------------------------------------------------
"A man who fails well is greater than one who succeeds badly" - Thomas Merton
More thoughts on the craft of writing and the death of Tara
I've been very pleased to see all the response my first essay, "It's Not Homophobia, But That Doesn't Make It Right," has received. I even appreciated the people who didn't like it and wrote me nasty emails, because at least they gave me the time it took them to read the essay and the amount of thought it took them to fashion a reply.
Roughly two months have now passed since the Buffy season finale. Mutant Enemy is taking part in the annual media promotional campaign for the upcoming season, and production is just getting under way. And yet the controversy surrounding Tara's death continues to rage on, in the fan community and in the media alike. Some new information has come to light through new interviews, and I've found some information in older interviews that I think shows us how all this trouble got started in the first place. I've therefore decided to take another look at the issue.
Before I begin, though, let's get one thing straight. Some have suggested that in my last essay I was trying to dictate a specific storyline to Mutant Enemy - "Bring Tara back or else" - or that I was trying to say that writers need to have all their stories approved by some kind of Political Correctness Board before they publish or produce them. That's not what I was saying at all. I'm a writer myself, and I've been at it for a long time. I was writing Locker Jokes and Opposite Sketches on the set of You Can't Do That On Television three years before there even was a Roseanne around to give Joss Whedon his start. Creative freedom is something I take very seriously. If Joss Whedon thinks it was right to kill off Tara in a fashion so improbable that even his own cast made fun of it, then as much as I disagree with him, I have to respect his decision.
So what am I trying to say, then? Simply that creative freedom comes with responsibility attached to it. You can't have one without the other. All stories send messages, whether they're the messages the writer wants to send or not. That's as true for a TV show as it is for any other form of storytelling, despite the fact that many people try to dismiss television as "just entertainment." Even a TV show that doesn't try to send a message is still capable of establishing or reinforcing the cultural norms of our society. We all watch television, after all. It's our popular mythology, the folklore of our time. It gives us all common points of reference. And that means it's something that can be used to help society, or to hurt it - to move it forward, or to hold it back.
If you have total creative freedom and total control over your work, who can you point the finger at if the messages your story sends aren't the ones you wanted? If those messages lead to consequences that you didn't want, who can you blame for it? No one but yourself. It's therefore in the writer's best interest to keep a sense of social responsibility, and to consider the messages a story sends carefully. The controversy surrounding Tara's death illustrates this point perfectly.
A lesson from the past
Let's look at an example from the 1960s, the original Star Trek. If you want to see how big an impact a TV show can have on a culture, just look at the nearest cell phone. It probably looks very much like a Star Trek communicator. Coincidence? Even people who have never seen the show probably know catch phrases like "Beam me up, Scotty!" or "Live long and prosper," or they know how to make their fingers do the Vulcan salute.
Gene Roddenberry very deliberately set out to give the Starship Enterprise a multi-racial cast. He wanted a black character, an Asian character, and even a non-human character to be core members on his team of adventurers. (He even wanted the ship's second-in-command to be a woman, but the network thought that idea was too outrageous.)
Why did Gene want these things? It was part of the message he wanted to send about the future. He wanted to convince America that outward appearances didn't matter, that no matter what we looked like, we were all capable of functioning as equal members of "team humanity." And look what an impact that message had. Today there are African-American scientists and astronauts who point to Lieutenant Uhura as their inspiration. In science fiction shows on TV today, it's almost expected that starship crews be multi-racial. (Which brings me back to Buffy, but I'll get to that later.)
"Just entertainment?" In Star Trek's third season, Gene decided that in one episode he'd have white Captain Kirk kiss black Lieutenant Uhura. It wasn't even by choice - aliens were forcing them to do it - and yet many TV stations across the American "Old South" refused to air the episode. Today white Rupert Giles can sleep with black Olivia and nobody bats an eye, but would that even have been possible if it weren't for Gene Roddenberry or someone like him back in the 1960s?
Now imagine what it would have been like if Gene had gotten sloppy about his characters and allowed racial stereotypes to creep in. Suppose Uhura started eating watermelon on the Bridge or saying things like, "Massah Kirk, I don't know nuthin' 'bout openin' no hailin' frequencies!" Suppose Lieutenant Sulu, an Asian character, started wearing really thick glasses or leaving the Enterprise's turn signal on as they flew through space. "Just entertainment?" It would have damaged everything Gene had tried to say before. In the case of Uhura, the "hailin' frequencies" line is a direct reference back to Gone With the Wind, and the derogatory stereotypes of African-Americans that movie contained. Instead of sending a groundbreaking new message, Gene would suddenly have started to reinforce the status quo.
And that brings us back to Willow and Tara.
Willow and Tara - Another vision? If so, then whose?
When I first realized that Willow and Tara were going to be a couple, I immediately thought of Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry's role in introducing serious and real African-American characters onto America's TV screens. Willow and Tara were an opportunity for Buffy to take a place in TV history alongside Star Trek, by giving TV its first long-term realistic same-sex relationship.
But is that what Joss Whedon was thinking? The evidence tells us it wasn't. In August 2001, Joss himself told Out magazine:
Willow and Tara were never even supposed to get together in Joss's original vision of the Buffy storyline. Willow needed a lover who could die at a certain moment in order to send her down into the grip of dark magic. Several Mutant Enemy writers have claimed that if Seth Green hadn't left the show, his character Oz would have been the one to die. But Oz wasn't available. Tara was, and she had some chemistry with Willow. The actresses had a lot of chemistry, too. And so Joss decided it would be "cool" to have Tara be Willow's next lover.
And then something happened. Willow and Tara became more than just two characters on a TV show. Even though Joss hadn't planned on sending a message to the gay community, he had sent one anyway - a message of hope, a sign that the gay community could see themselves reflected in our popular culture, just as everyone else is. And the audience responded. Gay and lesbian fans wrote in by the hundreds, perhaps even by the thousands, telling the Buffy team how Willow and Tara had helped them, or how the storyline had changed their lives. People went to the Posting Board Parties and broke down in tears when they came face to face with Amber Benson or Alyson Hannigan. Some fans even sent Joss Whedon an engraved toaster (a reference to an Ellen DeGeneres joke about coming out, in case you don't know), which - at the time - Joss claimed meant more to him than an Emmy Award.
Did Joss realize what he had done? He certainly talked as if he did. In May 2000, he told the Bronze Posting Board:
And really, it's almost impossible to think that he couldn't have seen what was happening. After Xander discovered his talent for carpentry at the end of "The Replacement," I highly doubt that Joss received an engraved tool box with the message, "You know, I'm a carpenter myself, and that story really helped me feel better about the profession I've chosen." And obviously Joss would never have received letters from people who could relate directly to the experiences of vampires, demons and other fantasy creatures that populate Buffy's universe. The fan response to the Willow/Tara relationship was unique in the history of the series. Even the negative response from some fans - the hate letters Joss referred to in his post at the Bronze - were unprecedented. Clearly Willow and Tara touched the audience in a unique and powerful way. Their relationship was a powerful message, even though it was a message Joss had never intended to send.
At this point, Joss had a dilemma. The relationship between Willow and Tara was outgrowing his plans. Tara wasn't supposed to be that important a character - she wasn't in every episode, nor did Amber Benson appear in the opening titles of the show. Tara's role was simply to be there until it was time for her to die and send Willow down into the grip of dark magic - but the reaction of the fans was turning her into something much more.
In many cases, writers rejoice when something like this happens, when a character or a storyline suddenly blossoms into something greater than they could have expected. The ancients used to think of such happenings as gifts from the muses, and even now some writers attribute mystical or spiritual origins to them. And many writers, when offered a surprising new storyline to explore, will take the new path they've been given and set their previous agenda aside, or at least they'll try to blend the new path in with their existing destination, changing the way they get to the end of their story if not the end itself.
Joss Whedon could have done that. He could have seen the unexpected blossoming of the Willow/Tara relationship as the gift that it was and adjusted his story accordingly. Someone with Joss's talent would certainly have been able to find a way of achieving the Dark Magic Willow conclusion without destroying the Willow/Tara relationship in the process. But that's not what Joss chose to do. He looked at the gift he'd been given, and he turned it down.
