the author felt the need to state his distate for spuffy in the prologue, prompting me to worry about his ability to objectively discuss/analyze the show. and, yeah. this book would’ve been better in the hands of someone who had that ability. which is disappointing because pop culture related nonfiction is a favorite obscure genre of mine.
content/trigger warnings; discussions/mentions of sex, sexual assault/rape, physical violence, domestic violence, child abuse, infidelity, addiction, homophobia, lesbophobia, racism, sexism, misogyny, workplace abuse,
i’m sure there are people who are curious, so: alyson hannigan, michelle trachtenburg, david boreanez, eliza dushku, writer marti noxon, and joss whedon did not interview for this book.
overall it kind of feels like the book doesn’t know what is is. a cast/crew tell all? critical analysis from famous and quasi-famous fans? recap? summary of the fall of joss whedon? love letter to sarah michelle gellar? outlet for the author’s obsession? there are aspects to all of those, but some more than others and none of them are really done well.
it’s disorganized to say the least; we jump back and forth between topics, rehash topics that have already entire chapters dedicated to them, and so many times topics are mentioned early on only for the author to say “but more on that later”.
when it comes to the actual interviews, it would’ve been so much better if what the interviewees had to say was just left to stand on its own, but the author cuts and pastes, paraphrases, conceals parts of what they said, and interjects his own opinions and interpretations of their words/tones.
the book is longer than it needs to be because the majority of it is just different ways of saying the same things; loving and hating joss whedon, being positively and negatively affected by being part of the show, and how groundbreaking and regressive the show was.
now let’s talk about the author before getting into show related stuff. the author might be a super passionate fan of btvs, but he is unable to be objective or fair in his coverage. he literally says “ugh, is my bias showing?” at one point.
one reviewer said they feel the author’s opinions “left little room for the other side of the fanbase who loved the things he didn’t” and yeah, that. he spends most time on the characters, actors, relationships, and seasons that he likes and fails to criticize them at all. and when he talks about the characters, actors, relationships, and seasons that he doesn’t like, he skims over the good and focuses on the bad.
he mocks fans who ask people “bangel or spuffy” as if they’re lesser than fans for caring about that, yet makes his choice clear and asks everyone which one they prefer. he also refers to people as “real fans”. he makes snide commentary on some people’s opinions/quotes if he disagrees with them.
he is so bitter than writer marti noxon ignored all of his attempts to get in touch with her to interview her that he makes multiple rude comments about her, dismisses her support for the women who spoke out about joss whedon by saying “she had very little to say” and “a week later she was tweeting about sniffing tupperware”, and then asks other people for their opinion on her, hoping to hear something negative.
he emailed people who never responded multiple times, repeatedly asked people after they declined, went through various channels including other cast members in order to get people to interview. and i get that he wanted the book to be “complete” but it comes off a bit like he harassed these people a bit. (he seemed to be proud that kim cattrall blocked him on twitter for, you guessed it, constantly bombarding her with questions.)
at times he doesn’t press further out of supposed respect for what people are willing to share, but other times he does press and even prompts the information he wants by masking his intent in seemingly innocent responses. it comes off as if he’s trying to protect/secure personal relationships with some, but not caring about the rest.
he notes several times that the accusations against several abusers “have not been proven” and the abusers “have denied/not admitted to this behavior” and it feels slimy.
and now onto the rest. i’m really disappointed by the commentary on the queer representation of btvs. it is entirely uncritical praise, not even in hindsight. first, folks just wax poetic about how super duper queer the show is. to me, that feels like giving credit where it isn’t due. i’m not saying willow/tara wasn’t important or groundbreaking at the time. i’m saying don’t overstate the queerness of the show, don’t praise the show for things aren’t explicit queer representation/conversations, but interpretations and subtext.
i’m saying we should be able to look back on a show that was important in its time through today’s lens and see where it doesn’t hold up or could’ve been better. btvs might’ve eventually, temporarily had two queer leads, but in my opinion, that doesn’t make it a queer show. nor does having storylines that queer people are able to relate to their queerness (by that logic, uh, every show is a queer show?).
then the author boldly states that willow and tara were “hardly token gays”, that there are other “lgbtq+” characters on the show. aside from willow (cis white lesbian, lead, 144 episodes) and tara (cis white lesbian, recurring, 29 episodes; lead, 17 episodes, killed off), there are three other characters on the show who are said on screen to be queer. larry (cis white gay, guest, 5 episodes), scott (cis white gay, guest, 3 episodes), and kennedy (cis mexican lesbian, recurring, 13 episodes). i have to note that we only learn scott is gay through a season seven mentions of it.
