole. (Incidentally, it’s interesting that Willow fitted much better into the ‘non-threatening best friend’ stereotype in seasons 1-3 – once she got more confident with her magical powers, her love life developed and she evolved from Buffy’s best friend to a vital part of the team. In fact, since Giles left the Council, she’s become probably the most important member of the Scooby gang after Buffy.)
Second, stereotypes do have their uses. As Tommo mentioned, one of the stereotypes about lesbians on TV is that they experiment and then go back to boys. I think a lot of people were hoping this would happen in ‘New Moon Rising’ so that they could dismiss W/T as ‘just a phase’, and I think a lot of the power of that episode derives from the fact that the stereotype is subverted. Similarly, the character in the series who has come closest to being a stereotype is Giles but, as we discovered in ‘The Dark Age’, he’s a lot more than just a tweedy Englishman. So yes, Joss does use stereotypes, but his characters and situations are never just stereotypes: they always go beyond what the audience might expect.
Finally, Vamp Willow was mentioned in this thread. However, the rumoured ‘Willow goes evil’ arc for season 6 would probably portray the character in a very different way. Vamp Willow was Willow possessed by a demon (her unrestrained id, if you like) and freed of all her usual preoccupations and inhibitions. If the Willow we’ve seen for the last 5 seasons were to go evil, she’d still have all the same quirks and foibles – and she’d still have the capacity to be good, which would make her a much more interesting and complex character than Vamp Willow.
I'm done debating. This has been fun.

------------------
"There's only one thing better than Willowhand, and that's Amber Butt" - me, to Amber Benson.

[Lijdrec]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tyche:
...the rumoured ‘Willow goes evil’ arc for season 6 would probably portray the character in a very different way..... If the Willow we’ve seen for the last 5 seasons were to go evil, she’d still have all the same quirks and foibles – and she’d still have the capacity to be good.....

---

I must whole-heartedly agree, Willow has a capacity for mischieviousness but not true evil (as long as her soul is intact!).

If there is to be an 'Evil-Willow' arc in S6 might it be a metaphor for addiction? Her magical power grown so much that Willow succumbs to the urges to use it? Of course, such a behavior might create a bit of mayhem (read as 'story-lines') for Buffy and the other Scoobs to handle.

Of course, it would be Tara that came to Willow's aid (after freeing herself of co-dependance?). Is there a 12 step program for Wicca? ----- I believe that a Power greater than myself will restore me to sanity and I turn my will and my life over to the care of the Mother-Goddess of the Earth....

edited to say....I am not saying that Wicca would be Willow's addiction, but that the use of her magical power is. Wicca, through Tara, would be the cure....

-------
Lynn

[This message has been edited by Lijdrec (edited August 31, 2001).]quote:

[An]

Just to throw in my two cents, today I saw the Willow-with-blonde-highlights photo's and I thought: She IS going evil! I know it's a superficial thing to say but I don't know.. Willow being that outgoing, it scares me. :/

*g* by the way, how are we going to describe her in fanfics?

"ohhh," she moaned, and she looked into her red-with-blonde-highlights-haired lover.

Anneke

[miss_spangles]

Tee hee - I agree- the new look will alter fan fic descriptions of willow!

[Cipher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dazey:
I would argue that using power for selfish ends is, in fact, immoral. In the particular case of Willow, I might argue that any use of magick not imperative to actually preventing harm from befalling her or others is immoral, as she is well aware of its tendency to backfire and cause unexpected, sometimes harmful, results.

---

I'm not sure she's that aware of it (she doesn't seem as aware of that tendency as Tara is, for all it keeps happening to her)....

Seriously, though... I'm not sure I really meant "selfish" as that has connotations of personal gain at others' expense. Wanting to "heal" one's emotions after a painful break-up (without involving anyone else) is really hard to clasify as "immoral". I think I meant "selfish" in the Charmed sense (magick for personal-gain is a witch no-no in the Charmverse, even when no one would be harmed or even affected).

I would also argue that an action can not be labeled "immoral" just because there is no benefit to others while there is potential risk to others. Otherwise it would seem that driving a car (which involves some risk to others, including those who aren't even driving/riding) for a "selfish" reason like going to the store for groceries--or closer to your actual point, "just for fun"--would have to be considered "immoral". I think that sort of definition of "immoral" would be too extreme for most people to agree with.

I guess the key distinction is in the expectation. While there is risk to others, there isn't the expectation that others will be hurt by your driving (normally). When someone drives drunk, we do have that expectation (though it doesn't happen every time), so it's easier to label drunk-driving "immoral" (even in cases when it doesn't result in actual harm to others). I'm not sure Willow's magick reaches that level of expected harm....

quote:

---

I judge Willow on her intent in this matter, and her intent was to brew up some dark mojo. Which is immoral.

---

Well, ok, except that in that scene/episode Willow was specifically trying to rebel against her "reliable-dog-geyser-person" image. (I'm also not sure about the "dark mojo" = "immoral" assumption; the way she used the term "dark mojo" didn't necessarily imply hurting anyone, did it?) She was making an effort to appear comfortable with such things when it really wasn't her nature.

If you watch Willow's behavior in that scene, she comes off really strange. Now, either Alyson's acting was off her game (and I can't believe that!), or she was deliberately playing it that way because Willow was "acting" against her true nature. And notice that she was more interested in the appearance of doing something dangerous than in doing something that was actually dangerous (though it turned out to be a little dangerous after all). Also by "dangerous" she more likely meant for themselves than for anyone else.

And notice that after what she saw in the spell, she refused to have anything further to do with Anya's attempts. Had "dark mojo" truly been her intent, wouldn't she have tried the spell again? I would argue that, "that's a little blacker than I like my arts," shows the true intent in her heart more accurately than her false bravado to Anya on the stairway.

But it comes down to how you interpret her intent and how you define morality. I would suggest that something can also be "wrong" without being necessarily "immoral" (depending on one's definition of these terms)... one example being "showing" the book to Dawn. (Raising the dead--for the sake of bringing someone back, not to have an evil army to wreck havoc--could be another. It's somewhat difficult to analyze the morality of "bringing someone back" since it's not particularly real in our world. What basis is there for the label of "immoral"?)

Making mistakes and bad decisions and doing stupid things does not prevent one from being a "deeply moral person". I would suggest that being a "moral person" means along the lines of having consideration for the impact of your actions (etc) on others (as opposed to not caring about others), and not that the potential impact is analyzed flawlessly and fully before acting (which is probably beyond most people in many/most real-world situations which require much faster decisions). Willow may often act carelessly, but she does care (as far as I remember ever seeing).

Perhaps that Willow situation is comparable to Buffy's semi-rebellion in Bad Girls (though Buffy was breaking and stealing property--and injuring people--which are more clearly immoral actions not just for their intent). By comparison, Willow's brief fling of "dark mojo" with Anya doesn't seem to cross the line.

Your points and arguments are valid and intelligent, Dazey and FrenchRose (and whoever I'm missing from the early debate on this question back on the first page); these are just different points to consider. It's fun to debate interpretation of the show (in a friendly way, of course); I like when people point out things I hadn't thought about before, and even trying to support my "position" often gets me thinking about an episode/scene more deeply than I had before. Hopefully whether people agree in the end or not it makes us all think about our favorite character(s) more, which has to be a good thing. quote:quote:

[Dazey]

Amber is pretty.