Mixing the message
As I said before, no matter how much I disagree with Joss Whedon's story decisions, I respect his right to make them. He had every right to reject the opportunity he had. However, at the same time we can see that it was that very decision and the way Mutant Enemy acted on it that caused the trouble they're currently in with the audience. The controversy over Tara's death is the consequence of decisions Mutant Enemy made and carried out without paying enough attention to their responsibilities.
The trouble started when Mutant Enemy decided to mix the messages they were sending to the viewers. Long after they had made the decision to kill Tara, Joss and his staff gave interviews and made posts at the Bronze posting board reassuring the audience of Tara's importance and her continuing presence on the show.
How long did this mixture of messages go on? New information from Amber Benson's July 7 appearance at the Toronto Trek convention has shed more light on when Joss made the final decision to kill Tara:
In my first essay, I pointed out that Joss was busy taking credit for the groundbreaking nature of the Willow/Tara relationship even after he had already made plans to destroy that relationship, while Marti Noxon was boasting about a "naked sex scene" that occurred during the very episode in which Tara was killed. With this new timeline from Amber Benson, we can now also include the following quote Joss gave to E!Online in May 2001 as an example of Mutant Enemy's disinformation campaign:
As I said in my first essay, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that TV producers would want to conceal their upcoming plot twists and thus maintain the element of surprise. But that's not the only thing that was going on. A look back at a May 2000 interview Joss Whedon did on National Public Radio's Fresh Air reveals another agenda:
It's easy to see the attempt to make Tara as sympathetic a character as possible as the sixth season of Buffy unfolded. She was the only member of the Scooby Gang who acted like a mature adult, the only one who looked after Dawn, and the one Buffy trusted with the secret of her affair with Spike. All of it was done by writers who already knew where Tara's road ended. All of it was done in an attempt to make the blow of Tara's death as devastating as possible.
And many Buffy fans are now saying, "So what? That's what Joss does." But Tara wasn't just any character. There was much more of an emotional investment in her. There was much more of a social investment in her. Tara wasn't just a recurring character fulfilling her destiny of dying as a plot device. She had grown into much more, and Mutant Enemy knew it. But instead of looking at Tara's significance in the light of social responsibility, Mutant Enemy saw nothing but a means to their own ends.
Note that I'm giving Mutant Enemy the benefit of the doubt when I assume that they simply didn't pay attention to their responsibilities. I could make a case for much worse. After all, killing off Tara hurt the gay community in ways that anti-gay hate groups never will. A hate group has only one message - hatred - and the objects of that hatred know better than to listen to the message for very long. Mutant Enemy, on the other hand, held the gay community's attention for two and a half years, giving them hope, placating them with false reassurances and winning their trust with lies - all before cutting them down as surely as Warren's improbable marksmanship felled Tara. Hate groups can only dream of being able to inflict that much pain and suffering. Like Warren shooting Tara, Mutant Enemy did their damage by accident - but that doesn't change the fact that damage was done.
The fact that Tara's death brought cheers from homophobic viewers was made evident by this May 11 post from Steven DeKnight at the Bronze Beta:
Unfortunately, Mr. DeKnight's post was far too little and far too late. If Mutant Enemy had paid attention to the messages they were sending in the first place, there would have been nothing for homophobic viewers to cheer about at the Bronze Beta. And in the case of Steven DeKnight himself, perhaps he wouldn't have had to express his contempt, loathing and disgust if he hadn't first made comments like these examples from his May 8 interview at The Succubus Club:
[In response to the interviewer asking him to talk to the upset Willow/Tara fans.] "Come on, come on! Tara had to go! She had to go!"
Interviewer [remarking on all the Willow/Tara questions that had been sent in]: "They all really just want to know why."
DeKnight: "Well, you know, there was the whole lesbians-against-God thing."
Again, Mr. DeKnight has complete freedom to tell any "jokes" that he chooses, but if he later finds a group that he loathes agreeing with him, does he have anyone but himself to blame?
Tara's Death - Business as usual?
In a story published in a recent issue of The Advocate (the issue is dated August 20, even though it's being released in July), Marti Noxon claims that when it came to Willow and Tara:
For Mutant Enemy, killing characters off is a part of the normal routine. As Joss Whedon said in his May 2000 NPR interview:
From Mutant Enemy's point of view, then, killing Tara seemed perfectly sensible. In fact, the knowledge that so many people were so emotionally invested in Tara probably made her an especially tempting target. But there's a problem with this line of thinking. When a character is tied to larger emotional or social issues, the writer needs to look at the bigger picture and weigh the consequences as they extend beyond the confines of the story.
Now that he has the benefit of hindsight, Joss Whedon himself has admitted to the problems with failing to consider the bigger picture. In his interview for The Advocate, he said:
In other words, trying to "treat everyone as individuals" only works if the initial playing field is level for all those individuals. Otherwise, competition between the haves and the have-nots does nothing but maintain the status quo. Those who are ahead stay ahead, and those who are behind stay behind. Such competition is about as "equal" as if I tried to play a game of one-on-one basketball against Shaquille O'Neal.
Willow and Tara are individuals, yes. But they're also lesbians. When a heterosexual couple is destroyed on TV, straight people have dozens of other heterosexual couples in which they can invest their time and emotions. Willow and Tara stood alone, the only long-term same-sex couple on television. Now that they're gone, who do gay people have to turn to? Nobody. That's the bigger picture Mutant Enemy failed to consider before it was too late.
Tara's death is the most visible problem Mutant Enemy has had with the messages behind their routine killing of characters, but it isn't the only problem. Some have questioned one of the basic premises of the entire show - a premise that was described by Steven DeKnight in his Succubus Club interview:
The problem with this claim is that it's simply not true. Perhaps anybody can die, but it's not just anybody who actually does die. Among the recurring "good guy" characters over the first six seasons of Buffy, all the ones who have died were women, except for Larry, who was gay, and Forrest, who was black. And speaking of recurring black characters, all but one of them - whether they were good or evil - have been killed off. And the Asian characters? There haven't been any recurring Asian characters. There have only been two Asian characters at all. They had less than five lines of dialogue between the two of them, and they're both dead now. The same is true for Latino characters. There have only been two, appearing in one episode, and they both died.
On the other hand, if you're a straight white man with reasonably good intentions - or at least if people think you're funny or you're sexy - you pretty much don't have to worry about being killed on Buffy. Not even the Slayer herself has that much peace of mind. The apparent preferential treatment prompted a columnist for The Boston Herald to make the following comment:
Does this mean that the people at Mutant Enemy are racist or sexist? Not really. What they are is careless. No one is stopping to consider the cumulative effect of what they're doing. The only recurring student characters killed in the Graduation Day battle with the Mayor are Harmony (female) and Larry (gay). The only recurring foot soldier of the Initiative to be killed is Forrest (black). When we dip into Spike's past and see him kill two Slayers, one is Asian and the other is black. The only Scooby love interests to be killed off are Jenny (female) and Tara (female and gay). Individually, all these decisions might appear to make sense. Cumulatively, they send a different message entirely, and one that Mutant Enemy might not have wanted to send if they'd been paying better attention.
The Bottom Line - A better way of doing business, revisited
So what exactly has Mutant Enemy gained by insisting on their own creative freedom without regard for the responsibility that goes with that freedom? What have they reaped from the seeds that they sowed? Falling ratings, loss of trust, a segment of the fan base so alienated that it has actively organized against the show, people with agendas they claim to hate cheering them on, negative reviews and stories in the press, and a controversy that has dragged through half the summer and now threatens to haunt the promotional efforts for the fall. And this is in addition to the fallout from several other elements of Buffy's sixth season that exhibited the same signs of irresponsible storytelling and lack of regard for consequences.
Joss Whedon and his team kept their creative freedom, but at the cost of their status as the darlings of many critics, and at the cost of their reputations with many of the fans. Sooner or later, that will likely translate into a cost at the financial bottom line as well. So was it worth all that?