(andrew, also a cis white gay recurring character in 28 episodes, isn’t confirmed canonically until the comics. and while buffy hooks up with a woman in the comics, she isn’t canonically queer.)
that’s it. that is all the canon queer rep in the show. that’s hardly a stunning selection of queer representation. you can’t boast about all the “lgbtq+” rep on the show when you take into consideration more than the number of characters. (not sure why 5 would be bragworthy anyways). all are cis, all but 1 are white, all are either gay or lesbian, and all but 2 are not important/notable characters. it’s not their existence that matters, it’s who they’re representing, how they’re treated and how important to the story they are. the discussion of the queer rep begins and ends with “this show is a win for the queers” which is shallow and lacking nuance. it’s a win for cis white lesbians, (to a degree, considering the “bury your gays” and “evil queer” tropes). it isn’t a win for queer people of other queer identities or marginalizations.
and that brings me into the next thing. it’s said a few times that the show got gender and sexuality right, but failed with race. and yeah, there were barely any characters of color, and the ones who did exist are stereotypes, sidelined, only in a few episodes, killed off, etc. remember what i said about more than the existence mattering? yeah. BUT. women, queer people, and people of color are not mutually exclusive groups that you can blanket succeed in representing one but not others. because they intersect, there are people who belong to two or all three groups. if you are only representing white queer women in any meaningful way, you are not representing women or queerness in any meaningful way. it’s really disappointing that this wasn’t acknowledged.
last main topic. spuffy. the way spuffy (and spike in general) is handled, or more accurately, not handled at all, is annoying. first, spike and spuffy are barely discussed, whereas other characters and relationships got a lot of focus. and the development of spike and spuffy are ignored completely. there are things spike did that he was condemned for by folks in this book, but other characters who also did those things weren’t. the bad aspects of spuffy were the focus of conversation, but the bad aspects of other relationships were never even mentioned. it just feels so unfair, not only to the fans of spike and spuffy, but to james, too. and it’s never once acknowledged that in season six, spuffy is MUTUALLY unhealthy, violent, and abusive. and i hate how hard people try to separate willow, xander, and angel from the evil they’ve done while “dark” and “possessed” and “soulless”, while spike is always just spike and they never wave away, downplay, or easily forgive the things he’s done while soulless once he gets his soul. at least be consistent.
other notes:
this book said justice for kendra, as it should
xander was a self-insert for joss whedon??? suddenly it makes sense
the work environment on btvs and joss whedon as a human being are truly horrifying
i have conflicting feelings about nicholas brendon. i feel for his struggles with mental illness, what he’s spoken about his childhood, and how hurt and sad he is over his nonexistent relationships with the cast. but at the same time, he was arrested for domestic violence twice, seems to be a joss whedon fanboy, and irt the accusations about joss whedon said people need to “grow a pair” and unless he’s “fingering your pussy like trump” it’s just “cancel culture and political correctness”. given that, it’s hard to understand why charisma carpenter is the only one he has a relationship with.
“spike, a character nearly as indelible in the series lore as its title star” god damn right
that said, i do think it was unnecessarily cruel of the author, who knew how hurt brendon was about being left out of cast events, to tell him that people didn’t want him to be included in this book
hearing james marsters talk about how emotionally and mentally affected by some of spike’s storylines/scenes had him, to the extent of curling up in the fetal position between takes, having dark thoughts, and going on medication for clinically depression, is so fucked up.
sarah michelle gellar made a super yikes comment about how because buffy is more powerful than spike that she could’ve stopped him when he tried to rape her but she didn’t so she must have let it happen
a gay writer for the show said killing tara wasn’t the “bury your gays” trope because he doesn’t know what the trope is. it’s not when a queer character is killed out of not knowing what to do with them and being relieved that the gay was gone, it’s when queer characters are killed off right as they’re getting their happy ending, disproportionate to the nonqueer characters.
“angel, in my opinion, is worse than those twilight fuckers. i’m not sure if i’m talking about david or angel at this point now.” god damn nicholas brendon has an axe to grind with david boreanez
the discussion about networks preventing and cutting same gender kisses......enraging
super weird section where fans of the show say they were grateful the accusations about joss whedon came after they had watched the show, because knowing those things would’ve ruined the show for them and idk about y’all but that seems like centering your enjoyment of a show over the abuse of real people
james marsters being so excited and proud of finally getting the willow/tara kiss was cute
james marsters said joss whedon only wrote the attempted rape scene because he was pissed off that fans loved spike (joss also backed james into a wall and threatened to fire him because fans loved him) and spuffy, so he wanted to prove to them out of spite that he was evil. james said joss took it too far with that scene, and even knowing that it negatively affected james, the author says he’s “adamant that it needed to devolve to attempted” rape. all around, what the fuck.
(can we talk about how joss whedon clearly took his frustration with his self-insert character not being the fan favorite out on james and spike, the actual fan favorite? because....)
people in this book, including the author and amber benson, erase and invalidate willow’s lesbianism, even while acknowledging she says she’s a lesbian on screen. to say willow is or should’ve been bisexual and that it’s bi erasure for a woman character who has been with men to develop feelings for a woman and realize she’s a lesbian without first “considering” bisexuality is lesbophobic. period. you can’t headcanon or interpret canon queer characters as other sexualities. that is what’s erasure and queerphobic.