Defining Characteristics (including my Stupidity)--SPOILERS

[danspector@xxxxxxxxx]

Taking blinviz's excerpt from my previous spoiler post and putting it
back behind some spoiler space:

(warning, contains SPOILERS that I haven't yet discussed in this thread)

I

hate

myself

and 

want 

to

die

(well,

maybe

not)


On the "defining characteristic" issue, I think Willow has always been
defined by her personality. I know blinviz was probably looking for a
specific aspect of her personality, but I don't want to go that deep on
this analysis.

Willow's personality made her Buffy's best friend (because she had the
personality before she had the best friend status). It's possible you
could say she's changed because of Buffy (she's certainly not so overtly
shy these days), which would make the friendship (and underlying love)
her defining characteristic, but I think her personality was what caused
the friendship, so any changes the friendship may have wrought on the
personality are because of the personality itself, so it remains the
defining characteristic.

But magic (and lesbianism) are distant runners up. Willow's not Buffy's
best friend because she's a witch, she's a witch because she's Buffy's
best friend. She doesn't want to help (even need to help) because she
has power, she sought power because she wanted to/needed to help.

OTOH, Angel's defining characteristic is that he's a vampire. Not his
personality (which was essentially created by the Romany as a means of
penance for his crimes), not his mission in life (which springs from his
unique vamp-with-soul nature), not his relationship with Buffy (she
never knew him as a human, even the early attraction was based on
behaviors that he exhibited because he was a vamp and she was The
Slayer, and every turn in their relationship was about his fangs).

A digression here, while I talk about how having a thirst for detail in
the Information Age can totally fuck up the best plans of the would-be
spoiler-free:

So, I'm watching "Dead Man's Party", and I think "boy, that guy playing
the stoner dude totally blows and he's WAY too old for the part". 
So, I decide to see how old he is. I check the end credits for his name
(Chris Garnant) and it's off to IMDb.

Weirdly, though, he isn't listed there (and they list EVERYBODY). So I
decide to check by the episode, since maybe IMDb has him under another
name or there was a typo in the credits or something.

So I type in Jason Hall (Devon), get a list of his credits, click on
"Dead Man's Party", and get a general series list. 

"Darn!" I think, but I decide to scroll down, since some series, they
end up listing EVERYBODY who ever said a line.

Going past the main credits and I notice that Amber Benson's credit
reads "Tara Maclay (1999-2002)". I think, "hmm, Tara's not dead yet,
but IMDb's already got her buried," since I noticed that not-dying
characters are listed like this "Dawn Summers (2000- )".

Now a smarter man would have recognized the spoiler potential and ran
for his life, but I am stupider than a pile of dog turds lying in the
road that have been run over by a semi-, so I kept on my Chris Garnant
quest, not thinking who's likely to be right below "Amber Benson" when
it comes to the alphabetical listing of recurring guest stars.

Yep. Adam Busch. "Warren Meers (2001-2002)". Bye-bye Warren. Way to
go, Dan, you enormous asshole.

Then, just to compound the idiocy, I read the fb to my Spoiler post
(which I never should have made, and arguably shouldn't send this reply
to), and after taking in thoth's kind words (thanks!) and blinviz's
request for elucidation, I decide to peek at Mad-hamlet's reply, out
respect (for his using his limited comp time on this subject),
curiousity (because he tends to make very good observations), and a
stupid belief that I can stop reading if need be. Well, no new spoilers
there (and an interesting viewpoint), so on to Kirayoshi, who mostly
seems to be commenting on M-h's, so I'm safe...

...except that I'm not. "Willow kills Warren", which is only logical,
but I hadn't taken that logical extension of the "Warren dies/leaves"
clue I'd gotten earlier. NO blame to 'yoshi here, I'm just really,
really, really dumb.

(and on top of that, I know how many eps the Trio's contract runs, so I
pretty much know what eps I've spoiled myself for.)

Anyway, to my mind, if it's an accident/mind control/self-defense,
that's one thing, but deliberate decision to end another life is
another, no matter the emotional provocation. I have to disagree with
Mad-hamlet here: to make the decision that you get to decide whether
people live or die is an enormous arrogation of power to yourself, and
represents crossing a fundamental line. Really, if that's not a
changing of a person's character, what is?

I won't go into everything Angel said to Faith in "Consequences" and
"Five by Five" here, but it would naturally apply. And since we already
have Angel and Faith, I have no desire to see the gentlest, tenderest,
most optimistic, most trusting character on the show be moved into their
slot.

As I said back in October, it would not only undercut our emotional
investment in Willow, but in essential human decency, which is what she
represents on the show. Replacing Willow with Dawn (as the protected
innocent, reason for Buffy to fight, etc.) wouldn't work, because if
Willow could be corrupted, why not Dawn? And if nobody is worth
protecting, because anybody will cross a line given enough of a push,
why the hell should Buffy fight? Take away the concept that humans can
be good people, no matter what life throws at them, and all Buffy's
doing is fighting for her own self-preservation. Boring. Pointless.
We're not Buffy, so we don't care if she lives, unless her life and
struggle mean Something More.

If Buffy only fights for herself, then she's not a hero, she's just a
successful animal. I've got the Discovery Channel, if that's what I
want.

And let me say, that if Willow has no moral absolutes, nothing she
wouldn't do if she was sufficiently provoked, then she's boring.
Because she's merely a prop. She'll be good until the writers give her
something to be not-good about. OTOH, seeing Willow seeking to
reconcile her grief over Tara's death and her inability to kill Warren
in retaliation is interesting. How do you cope when you can't get
revenge?

Returning to the "defining characteristic" issue, making Willow a
murderer would make "murder" her defining charactertistic. Any future
situation would no longer be about "what will Willow, given what we know
about her personality [gentle, loving, optimistic, naive, devoted to
Buffy, won't do anything evil] do in this situation?"

No, instead the question becomes "is this situation going to make Willow
kill again?" All her decisions essentially become kill/not kill
decisions, and she's reduced to the role of the woman in the old joke:

Man: Sleep with me?
Woman: No.
Man: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman: Well, okay.
Man: Would you sleep with me for five dollars?
Woman: NO! What do you think I am?
Man: We've established what you are. Now we're negotiating the price.

The moral absolute does not limit Willow (or any character), it forces
her to think in terms other than mere violence. Give her unlimited
power and no moral restraints, and the only decisions in her life amount
to "dotting the i's"--"okay, I'll kill Warren, but I won't kill Andrew.
Or maybe I will, if I feel like it." Very one-dimensional. 

On a side note, what the hell does it say about Buffy if she ignores
Willow for six years and only falls for her once Willow commits an
irreversible sin? Why the hell should we support that as a romantic
choice? Or care about someone who makes it?

And now, having raised all these issues, let me be a total prick and
shut this entire thread down. NO REPLIES, PLEASE. Since I've
demonstrated that I'm too weak and stupid and clumsy and thoughtless to
avoid spoilage.

I realize this is unfair, and jerk-like. Therefore I am an unfair jerk.
So be it.

Dan

Who still doesn't know how old Chris Garnant is