Freedom and responsibility are inseparable. You cannot insist on one and refuse the other. If you try, you may make a splash on the face of the world for a while, but sooner or later too many of those people you feel no responsibility toward will either be offended or bored by the things you give them. Why wouldn't they be? You feel no responsibility toward them, so what chance do you have of connecting with them? When that happens, chances are they'll stop giving you their money, and at that point what are you left with? Nothing but a raging ball of resentment toward a world that doesn't understand your "vision."
A better way of doing business, a more responsible way, is a way that looks beyond the self and toward another. In the case of the writer, it means looking beyond yourself and toward the audience. Joss Whedon says he needs to give the fans "what they need," but in order to do that a writer must make contact with the audience and establish a dialogue. It's the only way you can find out exactly what it is that they need. Does that mean you let the audience dictate your story? Of course not - that would be slanting in the opposite direction. Each of us who writes has a unique message to give the world - but we can't do that if we never bother looking to find the best way of delivering those messages. Without contact, without dialogue and without responsibility, we end up delivering our messages about as effectively as if we were standing on street corners, shouting them out through bullhorns.
Gene Roddenberry once said there was quid pro quo in the writer/reader or writer/viewer relationship - the audience expects something in return for the time and attention they've given the writer. Responsible writers reward the audience instead of punishing it. They give the audience enlightenment instead of darkness. Does that mean their stories must be full of nothing but happy sweetness and light? Of course not. The essence of drama is the principle of tension and release, of moving from consonance to dissonance and then to a new state of consonance. Responsible writers can make their characters as miserable as they want - but they remember to bring those characters back from it, too.
As I write this, there are signs that Mutant Enemy might be starting to get the message. As I quoted above, Joss Whedon told The Advocate that he now understands why the lesbian community, so vastly underrepresented on television, has a legitimate reason to say that Tara's death was different from other character deaths. In that same article, Marti Noxon said the following:
Does this mean there's hope that Mutant Enemy can turn things around in Buffy's seventh season, and tell their story in a more responsible fashion? Of course there's hope - but after all that's happened, Mutant Enemy isn't going to win any fans back with words alone. They've been able to talk a good game before, saying all the right things about the Willow/Tara relationship while at the same time planning to tear it apart. This time, Mutant Enemy will have to follow up their words with deeds, not just once but on a continuing basis. As fierce as the controversy has raged this time, it will be much worse if the fans are played for fools again.
Can Joss Whedon do it? Can he run his show in a more responsible fashion and win back the fans' trust? Does he even want to? Or is he so insistent on his own "vision" that he will continue to alienate his audience instead? The answers to all those questions are completely up to him. And that's just as it should be.
Robert A. Black already has a publisher interested in looking at his latest Young Adult novel, which means he really should be finishing the rewrites on it instead of working on this essay. Such is his dedication to the Willow/Tara cause... :-)
------------------------------------------------
"A man who fails well is greater than one who succeeds badly" - Thomas Merton
The part of Tara's death Mutant Enemy won't discuss
Wesley, after a beat: Judas Iscariot.
Lilah: Right. The worst spot in Hell is reserved for those who betray.
Well, here we are again.
It's been three months since Tara MacLay met her death in the Buffy episode "Seeing Red." Many Buffy fans have known about it for much longer - some as early as the middle of March, not long after the episode was filmed. Now the new season is already in production, the networks are gearing up for their fall premieres, and yet the subject of Tara's death remains on people's minds and on message boards across the internet. Major publications have been told of the controversy, and some have already written articles about it. There are even rumblings that the issue will be the subject of a panel discussion at the upcoming World Science Fiction Convention in San Jose CA.
This is my third essay on the subject. The first one, "It's Not Homophobia, but That Doesn't Make It Right," was something I felt the need to write almost from the moment I first heard that Tara was going to be killed off. The second one, "The Message Is, 'Pay Attention to the Message'," was more of a surprise. I hadn't expected the response the first essay received, and I wasn't sure how much more there was for me to say on the subject. You can imagine, then, how surprised I am to be addressing the subject for a third time. Who would have guessed that the issue would still be affecting people so profoundly after all this time?
So, you may ask, what is there left for me to talk about? Plenty. For one thing, Joss Whedon has had more to say on the subject. Wanda from E!Online asked him some very pointed questions recently, and his answers have given me plenty to think about and comment on.
As expected, Joss's explanation for Tara's death is that he was focusing on the narrative and what was necessary for Willow's story arc. It's safe ground for him, because he's essentially untouchable there. No matter what you think of Joss's story decisions - and personally, I think they were really bad - they were still his decisions to make and we must respect his right to make them.
However, that's not the end of the matter. While viewers were watching the Willow/Tara story unfold onscreen, there was an entirely different story unfolding beyond television's "fourth wall" - in person, through the postal service, on the internet and in the media, where Mutant Enemy was interacting with their fans. It's this story that Mutant Enemy hasn't been willing to say much about. It's this story that warrants further attention.
Questions, questions, questions...
I've noticed a trend in the replies I've been writing to the people who have sent me comments on my essays. (I do try to write everyone who sends me something - even the guy who told me I couldn't possibly be more wrong. My reply rate isn't one hundred percent, but I do make the attempt.) Some people have pointed out Mutant Enemy's repeated claim that they treated Tara just like any other character and asked me why that's not a good enough explanation. Some have asked me whether or not I think Tara's death invalidates all that was done before with the Willow/Tara relationship. And some have objected to the way I compared Mutant Enemy to anti-gay hate groups in my second essay.
The answers to these and many of the other questions I've been asked are all rooted in the same thing - the combination of what we saw on the screen with what we heard and read away from the screen. The difference lies in the profound effect that Mutant Enemy's interaction with the fans had on the way those fans viewed the events on the show.
Let's look at what I meant when I compared Mutant Enemy to anti-gay hate groups. The very term "hate group" conjures up images of the Ku Klux Klan or gay-bashings, and sadly these are as real as ever in some parts of the United States. However, a shifting national mood and a string of costly lawsuits have prompted many hate groups to change their tactics. According to a US Commerce Department study, today many hate groups concentrate more on propaganda, distributing their messages through literature, the internet, public access television and public demonstrations.
And that's why I said that Mutant Enemy hurt the gay community in ways that these groups never will.
An anti-gay hate group will never gain the gay community's trust the way Mutant Enemy did. A hate group only has one message - hate. I doubt there are many gay people who would see a group of people waving signs, passing out propaganda or hurling epithets at them and believe the members of that group could be trusted. I doubt there are many gay people who would consider the members of that group to be their friends. I doubt there are many gay people who would continue listening to that group for two and a half years.
But the gay community did trust Mutant Enemy. They heard Joss Whedon say things like "one post from a gay or questioning teen saying the show helped them is worth six hundred hate letters." They heard Joss Whedon tell a number of journalists - including one from Out magazine, a leading publication in the gay community - that the story of Willow and Tara was one of the most important things they've done on the show. A bond of trust was formed, and when Tara was killed that bond of trust was broken.
The pain of betrayal is a uniquely intense emotional experience. It's what fuels many divorces and crimes of passion. It's what powers Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and allows his line "Et tu, Brute?" to transcend the play and enter our popular culture. It's why Dante put Judas Iscariot in the worst part of Hell when he wrote his Divine Comedy - and why Mutant Enemy had Lilah Morgan refer back to Dante in an episode of Angel.
But you can't have betrayal if there's no bond of trust to betray. An anti-gay hate group can't form a bond of trust with the gay community, and therefore can't inflict the pain of betrayal. Mutant Enemy, on the other hand, did form a bond of trust with the gay community. They made the gay community believe that Buffy was a safe haven, a place to escape from hatred and feel included (Joss even claimed as much himself once, as we'll see in a moment). But instead of nurturing that trust, Mutant Enemy chose to betray it. Joss Whedon, who says he needs to give fans what they need and not what they want, decided that the gay community needed to see what the hate groups want, a lesbian killed by an act of violence, right in the middle of what was supposed to be a place of safety. All the public access programming on the airwaves couldn't have dealt a harsher blow.
What did Joss know? And when did he know it?
And yet as I said, so far Mutant Enemy hasn't commented on this aspect of the controversy. In fact, most recently Joss has claimed that he didn't even know it even existed. Here's Wanda's report of what Joss said when she asked him about it:
I've already shown numerous examples in my first two essays that refute Joss's claim. The fan reaction to Willow and Tara was simply too great and too intensely personal for him not to have seen that it was unique. The interviews he gave and the postings he made on the Bronze make it clear that not only did he know what was going on, but he was actually using it to further his own ends. In case anybody still has doubts, though, let me offer a few more quotes to consider.
On April 28 2000, Joss made this comment to a fan calling herself "Riley's Girl":
On August 1 2000, Joss had this to say about the "lesbian toaster" he had been given:
And a few days later, on August 6, Joss had this to say about a convention experience:
As the Willow/Tara relationship continued, the fan response and the media interest only grew larger. If Joss didn't know that Willow and Tara were unique, why did he think a magazine like Out wanted to interview him? Why did he think people were thanking him? Why did he think people were breaking down in tears in front of Alyson Hannigan or Amber Benson, telling the actresses how their lives had been transformed? Joss's claim that he didn't know simply doesn't hold water.
And this brings me to another point about Joss and lies. A number of people have told me that producers lie all the time. It's necessary in order for them to protect the plot twists in their stories. But that isn't really accurate. J. Michael Straczynski spent far more time online than all of Mutant Enemy combined during the run of Babylon 5 - and on the USEnet of all places, not a private forum like the Bronze. At the same time, he also visited the America Online forums occasionally, and his producer John Copeland was a regular there. Neither of them ever spread disinformation on the scale that Mutant Enemy did with Willow and Tara. When a question about spoilers came up, they either ignored it, gave an extremely vague answer or said "I'm not going to answer - you'll have to wait and see." There were never any statements like "I have no plans to send Marcus Cole anywhere," or "I think Talia Winters is a big part of the heart of the show," or "Kill off Warren Keffer? OVER MY DEAD BODY!" (Those are all characters who were killed off, in case you didn't follow the series.) So while it's reasonable to expect producers to protect their secrets, that doesn't mean they have to behave the way Mutant Enemy has behaved.
Besides, even if Wanda is right and it really is acceptable for Mutant Enemy to behave the way they did, there are no plot twists to protect now that the season is over. Tara's dead, and everybody knows it. So why is Joss Whedon still lying?
Just what is this "narrative" thing, anyway?
Another thing people who have written to me point out is Mutant Enemy's repeated claim that "the narrative" required them to kill Tara. How can I expect writers to sacrifice their freedom by subjecting their narrative to the demands of minorities or the politically correct? Aren't I trying to take away creative freedom? Do I really expect a writer to work under such restrictive conditions?
What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the issue of "the narrative" is never that black and white. Writers are never in a situation where they have only one way to tell a story. Taking away one story option is never something even remotely crippling. "The narrative" isn't rigid. It's fluid. When you're telling a story, the playing field available to you is very wide and gives you plenty of room to maneuver. There is always room for changes and adjustments.
Don't believe me? Then read what Mutant Enemy has to say on the subject. Let's start with something I brought up in my first essay - the announcement from Joss at his June 18 Academy of Television Arts and Sciences presentation that Buffy would get a new job in the upcoming season. Why?
Next, consider the following interview with James Marsters from the October 1999 issue of Horror Online:
And speaking of Angel, consider the following item from the February 25 2000 issue of The Hollywood Reporter:
So here we have three examples of how the narrative can change based on the reaction of the sponsors, the producers or the fans.
Now consider this quote from Joss Whedon's June 2001 interview with IGN.com, in which he discusses his original plan to make Tara part demon (a wood sprite was the example used) and what led him to change that part of his story:
Obviously, the people at Mutant Enemy don't think the narrative is as rigid as they would like us to believe it is. There are many reasons why it could change, some which involve the writers themselves and others which involve someone watching the finished product. So had the narrative really locked Mutant Enemy into killing Tara? Not at all. There were plenty of opportunities to change the story. The goal of the story - Dark Magic Willow - could still have been achieved, but in a way that would have preserved the Willow/Tara relationship instead of destroying it. The relationship was destroyed not because Mutant Enemy couldn't avoid it, but rather because they wouldn't avoid it.
The implied hypocrisy
Remember what I said in my second essay, about the need for writers to be careful that they don't send out messages they don't intend? The excuses Mutant Enemy has given for killing Tara add up to another of those messages. They imply a sense of hypocrisy in the Mutant Enemy staff and cast doubt on the claim that Willow and Tara were being treated just like anybody else.
It's not as if Mutant Enemy has credibility to spare. When Joss Whedon tells The Advocate about his gay godfather but tells people at the Bronze Beta, "The gay thing is so passé. We're over that," or when Steven DeKnight rails against homophobes at the Bronze Beta just days after telling homophobia-tinged "jokes" during his interview at The Succubus Club, they're already casting doubt on their sincerity. The inconsistencies in their excuses only make the situation worse.
Why is it that Angel's popularity gave him an expanded role and eventually his own series? Why is it that the positive reaction to Spike has kept him on the show to this very day, when he was originally going to be killed off over four years ago? And if positive reactions got those characters more screen time, why did the positive reaction to Tara get her killed? This example is only the beginning. There are others, too.
In his May 15 interview at The Succubus Club, David Fury was asked if there was any chance that Tara could be brought back from the dead. Here's what he replied:
"We can't cheapen death on the show?" What exactly does that mean? To be sure, there have been deaths on Buffy that have had a profound impact, most notably the deaths of Jenny Calendar and Buffy's mother Joyce. But at the same time, Angel was killed and brought back, while Buffy was killed twice and brought back. If you consider both Buffy and Angel, we've now seen Darla die as a vampire, come back as a human, die as a human, come back as a vampire, and then die as a vampire again. All of these events took place before "Seeing Red" was aired. So I must ask - why is it that bringing Tara back would "cheapen death" when all these other resurrections didn't? In what way is death cheapened that it hasn't already been cheapened?
And then there's the issue of exactly what Joss was trying to say - or not trying to say - with the Season 6 story arc and with "Seeing Red" in particular. Here's what he told Wanda about "Seeing Red," as reported in her July 26 column:
But if this was supposed to be the point of the story, it's a very muddled point. In the episodes that followed, Warren paid for his acts of violence and dominance with his life - but the act of making him pay that price destroyed Willow as well, turning her into the very "evil witch" stereotype that she herself railed against earlier in the season. Meanwhile, Spike tried to rape Buffy and yet Buffy still trusted him enough to seek him out in the very next episode and ask if he would protect Dawn, and Spike ended the season by gaining the reward of his soul. So exactly what is it that Joss is trying to say about male violence and dominance? It doesn't exactly look like he's entirely against them, now does it?
Meanwhile, here's what Joss told Wanda about Willow and Tara in that very same interview:
So let's see if we've got this straight - he's unhappy with those in the audience who missed his muddled and morally ambiguous point about male dominance, but he doesn't care about the issue of giving the gay community its only realistic portrayal of a loving same-sex relationship. In this light, are we really still supposed to believe that Buffy is a show about female empowerment? Are we really supposed to believe that Willow and Tara were treated just like everybody else?
Moving on and looking forward
The special Wednesday airing of Buffy on July 24 had a Nielsen household rating of 0.9, which translates to roughly 950,000 viewers. That was good for a ranking of 125th out of 137 prime-time shows on the seven commercial broadcast networks. Three of PAX TV's nightly Touched By An Angel reruns did better. The regular Tuesday broadcast on July 23 was only slightly higher, with a 1.3 Nielsen rating. That was good enough for 110th place, but three of PAX TV's nightly Diagnosis Murder reruns still did better. That week's episode of Angel was in the basement as well, ranked 123rd with a 1.0 Nielsen rating.
Am I about to suggest that Mutant Enemy's plunge in the ratings is the result of people protesting the death of Tara? Not entirely. Instead, I think the poor ratings are the result of a much larger problem, and the way Tara's death has been handled is only one symptom of that problem. Other symptoms exist as well. While I've been talking about the people upset over Willow and Tara, others have been upset over any number of different things involving Buffy and Spike, from Spike's attempted rape in "Seeing Red" to the restoration of his soul in the last scene of the season. Still others are upset over the oppressively dark tone of the past season, or the fact that a series which stood for five years as a champion of female empowerment became more like a symbol of female degradation instead. Angel viewers, meanwhile, have their own problems to worry about.
Should Mutant Enemy have seen this coming? Well, take a look at what Joss Whedon had to say in his September 2001 interview with The Onion, when he was asked whether the dedication of his fans put any extra pressure on him:
Is this the same person who is now defending his right to tell his narrative at the cost of everything else? If so, then what happened? We may never know for sure.
For three essays now I've tried to show how the death of Tara illustrates the need for a writer to maintain a sense of responsibility toward the audience, and toward society as a whole. Writers who succeed do so because they're able to form relationships with their audiences. Relationships can't work if they're one-sided - neither the writer nor the audience can have total domination over the other. Relationships are based on trust, and without it they fall apart.
Look at Mutant Enemy's track record, and you'll see what happens when trust disappears. If no relationship ever turns out well, if no character is ever safe from death or emotional destruction, if no promising future ever comes to pass, and no assurances from the writers and producers can ever be believed, what reason do people have to invest their emotions in the show? Today the Willow/Tara fans are in mourning - whose turn will it be tomorrow? Yesterday Mutant Enemy was lying to the Willow/Tara fans - who are they lying to today? If Joss identifies someone as "a big part of the heart of the show" - as he labeled Amber Benson last year and has labeled Charisma Carpenter more recently - is that a sign of good things for that actor's character, or a sign that you'll soon be hearing how much that actor will be missed and how much it hurt everyone at Mutant Enemy to let that actor go?
Speaking of which, Amber Benson appears to be moving on with her life quite nicely these days. Her movie Chance will be a part of the Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival in Birmingham AL in September. When asked about Buffy by the Birmingham News, she remarked, "That's three years of my life, kind of over, but it's exciting to go on to new things." Joss has said she'll be back on the show in a different role this coming season, but all Amber has said on the subject is, "I don't know, and even if I did, I still couldn't tell you."
In time, the Willow/Tara fans will also move on. New things in their lives will demand their attention, as things always do. Sooner or later, someone else in Hollywood will attempt to put another same-sex relationship on TV. Let's hope it's someone who not only gives the relationship a good and realistic beginning, as Joss did, but also has the courage and conviction to remain faithful to an audience that has such an enormous need to be reflected in our popular culture along with everyone else.
And what of Joss and his team at Mutant Enemy? As always, what they do with their stories is completely up to them. I just hope they learn a few things while they still have an audience that's willing to pay them any attention.
Robert A. Black has the distinction of being the only writer who ever got to drop green slime on Alanis Morrisette. He never imagined that a straight white man would have so much to say about lesbians.
------------------------------------------------
"A man who fails well is greater than one who succeeds badly" - Thomas Merton
Points to ponder as the new TV season approaches
I promise, I really am going to stop writing these things. The summer is almost over, the new TV season is about to begin, and I have other things in my life I need to be doing. I thought the issue of Tara's death last season on Buffy the Vampire Slayer was about to run its course. Slayage.com had even stopped posting links to articles on the subject.
Nevertheless, I'm continuing to receive emails responding both to the three essays I've written on the subject and to my recent review of the pilot for Firefly. On top of that, Slayage.com reversed itself and posted a link to a new article, with the title "Misrepresentations. Misunderstandings. Slurs and allegations." It's an interesting title, because while the article does made some reasonable points, it also contains exactly what it says - misrepresentations, misunderstandings, slurs and allegations. In this case, directed toward me. It's all made me think a bit more about the relationship between Mutant Enemy and the fans in general.
Misrepresentations, misunderstandings, slurs and allegations
Let's look at the rebuttal article, which was written by someone calling herself "Ang." It covers pretty much the same ground as the emails I've been receiving, and it's laid out well enough that we can explore all the issues in turn. As I said, the article does make some reasonable points, but in some cases it does so by refuting a point that I didn't actually make, and in other cases it does so by ignoring evidence, even when that evidence is in plain sight.
Ms. Ang breaks down her primary argument along three lines. Let's examine each in turn.
1) Killing Tara was an act of homophobia
The first issue of the essay is whether or not we can accuse Mutant Enemy of being homophobic because they killed Tara. Ms. Ang claims that people are reading my essays and reaching the conclusion that I'm making that very accusation, even if it's not what I intend. Specifically, she writes:
But let's look at what I actually said. Two perfect examples are quoted by Ms. Ang herself:
"Like Warren shooting Tara, Mutant Enemy did their damage by accident - but that doesn't change the fact that damage was done."
I've been very careful throughout my essays to make sure that what I said wouldn't be seen as a claim that anyone at Mutant Enemy was homophobic. Why? Because I don't believe that anyone at Mutant Enemy was homophobic. I never have. I believe they were careless and irresponsible by not paying attention to the consequences of what they were doing, and I made every effort to stress that point. The first words you see in the title of my first essay are "It's not homophobia." How much more clear can I get?
It's one thing to send a message unintentionally, and I have no doubt that I'm capable of sending such messages myself. But it's something else entirely when readers draw a different conclusion by ignoring part of what's written on the page. Imagine I was writing something about animals and I said, "Cats and dogs both have four feet, but that doesn't mean they're exactly the same." Would it make sense for someone to ignore the second half of my sentence and claim that I was saying cats and dogs were exactly the same? Of course not. And along those same lines, I don't appreciate being accused of saying the people at Mutant Enemy are homophobic when I very clearly and frequently said they weren't.
2) Killing Tara was socially irresponsible
Ms. Ang believes that individual artists are not responsible for the actions of anonymous viewers, a claim I've also heard from many others. She points out that:
She's right - but is that really a valid comparison? I've never seen The Matrix, but I highly doubt that Keanu Reeves used that movie as a means of telling kids to go shoot up their high schools. I know for a fact that Jodie Foster never told anybody to go kill a President for her. Joss Whedon, on the other hand, did tell the audience - loudly and repeatedly - how important the Willow/Tara relationship was, how the whole point of Buffy was to be inclusive to people who felt excluded, like gay teens, and so on.
Let's take another comparison Ms. Ang makes:
Again, she's right - but again, is the comparison valid? Her neighbor might have decided to hate the government without Oliver Stone's help, but as someone who hates the government, her neighbor might look to Oliver Stone as a sympathetic figure, perhaps even as a champion for the cause of hating the government. Imagine what would happen if Oliver Stone's next movie had a very pro-government message - a story where a group of CIA assassins were the heroes, for example. Suppose Oliver Stone gave an interview where he said, "The needs of the story required me to trust the government. I treated the CIA hitmen as individuals, not as government workers. Besides, hating the government is so passé. I'm over that." Wouldn't Ms. Ang's neighbor feel like Oliver Stone had become a traitor to the cause?
In the same way, Mutant Enemy set themselves up as sympathetic figures in the eyes of viewers who believe in the cause of gay rights. You could even say they set themselves up as champions for that cause. And when they took back everything they had said before, they left those viewers feeling betrayed.
Ms. Ang then goes on to raise another point:
This line of argument makes a couple of highly dubious assumptions.
First, it assumes that continuing the Willow/Tara relationship and "major Willow drama" were mutually exclusive - that the couple had to be "perfectly happy" in order to be acceptable on the show. I've said several times now that the Dark Magic Willow story could have been achieved in a way that didn't require Tara's death (and I'll do so again in a few moments). But even if you don't believe me, I would think the brain-sucking story arc from Season 5 was all the proof you'd need that the Willow/Tara relationship and "major Willow drama" were capable of coexisting.
Second, it assumes that the only people who cared about the Willow/Tara relationship were lesbians. I myself am living proof to the contrary (unless your definition of "lesbian" includes the Riley Finn sense of the word, at any rate). Fans of Willow and Tara include both men and women, both gay and straight. Willow and Tara were voted "Best Couple" in this year's "Golden Fang Awards" at The Succubus Club. The gay and lesbian fans may have been the ones who benefited directly in social terms from the portrayal of Willow and Tara, but that didn't mean others couldn't appreciate it or enjoy it.
There's another message here as well. Ms. Ang is telling us that Joss was right to kill off Tara because an overwhelming majority of the audience was heterosexual. In other words, if you're in the minority you can't expect to have your viewpoint expressed. Majority rules, period.
Once upon a time, the idea that African-Americans shouldn't be kept as slaves was a minority viewpoint - but that didn't stop Harriet Beecher Stowe from writing Uncle Tom's Cabin. Once upon a time, the idea that we should be careful not to destroy the environment with dangerous chemicals like DDT was a minority viewpoint - but that didn't stop Rachel Carson from writing Silent Spring. The idea that war is a bad thing is always a minority viewpoint somewhere in the world - but that didn't stop Erich Maria Remarque from writing All Quiet on the Western Front or Nevil Shute from writing On the Beach.
Social change never starts out as the majority viewpoint. Most often it starts when people have the courage to stand up and say, "I know this idea is popular, but I think it's wrong." With Willow and Tara, Mutant Enemy appeared to be saying that very thing about the way our society tries to render gay people, and especially gay couples, invisible - but then they took it all back.
I'm not trying to suggest that anyone at Mutant Enemy ever intended to be a social crusader along the lines of Harriet Beecher Stowe or Rachel Carson, but their words and actions certainly indicated that they at least cared a little about their gay viewers. But if they thought depicting a realistic same-sex relationship was important, then why did they destroy the one they had? And if they didn't think the inclusion of homosexuals was important, then why did they spend over two years telling everyone that it was?
Next, Ms. Ang had this to say about the feasibility of being "socially responsible" at all:
As a writer myself, let me first point out that if you want to create a masterpiece, the surest way to fail is to think about whether or not you're creating a masterpiece. And regardless of what the writer tries, whether or not a work is considered a masterpiece is really something for history to decide. Lewis Carroll, author of Alice In Wonderland, considered Sylvie and Bruno to be his masterpiece, but obviously history hasn't agreed with him (which is too bad, really, because the book has some very interesting things in it).
Secondly, what Ms. Ang is saying here is merely a rhetorical tactic, inflating the idea of "social responsibility" to its extreme and then attacking the overblown phantom instead of the actual point. Nobody expects Joss Whedon or anybody else to create something with "a perfect mix of every ethnicity, sexuality and possible handicap." Nobody expects a single writer to address and solve all of the world's social problems. But writers can decide to address some social problems that have meaning and value to them. Once they've done that, it's reasonable to expect them to stand by the choices they've made, especially if they've been particularly vocal about those choices in public and in the media. Rachel Carson didn't write Silent Spring and then go out to spray her garden with DDT. Gene Roddenberry didn't portray Lieutenant Uhura as an equal in one episode and then have her happily waiting on "Massah Kirk" hand and foot in the next. Similarly, all the Willow and Tara fans expected was for Joss Whedon to stand by his own words - not treat a same-sex couple with unprecedented sensitivity and respect but then turn around and toss them aside as callously as everyone else ever has.
And that brings us to the third point...
3) Killing Tara was an act of betrayal by Mutant Enemy
Ms. Ang's attempt to refute my claim that killing Tara was an act of betrayal rests primarily on one point:
This claim simply isn't true. Joss Whedon lied about Willow and Tara to E!Online, a website that has a much broader reach than just the Buffy community, and also to Out magazine, one of the most popular publications in the gay print media. When Marti Noxon boasted about the "naked sex scene" that was coming in "Seeing Red," she did so on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation. The lies spread much farther and much wider than just the places where only Buffy fans would think to look.
But even if Ms. Ang was right, so what? Is she suggesting that it's okay to lie as long as you don't spread your lies around very much? Most people who cheat on their spouses don't lie to a major media outlet about it - does that mean their spouses have no right to feel betrayed? If it does, then I imagine we can expect divorce court judges to start telling plaintiffs, "Sorry, I can't grant this divorce because your spouse didn't lie to enough people." Somehow, I doubt that's going to happen.
Ms. Ang then misquotes me in her attempt to refute my criticism of the lies Mutant Enemy told after Tara died. She writes:
A valid point - except for the small detail that it doesn't address what I actually said. Here's the original version of the misquoted sentence:
As you can see, I was talking about a completely different issue. I know perfectly well that a great many people thought Tara was just another character. I wasn't trying to say otherwise. What made Willow and Tara unique was the intensely personal manner in which some fans responded to the story. As far as we know, nobody sent Joss Whedon an engraved toolbox when Xander became a carpenter, but fans did send him an engraved "lesbian toaster" when Willow and Tara officially became a couple. And in the wake of Tara's death, Marti Noxon told The Advocate, "It's the first time that we've gotten public outcry where I really can't even read some of the letters, they hurt so much."
So now, just as before, Mutant Enemy acknowledges that the fan reaction was unique, and yet they still won't explain how they can justify the amount of pain they inflicted on fans who had far more than the normal amount of emotional and social investment in their story. Unfortunately for them, acting like the question isn't an issue is not going to make it go away.
Speaking of misquotations, Ms. Ang also accused me of taking a Joss Whedon quote out of context. She writes:
She cites the Joss quote, "The gay thing is so passé. We're over that," as her example, pointing out that it was actually part of one line in a much longer humor-filled post. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit myself to the one relevant line:
I'm often amazed by the widespread belief that a person can say the most hurtful things imaginable and get away with it by adding, "I was just joking!" Jokes can hurt just as much as insults - perhaps more, because the targets of such jokes are expected to repress their hurts, be "good sports" and laugh along. But it rarely works that way. Just ask anyone who grew up in a household or school environment where they were a frequent target of such "humor."
Let's look at Joss's "joke" in this instance. The punch line is his revelation that he's talking about Clem, which means we were supposed to be thinking about someone else when he said, "The gay thing is so passé." Who could that be other than Willow and Tara? So not only are Willow and Tara fans supposed to swallow the pain of Joss's betrayal for the sake of "the narrative," but they're also supposed to be "good sports" and laugh along with his insults.
Even if you don't want to believe that Joss was trying to hurt the fans grieving over Willow and Tara, this "joke" is still one more example of his ongoing insensitivity - another instance where he was completely clueless about the effect his words were having. He may or may not have intended the line to be a reference to Tara, but the fact remains that people took it that way. I would have expected him to know better.
Ratings - Truth and Spin
After her three main points, Ms. Ang presents a series of tables that claim to show that Buffy hasn't been suffering in the ratings as a result of their most recent season. I know other people who can generate tables of numbers that are just as impressive and paint an entirely different picture. Rather than hash through them, though, let's look at what others have said about those numbers:
"In what must be a most satisfying result for executives of The WB, its season finales of Gilmore Girls and Smallville outpointed back-to-back episodes of UPN's Buffy the Vampire Slayer by a ratings average of 29 percent." - The Salt Lake Tribune, May 23 2002
"...in the 8 p.m. hour, a repeat of the WB's should-be-Emmy nominated Gilmore Girls scored a respectable (and fifth place) 3.4/ 5 -- 62 percent above a repeat of UPN's Buffy (#6, 2.1/ 3). Stop smiling WB!" - Media Week, June 5 2002
"Buffy and Angel fell so far that even with shows like Roswell, Wolf Lake and Alias gone (Alias only temporarily) they could not break the genre top ten. Angel only took in 1.7 million viewers with its first rerun." - Cinescape, June 11 2002
These articles and others like it seem to indicate that the ratings have been more along the lines of what I described in my previous article, not what Ms. Ang described in her rebuttal.
Finally, Ms. Ang compared the Summer 2001 ratings against the Summer 2002 ratings to show that there has been no change during the rerun season. What she fails to take into account, however, is that during the summer of 2001, Buffy had already been picked up by UPN, and consequently the WB was moving their final airings of the show all over the schedule. This summer the show has not only remained in its usual timeslot, but it has also been placed in the 9pm Wednesday slot following the higher-rated Enterprise. Last summer the WB gave their Buffy reruns no promotion at all, while this summer UPN has not only created new commercials (including a very curious one for "Normal Again" which tries to depict the episode as some kind of zany comedy), but has also tried using tie-ins to the movie Blue Crush and the pop group N*Sync to boost ratings. Yet the ratings have been no better, and in many cases they've been much worse.
One more thing about the summer rerun ratings - a number of people have emailed me to claim that the low numbers don't count, because after all they're only for reruns. But remember that Hollywood depends on the audience's willingness to watch a show repeatedly. There's money to be made in the reruns on FX, syndicated reruns on local TV stations and DVD sales - but if viewers aren't even willing to tune in for a second broadcast on UPN, the prospects for all those other avenues aren't good.
I suppose there's also a possibility that people are watching their own tapes of Season 6 instead of watching UPN - but why would that be going on any more this summer than any other summer? If that was all that accounted for the low summer reruns, the ratings for the previous summers would have been just as low - but that's not what the numbers say.
"The Narrative" revisited
Ms. Ang concludes her rebuttal by saying this about me:
There's an implication here - Joss chose this path and therefore it's automatically the best - but I'll get to that in a minute. First, I want to explore a hypothesis or two on other ways to make Willow evil.
I'll start by pointing out that Joss's own method introduces a large inconsistency into the story, namely Willow's reasons for using magic and the effect magic had on her. Before "Wrecked," magic was never depicted as a metaphor for addictive drugs. Willow was never shown going to a magical crack house or performing spells for the sole purpose of feeling high. Magic was a challenge that gave her a feeling of accomplishment. It allowed her to become a vital part of Buffy's fight against evil. And eventually it became a crutch that she used to shortcut her way through the rough patches of life.
What if Joss had kept that initial depiction of magic? What would Season 6 have looked like? For about the first third of the season, it wouldn't have been all that different. Perhaps, though, we might have seen the beginnings of some friction between Buffy and Willow. After all, Willow had been in charge of the Scooby Gang for months, and there was Buffy moping around instead of taking the leadership role back. Perhaps Willow would have tried to step in - just to help until Buffy was back on her feet, of course. Perhaps she would have used magic to make up for the fact that she didn't have Slayer strength. The forget-spell on Tara would still have occurred. Tara would still have left in "Tabula Rasa." Being socially responsible doesn't mean a couple can't have problems or temporary estrangements.
Around the time of "Smashed" or "Wrecked," instead of seeing Willow turn into a crackhead, we might have seen the friction between her and Buffy become more open and deliberate. Instead of trying to help Buffy, perhaps Willow might have begun to feel like she could replace Buffy. Perhaps Willow might have seen the attempts to reduce her magic use as a threat, an attempt to remove her from being in charge. Perhaps she wouldn't have wanted to give up being in charge, because perhaps she felt like her magical methods really were the best way to go about fighting evil.
Around the time of the February sweeps, the strained relationships between Willow and the other Scoobies could have reached a breaking point. Perhaps a crisis would have come up - possibly involving the three nerds - in which Willow thought the only solution required her to delve even deeper into dark magic. Perhaps Buffy would have objected, and Willow would have angrily done it anyway. And in that moment, perhaps something would have happened to bring about Dark Magic Willow.
Think about it. Dark Magic Willow appearing during the February sweeps. Not with a mere three episodes remaining in the season, but with roughly one-third of the season still to go, with agonizingly long stretches of reruns before the conclusion. That's how long Angel got to be evil in Season 2, after all. Think of what Dark Magic Willow could have done with all that time. Perhaps she would have killed all the nerds, or taken them over and made them her henchmen. Imagine the irony of having Warren the misogynist bowing down to her instead of being flayed alive by her. He could still have died eventually - a victim of his own resentment over being controlled by a woman - but it wouldn't have been necessary. Perhaps Willow would have kept Amy around as well. Perhaps Willow would have made little "adjustments" to her, changing her hair color or her personality to resemble Tara, the lover she had lost and still missed. Imagine what Alyson Hannigan could have done with a part like that.
Meanwhile, Buffy would have been faced with the task of figuring out what to do. Fight Willow? Join her? Bring her back? Instead of moping around until some miraculous unmotivated revelation in the last five minutes of the finale, she would have been forced to come out of her depression in order to meet the challenge. And what about Spike? Buffy could still have been sleeping with him - perhaps his attempts to have her join him as a "creature of the dark" would have prompted him to argue with her about what she should do, or even about whether or not Dark Magic Willow was right. Buffy and Spike could have had a relationship that was about more than the alternating cycles of violent sex and sexy violence that we ended up seeing.
And Tara? Sooner or later, Buffy would have needed a magic expert to counter Willow's powers. The fact that Tara wasn't as powerful would have added suspense and drama to the story. The fact that Dark Magic Willow might have turned on Tara would have added even more suspense and drama. But none of that would have required Tara to die. In fact, Tara's presence when Dark Magic Willow was ultimately defeated could have been the thing that began Willow's healing process, and her eventual return to the Scooby Gang.
So there you have it - a way to achieve Dark Magic Willow without killing Tara. A way to give Joss Whedon the "cool" Dark Phoenix imitation he wanted while being socially responsible at the same time. Would it have been better than what we saw? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But aren't you at least a little sorry that we'll never get to find out?
Sparks from a Firefly
I'm going to digress for a moment now and talk about my review of the pilot for Firefly. Trust me, I have my reasons and they'll become apparent when I wrap everything up.
Some people who commented on my review were unhappy with the way my feelings about Mutant Enemy in general colored what I wrote. I'm unfairly biased against Firefly, they claim, because of the way I feel about what happened to Willow and Tara. Some have told me that I couldn't possibly be more wrong - they think Joss has been doing a great job with all his shows, and they're eagerly waiting to see Firefly as well.
But wait a minute. Isn't that what I said in the review? My conclusion was:
Doesn't that match what these people told me? If so, then in what way am I wrong?
Believe it or not, my review of Firefly was much more even-handed than I'd expected it to be. A lot of people, in fact, were expecting me to give it a full-on Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment - but I honestly thought the show deserved better. My primary complaint was personal and had to do with my feelings toward Mutant Enemy in general, and I freely admitted that.
And even if I hadn't felt the way I do about Mutant Enemy, that still doesn't mean I would have given Firefly a glowing review. Remember, this is the episode the executives at FOX turned down, and they probably don't even know who Willow and Tara are. The pace of the show really is dreadfully slow at times. The Western motif really does annoy me. Making the main character a nihilistic anti-hero would be a risky venture under any circumstances. Besides all that, it's a pilot episode, and pilot episodes rarely turn out to be masterpieces. I said some negative things in my review of the Birds of Prey pilot, too - and I liked that.
The Executive Producer's New Clothes
The reaction some people had to the Firefly review reminds me of what I've seen several times in emails to me or on various posting boards - the feeling that criticizing Joss Whedon at all is some sort of blasphemy. The simple fact that Joss Whedon made the Firefly pilot should somehow be reason enough for me to think of it as the greatest science fiction show ever. The simple fact that Joss Whedon thought killing Tara and turning Willow evil was the right thing to do should be reason enough for me to think it was the best possible choice that could have been made.
I feel a bit like the boy in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. You know the story, don't you? Two con men convince a vain emperor to buy a suit from them, made of a material so light and fine that people who are stupid or incompetent will think it's invisible. They end up taking his money and selling him nothing, but when the emperor starts parading around in his non-existent new outfit, everyone is too afraid of being thought of as stupid or incompetent to point out that he's actually walking around naked. Everyone, that is, except for one small boy who isn't worried about being thought of as stupid or incompetent and therefore says exactly what he sees.
That's how I feel, not just because of Willow and Tara, but because of the entire Buffy season in general. Emperor Joss has gotten himself a new suit - a suit woven with threads that turned female empowerment into female degradation, but where white men could walk away from their responsibilities or become attempted rapists yet could still be thought of as heroes. A suit that stitched sex and violence together and glamorized the pairing, but where a healthy relationship between two young women was sacrificed on the altar of a plot twist that played itself out in all of two weeks. Perhaps some are reluctant to call Joss's new suit what it is because they're afraid they'll no longer be thought of as "cool" - or as Ben Varkentine said at Ink19.com:
Mind you, I don't feel this way about everyone who disagrees with me on this issue. I know there are plenty of people out there with different but no less rational points of view, and I have no problem agreeing to disagree with them. It's just that generally speaking they aren't as noisy about their views, and so I sometimes feel like they've been overwhelmed by their more enthusiastic comrades.
And really, on one level I can even understand the noisier people. Joss Whedon and Buffy have meant a lot to me for a long time. You might even say I owe them my writing career. In 1996, after ten years of beating my head against the Hollywood wall, I finally admitted that they didn't want me, and realized that I didn't want them. I thought I had nowhere else to go. Then Buffy came a year later, and Buffy fan fiction became the training ground where I learned how to write prose instead of scripts. It was where I first put together a story that was as long as the novels I'm writing now.
Imagine how I felt, then, when the writer who had inspired me and brought my own craft back to life suddenly and inexplicably went in a direction that I felt was so horribly wrong. Could Joss really have gone so awry, or was it somehow my fault because I was no longer thinking "properly?" It was a question I had to answer. Why do you think I've written so much on this subject? Not just to see myself put pretty sentences together - if that's all I wanted to do, I have other things I could be writing that might actually get me paid someday. But since I first found out about Tara's death back in March, I've been wrestling with my own uncertainties, and making sure that what I thought was wrong actually was wrong. After all that, I'm now very very sure - and I don't care how much that detracts from my ability to look "cool."
In any event, ultimately how "cool" you or I or anyone else looks won't matter. The Nielsen boxes will determine Mutant Enemy's fate in the coming season, and as I said before, history will have the last word on Buffy or anything else Joss Whedon creates. I think I can finally live with that. I think I've finally said all there is for me to say.
Of course, I've thought that before - but I'm serious this time. Really. I mean it.
Robert A. Black has written three Young Adult novels in the past year, and is currently seeking publishers for them. By the time you read this, he should be hard at work on his fourth.
If you'd like to know more...
Below are some links to other pieces written on the subject of Willow and Tara:
The Lesbian Cliché FAQ at "The Kitten, The Witches and The Bad Wardrobe"
"I killed Tara": Desire and Death on Buffy - Pop Matters
Ceci n'est ce pas une lesbianne - Pop Matters
A Heinous Cliché Raises Its Ugly Head - Gay Today
Heterosexuality Wins - Camp Rehoboth
Rest in Peace - The Bunny Slayer
Lesbians, Where Art Thou? - scifidimensions
An Ode to the Death of Love - scifidimensions
The Death of Tara and "The Dead/Evil Lesbian Cliché" - Ink 19
I Know Why Willow Weeps - Hillary Clay
"Buffy" Not So Great at Slaying Stereotypes of Lesbian Relationships - AfterEllen.com
Killing Tara: The Demise of an Exceptional Lesbian Relationship on "Buffy" - AfterEllen.com
Television and the Threat of the Lesbian Action Hero - AfterEllen.com
------------------------------------------------
"A man who fails well is greater than one who succeeds badly" - Thomas Merton
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Tara and Willow
Accept NO subsitutes
I hope nobody minds me posting this - ie my motivations aren't to troll or anything, but I'm rather paranoid about being misunderstood... especially since I'm so new and unknown here.
I read a post on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer about a month ago that I thought raised an interesting point that might be answered in the FAQ. Basically the poster thought that, because the gay community is protesting so loudly, there's a risk that many writers will simply decide that they'll only use straight characters (in fact, straight white characters), as only then can they write without feeling the need to watch for anything offensive creeping in.
The actual post can be found here if you're interested.
But it's an interesting balancing act isn't it? On the one hand, you can't just sit back and do nothing when you think the media's portrayal of gay characters is wrong, but on the other, protest too loud and the writers decide not to have any gay characters at all, to avoid controversy.
--
10^57 varieties.
--------------------
Tara: "uh Willow?"
Willow: "No dancing naked, huh?...It just won't be the same."
Tara: "That's all right, we can save it for later" ----From Wilderness, the newest WT comic written by Amber Benson and Christopher Golden
--
10^57 varieties.
Ben Varkentine
"Any frontal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession."-Hendrik Van Loon
Quote:
It also assumes that all creative teams think straight audiences cannot be entertained and moved by, or identify with, a good storyline about characters different than themselves.
"O Let my name be in the Book of Love!
If it be there I care not of that other Book above.
Strike it out! Or write it in anew, but
Let my name be in the Book of Love!"
--Omar Kayam
Quote:
Even hip teen drama, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, now has the previously-straight Willow in a full-on lesbian relationship with a fellow witch.
Quote:
"Peace, when it comes--if it comes--will arrive not because of treaties or alliances, nor by the fear of vast armies or the advantage of trade. Peace, should it ever truly be achieved, shall arrive by a change in the hearts of men. In this great endeavor, the teller of tales and the singer of songs holds more power than all the kings and potentates of the earth."
Peace, if it ever exists, will not be based on the fear of war but on the love of peace. It will not be the abstaining from an act, but the coming of a state of mind. In this sense the most insignificant writer can serve peace, where the most powerful tribunals can do nothing.
"O Let my name be in the Book of Love!
If it be there I care not of that other Book above.
Strike it out! Or write it in anew, but
Let my name be in the Book of Love!"
--Omar Kayam
Quote:
Steve DeKnight says:
(Sun Oct 13 04:31:20 2002) [Edit/Delete]
Time out for a more serious note.
Drlloyd11: I’ve said this in the past and I can’t emphasize it enough: I deeply regret that I hurt anyone’s feelings with my ill-conceived Succubus Club interview. I was very tense over the whole Tara issue and pre-show fan backlash, and tried to defuse the situation with admittedly inappropriate humor. I’m a man that can admit his mistakes, and I don’t mind apologizing repeatedly when I blunder into a big one.
I took the writing of the Willow and Tara arc very seriously. Being able to write a loving, realistic relationship between two people who just happened to be the same sex was an honor and a privilege, and one I hope to repeat frequently if I’m ever lucky enough to helm my own show. I think nothing can promote tolerance and understanding more than showing this kind of relationship as normal and compassionate, just like any other.
That being said, I still support Joss’ decision to do what he did in order to tell the story he wanted to. If I had my way, would Tara have died? Of course not. It was a beautiful relationship and I was sorry to see it end in such a violent, tragic manner. But the Jossverse is built on a bedrock of pain and suffering, and this is how it played out.
Finally, I’d like to ask the rest of the Bronzers not to attack drllody11 or anyone else who’s upset with me for my lapse of sanity and compassion on the Succubus Club. After much reflection, I can honestly say they have every right be. My sincerest apologies to anyone I inadvertently hurt. I only hope you’ll give me the opportunity to make it up to you in the future, in both words and deeds.
————––
"There's a whole lot of singing that's never gonna be heard
Disappearing everyday without so much as a word somehow"
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Tara and Willow
Accept NO subsitutes
Tara or nothing.>
Tara & Willow Love Forever
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Tara and Willow
Accept NO subsitutes
Lost in Ecstacy
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Tara and Willow
Accept NO subsitutes
Ben Varkentine
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."--Dorothy Parker
She's my everything
--------
"And nobody wants to hear this tale. The plot is cliched and the jokes are stale. And baby we've all heard it all before." Invisible Ink by Aimee Mann
"And never let it be said that I left a Tara craving unsatisfied." Willow, Wilderness Pt. 1
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests