Because I Couldn't Help Myself

[alixtii]

executrix liz_marcs linked to this debate over the canonicity of the Season 8 Comics and as much as I knew I should, I couldn't look away.

So far, I have wisely refrained from joining in, because why bother when you know the other person is incapable of listening? (Although I always have to wonder at people who treat the term "canon" as if it were transparent. We as fen invented the relevant sense of the word. Nobody uses it that way outside of our circles.)

I do want to point one thing out, though, here because my flist is capable of listening. Now, it doesn't matter what Joss Whedon says. We as fen define what is canon. But if we look at what he did say? He never said the comics were canon.

He said that he understood the comics to be canon, and he understood them that way because he was writing them.

You might argue that the difference in meaning is small, but I never assume that Joss Whedon doesn't know what he's doing when he is using language. He made a statement about how he saw the comics. He never, ever told us as fen whether we should consider them to be canon. And I don't think he would, other than a) ironically, or b) unthinkingly. Joss understands that "[w]hat may or may not have happened is entirely up to the viewer, that's what makes it art."

(And seriously, if I'm going to read Joss Whedon-penned comics, I want him to treat them as canon. That doesn't make them canon, but I want him to treat them that way.)

ETA: And liz_marcs is my hero all over again, as I read through the comments more fully. She and janedavitt bitchslap this guy into the next century.

ETA2: And I finally gave in and threw my hat into the ring:

Okay, if being able to quote Joss is the end-all of this debate...can you provide a cite for when he said the comics for canon. The case I'm aware of is a Whedonesque post where he stated that he understood them as canon and didn't say a word how we should react to them.

Other things Joss has said include "What may or may not have happened is entirely up to the viewer, that's what makes it art."

So if you're so high and mighty about being able to quote Joss, find me the quote where he's ever tried to force the way he sees the texts onto the fan audience. Not where he's just talking quickly or sloppily, but where he's saying "You have to believe this about Buffy, because I am Joss." I don't think you'll be able to do it.

And you know why? Because Joss Whedon understands theory better than you do.

ETA3: Actually, the whole exchange has me thinking about the fanboy/fangirl distinction I sometimes talk about with cathexys. This guy is so very much a fanboy. I can't help but think that his constant appeals to the Word of Joss and his inability to allow for any shades of grey in legitimate reader response somehow reveals an insecurity about his ability to exist outside of a hierarchical system--that he (unconsciously) sees fluidity of meaning as a challenge to his own position and power and privilege.

Sometimes I'm glad I'm a fangirl.

Comments

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Let the record reflect that I didn't link it--but when I saw my name, I clicked over and said, gee, this sure looks interesting but I don't have time to read it!

I like to simplify things by just worrying about what makes the best story, not what layer of canon or para-canon or deutero-canon as prescribed by what Septuagint anointed it.

However, I *do* think you should rent Brides of Christ.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Mostly it's just painful--although when he starts to get bitchslapped by Liz and by janedavitt it's quite fun. It turns out Liz is the one who linked it.

I added BoC to my Netflix queue. So five years from now it should be arriving in the mail.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

And, by jove, you'll be ready! I was awfully disappointed--I thought there were more episodes, but it turned out that Kim's just had two copies with different sleeves.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Heh. You make an excellent point in this post (and one I'm sorry I didn't think of). To give JW credit has never tried to make fandom come to heel with the way he thought things should be (although he's more than once said fandom "didn't get it" about certain things).

I had totally forgotten that additional statement about the comics, although that distinction may be too subtle for the individual wanking away. That's why I linked to an interview where JW said that different mediums would require different approaches, including retconning what have come before. Even that argument turned out to be a bit of a woosh.

The fact is, for the life of me, I can't figure out why it even matters in terms of the fandom sphere. It matters in the commercial sphere, certainly it does. However, even there the whole debate of dealing with comics!canon or not can be rendered null and void in a heartbeat based on any number of real-world issues and considerations.

Because comics!canon vs. television!canon vs. fanon is a false comparison in the realm of fandom. And somehow delegating whole classes of fanfiction (actually the majority of fanfiction from the looks of things) as being "lesser" because it doesn't take comics!canon into account strikes me as a rather stupid thing to do.

Furthermore, insisting that all fanfic writers in Buffy fandom must adhere to the way he thinks should be (warning for ignoring comics!canon) when the rest of fandom disagrees, and pitching a fit when it's pointed out that fandom disagrees and stating why fandom disagrees...I don't get it. We've had 10 years to deal with the television show, and the comics have existed for, what? Two months? Hello? I'm not saying that fandom won't change on this issue at some point (I doubt it will, but you never know if the comics run long enough), but that we all have to march in lockstep with one person's idea of How It Should Be boggles belief, especially given the democratic/anarchic nature of fandom.

What kills me about this wank is that no one is saying this guy is wrong, just that he's being an ass about insisting he's right and handwaving everyone's objections. The more he gets called on it, the more of an ass he's being. And yes, the wanka is male according to others who've dealt with him in other forums. Much as I hate to get all sexist, I'm starting to wonder if the whole male entitlement thing might be coming into play here, like he's gonna school all us little fangurls until we learn the error of our little fangurl ways and recognize his male genius. Or something.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Much as I hate to get all sexist, I'm starting to wonder if the whole male entitlement thing might be coming into play here, like he's gonna school all us little fangurls until we learn the error of our little fangurl ways and recognize his male genius. Or something.

I could even see him as what I'd call a female fanboy. I don't think that being what I'd call a fanboyish mode of engagement always required being an asshole (my best friend is a female fanboy), but I get the feeling there's some type of internalization of The Way Things Should Be, with the democratic/anarchic nature of fandom being felt as a threat--basically fandom's version of Phyllis Schafly.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm reading his treatment of Tara's death and comparing it in my mind to hederahelix's recent treatment of it in response to the SGA racism debate. And the privilege inherent in his perspective is just so grostequely apparent it's coming off in disgusting waves.

He's the sort of reason members of this community are automatically (and justifiably) suspicious of male fans.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

It's really the Kitten Wanksplosion that he caused that made me think "male privilege," especially considering his huge focus on how white males get killed in horribles all the time and no one cares about it. Which, hunh? I can't think of a more untrue statement. I remember the wanksplosions in Highlander and SG:1 when a beloved white male bought it.

Had it not been for his nasty takedown in that post (which apparently has a history if you click on the links he provides), I would've just put him down to an overeager fanboi on the order of the Simpsons comic shop guy.

I'm not automatically suspicious of male fans. Most of the ones on my FList tend to play nice with others. But when someone comes in and starts whining, "Who will think of the white males?" while failing to acknowledge that most of American genre television has lots and lots of white males, I can feel my blood pressure rise.

Although, a point in his favor, he does acknowledge that quite a few power-up Xander fics is an exercise in exerting male authority in the Buffy-verse. However, the way he says it coupled with his Kitten-bashing, kind of makes me skin crawl.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

Damn you, alixtii for linking this :)

And go, Liz, for being calm and reasonable while still kicking his ass!

Re fanboy: yes, I think that there's clearly fanboyish behavior at work where fanboy!=biomale and fangirl!=biofemale (I've always thought of Henry as a fangirl whereas Hills and Sandvoss et al are so obnoxiously clearly fanboys!!!)

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Awwww, thanks! I aim to amuse. *bows*

[bastardsnow.livejournal.com]

One other thing that nobody addressed in that forum, or at least that I didn't see anybody address, was the question of accessibility. It has been and remains true that literally millions more people have had access to Buffy the show than do Buffy the comic.

It seems to me logical that what should be accepted (generally) as canon for the vast majority of those who care should be what's most easily accessible. So, for seven years, better than two million people tuned in to watch Buffy and her escapades, etc.

If that many people bought the comics, then perhaps that might be something, but also if that were true, Dark Horse would overtake DC and Marvel in a matter of months.

As it is, the Buffy comic is selling extraordinarily well for a comic book, and that's still only 110,000 copies. Readership is maybe 50% more than that (at a rough guess, i haven't actually seen numbers on that, and don't even know if they track it, but I do know I have a number of friends who mooch off my comics, and that I'm not the only one who has that situation).

So if we're ridiculously generous and assume that the Buffy comics are read by twice as many people as buy copies of the comics, then at most you're talking about less than 10% of the people who routinely watched the show.

I can't see any way in which it makes sense to assume your read is part of that 10%, just from a numbers perspective.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

I remember in my newspaper days, each "copy sold" was counted as "4 people" for circulation purposes (the assumption being that a family of 4 would read the paper).

I don't know if that assumption holds true for comic books, but even if we're generous and say that the comic books have a paid readership of 110,000 people, but an "actual circulation" of 440,000 people, that's still way, way, way below the ratings for the lowest-rated episode of Buffy.

Even if circulation for the comic book climbs or stays steady, I somehow doubt it's ever going to match that lowest-rated Buffy episode. Once you toss in the availability of DVD and episodes on iTunes, well, it seems that the OP's stance is hella unreasonable.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

That was always a big deal of the issue for me. Buffy the TV series was provided free over the airwaves. Granted that I went on to buy all the DVDs, but I wasn't expected to buy sight unseen. By switching to the comics format Joss is suddenly asking for a financial sacrifice from his fans that he wasn't previously.

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

I haven't been involved in a good old canonicity debate since my LOTR days, and even then, there was strong consensus about the status of the Book of Lost Tales and such.

I'm not sure, therefore, why Whedon's statements about the comics should matter at all in whether fans consider them canon or not. As you said, the whole idea of the fandom canon is a fan-created concept that is relevant only to people who write fanfiction and meta. Whedon doesn't do that and he has no stake in it. (And frankly, I don't know why people get so fussed about what is or is not canon in the first place, but that's just me ...)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I understand the urge to define canon, because I felt it, but I'm not so sure it's a pretty urge--nowadays I see it more evidence of my inner fanboy trying to assert itself (and my inner fangirl just gives it the good bitchslap it needs).

[janedavitt.livejournal.com]

It was a fun little spat that livened up my Friday afternoon ::g::

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

And it certainly livened up my Saturday morning!

[mkcrl120.livejournal.com]

There was a lot that the original poster stated that I simply didn't understand.

One thing that got me is that given that the comics are only 2 issues in. Who could possibly be writing stories set in that virtual season 8 already... and hoping to stay consistent with whatever arcs Joss decides to use over the next 20-odd comics.

I reckon at best that writers using that setting might be using some of the more general aspects shown already (such as where the training schools are, and what people are where - but beyond that probably not really changing the story they were going to tell anyway) or more specific facts (I wouldn't be surprised if someone hadn't already at least considered writing the story of Dawn and the thricewise, and the details regarding either the sex itself or what happened as she started to increase in size - which of course becomes an AU if Joss decides to tackle any specifics of that himself in further arcs, which I for one would assume he might).

But we're simply too early on in this comic-verse for most writers to be considering tackling many aspects of it. That may change as more comics and (future) plot arcs/points become available or it might be totally discarded with writers prefering to have a greater set of Scooby-options available to them and not restricting their possible readership to those that have to have read the comics.

We simply won't know until we're a lot further into this Virtual Season 8.

It reminds me of people that have decided that what Andrew said in AtS season 5 had to be the truth. Why..? That's not strictly canon. That those happen to be the specific explanations that Andrew gave, and that Angel, Spike and co believed that Buffy and Dawn were in Rome is canon. But not the events themselves. So if I wanted to write a fic that was both post-Chosen and post-NFA, then as long as I explain why and how Andrew lied (or at least make some comment on it) then I can have the scoobs practically doing whatever the hell I want after leaving Sunnydale and not contradicting canon (I think the only other direct canon event is that we see Angel and Giles arguing on a phone over whether to help Fred or not).

I really don't get why anyone would want to restrict their potential reading list so much... if you don't like something cos it's not following canon closely enough, then why are you in the realm of fanfiction at all..?

I just don't get it.

Don't get me started on the whole putting everything into the summary so people can check if they want to read a fic or not. I've never understood summaries that give too much of the fic away - check anything that catches your eye, read the first chapter and see if it's something you can be bothered to put more effort in for. Probably why all my summaries suck so much.

Mike C

[spikendru.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree with your points about it being much too early to have any idea where Joss is going with the comics. I, personally, am not a fan of comics and generally don't read them, but mainly because I find the pictures distracting, have a hard time reading many of the fonts used in dialogue, and if I had my druthers, every book I bought would be at least 700 pages long. So you can pretty much guarantee that I won't be following the comics.

And isn't the whole point of fanfic to tell a story that hasn't been told in canon? If one is writing something new and exciting and wishes to surprise and delight readers, that seems to argue against very detailed summaries. I definitely feel that summaries should warn about things that a lot of people consider squicks - such as incest, slash, BDSM, etc. but I never understood the wanting to be warned about character death (let alone not following comic!canon). If a fic kills a character, so what? It's a fanfic; the character will be alive in the next fic you read. And whenever I see the WARNING: Contains Character Death, I spend a large portion of my reading time attempting to figure out which character will be killed and when, rather than really getting into the story.

As I understand it, the original poster wants all post-Chosen fanfic to conform to comic!canon, or warn that it doesn't. Er . . . wouldn't that be post-virtual Season 8 fic? Because there is no requirement for any post-Chosen fic to warn that it doesn't follow something written later. If I write a fic and label it post-Graduation II, I am only responsible for following canon up until the end of G2, right? At least that's my understanding.

And I definitely agree tat I don't get either why anyone would wish to restric their reading to only properly labeled fics that conform in every instance to canon.

Um . . . what's a thricewise?

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Um . . . what's a thricewise?

I'm not sure anyone knows, as his actual appearance was offscreen. He's acted as a catalyst for a certain, erm, development.

[spikendru.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay. Thanks. I just figured that everybody who wasn't me knew from the comics what a thricewise was and I was feeling left out.

And seriously, if I'm going to read Joss Whedon-penned comics, I want him to treat them as canon. That doesn't make them canon, but I want him to treat them that way.

And we're already running into trouble with comics-as-canon, as I understand it, due to some spoilers I've heard about an upcoming issue, which either totally denies what we've seen on screen or retcons an important character arc. Warning for comic spoilers. Rot 13 at your own risk.

Vs Jvyybj qvqa'g npghnyyl xvyy Jneera va "Ivyynvaf", gung unf uhtr vzcyvpngvbaf sbe gur ragver Jvyybj nep naq zhpu bs F7. Vg jnf rfgnoyvfurq gung Gur Svefg pbhyq bayl nccrne nf qrnq crbcyr, naq Svefg/Jneera nccrnerq ahzrebhf gvzrf va gur frnfba. Ubj pna lbh ergpba fbzrguvat yvxr gung? Gung'f n pna bs jbezf zhpu ovttre guna jnf Ohssl ernyyl qngvat gur Vzzbegny!

[rahirah]

Er... Joss has indeed made authorial pronouncements on canon, most notably in the case of whether or not Spike went to get his soul on purpose. I don't have links at my fingertips, but I can hunt up the transcripts of the interviews where he did so if you absolutely insist. I'm pretty certain that he's made other, similar comments on other matters (like why Buffy jumped, or Xander's big lie) in the past.

Now, perhaps those are only examples of Joss talking quickly and sloppily. But it seems to me that you're being a tad specious in preemptively defining anything Joss says countering your argument as Joss being sloppy, while defining anything he says supporting your argument as Joss knowing the power of words and meaning exactly what you've decided he meant. In that sense, are you not appealing to Joss's authority as much as the so-derided 'fanboy?'

Of course, Joss has also made a lot of statements about the viewers bringing their own subtext, and the like. I really don't see this as a huge contradiction. If he's like most writers I've known, probably there are some matters in which he's more open to multiple audience interpretations than others.

Obviously no writer can force a particular reader to accept a particular reading. If someone doesn't accept the comics as canon, ain't nothing Joss can do about it. But I am really astounded by the fact that so many people feel the tearing need to say of the comics not just "I don't like them/I'm not interested," but to deny their canonicity. I found it just as astounding when people did this to the TV show: the hardcore B/A shippers and W/T shippers who handwave entire seasons out of existence, for example.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I can live with myself being specious, I think. But certainly Joss has has his own interpretation of what went on in canon; every fan does, after all.

In that sense, are you not appealing to Joss's authority as much as the so-derided 'fanboy?'

Only for apologetical purposes. Compare it to Saint Anselm treating the question of whether God exists as a real question, even though he doesn't consider it to be, in order to show that even by the logic of the "fool" who questions that existence (Anselm's term) was is inexorably (according to Anselm) required to assent that existence. Even if Joss didn't make the comments I point to, I would stand by my position on purely theoretical ground, but the fact that he did weakens the opposition's position, because it reveals the Joss-worship to involve an internal contradiction.

If someone doesn't accept the comics as canon, ain't nothing Joss can do about it. But I am really astounded by the fact that so many people feel the tearing need to say of the comics not just "I don't like them/I'm not interested," but to deny their canonicity.

Well, I don't think canonicity can really be denied, since canonicity isn't an innate characteristic of the text (how could it be?) but rather a function of the role that text plays in a certain discourse. The fans can fail to grant canonicity to a text, but they can't deny it, because there isn't anything to deny. Since the fans control the relevant discourse, they control the role the text plays within that discourse.

That said, I understand the pain that occurs when a large segment of fans fail to grant canonicity to a beloved text--my favorite episode in all of Whedon is "The Girl in Question," after all, and I got tired of all the handwaves and retcons long before Joss did it himself in the comics.

[rahirah]

Since the fans control the relevant discourse, they control the role the text plays within that discourse.

This is true - what I don't understand is why some of fans are actively trying to argue the comics into not-canon rather than simply ignoring them and allowing them to become not-canon by default. As they probably eventually will, simply because of their limited distribution in comparison to the TV show. It's not as if the Canon Police will show up and force anyone to write comic-compliant fic.

I don't even like the comics very much. I don't hate them, but I find myself rolling my eyes and muttering, "Lame," a little too often for comfort. I seriously doubt I'll ever use any of the comic stuff in my own fic, except maybe as background information. But I have no problem with them being canon. It's not like I was always overjoyed with everything that happened on the show, either.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Okay, I can see what you're saying, and I agree with it. Obviously, if someone spends the majority of their online time attacking the canonicity of the comics, one has to wonder why.

In general, though, I think the attacks on canonicity are in proportion to the pressure they feel to accept X as canon, as negotiations go on among the fans themselves as to whether they will accept the text as canon. In this particular case, the Canon Police did show up, after all.

Sometimes, I think a level of resentment is fair. I mean, I'm still muttering about "Lehane."

[rahirah]

I think in this case it was more like the Kanon Keystone Kops. *g*

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

I'm not familiar with your fanboy/fangirl distinction; I assume it's not actually sex-based, which makes me wonder about the terms.

The ironic thing about that brand of fanboy (very common in Kevin Smith fandom) is that you can quote the creator until you're blue in the face, but if they don't like what the creator's saying (e.g. "Why yes, I do fill my movies with homoerotic subtext! Also, I'd probably go down on a guy if I weren't kind of embarrassed!"), they're great at completely tuning it out.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Are you aware of certain other conversations going on at the moment and in the recent past? This distinction is currently getting a lot of play and discussion in certain fora.

Yes, the fanboy/fangirl distinction isn't sex-based as such, but is rooted in obversation of the different practices and tendencies and preferences that exist in male-dominated and female-dominated fan communities.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

At the risk of exposing the over expectations you have of your flist - mostly I just think 'yes'. Let me scrabble around for something a little more productive.

I think Joss has on occasion indulged in the frantic, back-peddling urge to explain that any writer may occasionally give in to. Specifically when he was called on having changed the canon about who sired Spike and, as rahirah says, about whether or not Spike went to get his soul. I can sympathise with this because as a writer whilst I fully believe that my readers can and will interpret the text however they choose, and I can only provide clarity within the text or not at all - and that understanding this makes me a better writer - nevertheless... there are occasions when everyone just squirms on the hook and starts blabbing about what one really meant. I know: I caught myself doing it recently. I did have the grace to blush and shut up when I realised what I was doing.

I think Joss as a brilliant writer understands this and also sometimes finds himself giving in to the urge to try to control his viewers/readers. I also think that since the comics are a relatively unfamiliar medium (and, say it ever so softly, possibly not one he is very talented in) we may see more rather than less squirming.

None of which detracts from the fact that I think you are right and Joss knows better than to try to impose his view on everyone else when he's concentrating on what he's saying. So I agree, Joss thinks of it as canon, and so he should, but he doesn't expect us to unless we want to, and so he shouldn't.

I can't help but think that his constant appeals to the Word of Joss and his inability to allow for any shades of grey in legitimate reader response somehow reveals an insecurity about his ability to exist outside of a hierarchical system--that he (unconsciously) sees fluidity of meaning as a challenge to his own position and power and privilege.

Interesting interpretation. I think what we are mostly seeing is the usual internet dance of one poor sod who made a rant that criticized something and then wasn't able to cope when dozens of people piled in on him at once. Fen don't like criticism of either their source material or other people's fan-works - it always leads to wank. So I think what you are mostly seeing is flailing because he is drowning in comments. This can often produce an apparently black and white mindset because when you feel as if you are fighting for your reputation, and the reputation of whatever opinion you first put forward, against a dozen opponents, it is easiest to let the nuances slide. A pity since people tend to pick up on the anger quicker than on what you are actually trying to say - hence wank.

But then as you know, I'm not a big fan (heh, no pun intended) of the idea that people with various 'privileges' are liable to 'defend' them when they feel challenged. Its counter-intuitive given the corollary idea that those very privileges are transparent to the people who have them. So I believe we should always look for a far more surface motive to begin with and only fall back on the idea of threatened privilege if we are really struggling for a decent cause and effect. Which is seldom necessary in the situations one habitually sees around fandom at least.

I'm glad I'm a fangirl.

Heh. You very much are.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I think Joss has on occasion indulged in the frantic, back-peddling urge to explain that any writer may occasionally give in to.

Exactly.

But then as you know, I'm not a big fan (heh, no pun intended) of the idea that people with various 'privileges' are liable to 'defend' them when they feel challenged. Its counter-intuitive given the corollary idea that those very privileges are transparent to the people who have them.

When I try and wrap my mind around it, I can see how it can appear to you as counter-intuitive; of course feminist theory is too much second-nature for me to find it remarkable. But think fo it this way: because the privilege is invisible to one, one sees it as an equitable status quo. When the privilege is threatened, then, one is able to interpret it as an attack on the (illusion of) equity and thus as a real attack. When one is used to society constantly catering to one's own experience, it's a disorienting effect when it suddenly doesn't; believe me, I had to stifle quite a few gut responses of "But that's not fair to me (as a male)!" when first entering fandom (e.g., when answering polls and such).

I think if we always look for surface motives we can't ignore the underlying patterns, but then, you already knew I thought that.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I think if we always look for surface motives we can't ignore the underlying patterns

True, as always with these wretched complex human-being things we are left wading through a miasma of surface impressions and background patterns with very little to guide us.

My real problem with 'privilege theory' (it presumably has a better name?) is of course the common criticism that I consider it emphasises and thus worsens the very divisions I wish to see eliminated, hence I am liable to ignore it for its own sake. I also consider that the way it tends to be applied by people has inherent problems that also worsen the divides and prevent open and constructive discourse. By its very nature it reduces all discussion and disagreement to an ad hominem interpretation, which is inherently aggressive and hence wanky, and worse makes expressing opposing viewpoints virtually impossible. As such I view it as a Bad Thing. Which is not to say that I disbelieve that certain groups don't have inherent advantages in society because they patently do, it is simply the specific methodology of interpreting individual actions through a lens of 'privilege' that I hate.

Possibly also related to the fact I can't spell the bloody word! ;o)

However, in addition to all that, in this particular case I think to view the OP as being motivated by his feeling a threat to his privilege within a hierarchical system is to take things a step too far. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc error in fact. Yes, you and I and many of the other people reading this journal can interpret the relationship between author and readers as a hierarchical model, and then understand the power relationships as such, (whether we personally prefer top down or bottom up power relations) but I see no evidence in the OP's post to suggest that he has noticed such a relationship. And therefore he could just as easily be responding to any one of dozens of alternative things. For example, we could observe it as evidence of an alternative hierarchy - that of 'disadvantaged reader' ranting against 'privileged fic writers' and calling on the supposed authority of his god figure in support, just as disadvantaged masses have throughout the ages. (Hee, if I carry on in this line we will be able to convincingly prove that Joss is a fictional creation.) Or we could interpret him as objecting to the heteronormative stance of the fic (er, I haven't read it, I'm just guessing) where he is a homosexual, or the feminist position of the fic where he is a misogynist, or the class positions, or any one of a hundred other possible interpretations according the dozens of groupings that he happens to fall into according to whichever analysis we happen to fancy. And they will all depend on perfectly valid sociological models but all just be guesses, and all equally invalid as a result. Only he knows exactly what motivated him to make that post, and so we can only work with the information he provides - that he objects to Willow and some others being represented as having less power than in the show.

Now I would say that is actually a valid criticism in one sense, in that the general 'best example' prototypes of canon opinion will centre around confirming a considerable degree of power on Willow by the end. Where it is 'invalid' is that firstly, as you say and I agree, 'canon' is at the discretion of the individual reader so we would be more comfortable if he was simply saying that he felt it was outside his own personal canon to which we could politely reply 'oh really'. And secondly, whilst I haven't read the fic I assume that in any crossover the powers of the Buffyverse characters need to be considerably reduced otherwise the characters from the show are going to be left standing around rather stupidly with nothing to contribute - and the author needs the flexibility of interpretation to have that room for manoeuvre. Our friend the OP is presumably not a writer himself and thus hasn't realised this.

So that's my guess, but it is just a guess, and I wouldn't like to assume much about the OP's views on life based on it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Which is not to say that I disbelieve that certain groups don't have inherent advantages in society because they patently do,

Oops, tripped over the double negative there.

I am of course trying to say:

Which is not to say that I disbelieve that certain groups do have inherent advantages in society because they patently do.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

because the privilege is invisible to one, one sees it as an equitable status quo. When the privilege is threatened, then, one is able to interpret it as an attack on the (illusion of) equity and thus as a real attack. When one is used to society constantly catering to one's own experience, it's a disorienting effect when it suddenly doesn't;

I think that is to misunderstand what is going on. There are three states:

1. Advantage to A, disadvantage to B
   
2. Equality of A and B
   
3. Disadvantage to A, advantage to B
   

The aim, obviously, should always be to achieve state #2. This is what any sensible person will understand as equitable. If we assume that the societal norm is #1 then when an A suddenly finds themselves disadvantaged then they have been flipped over into a localised state #3, and since that is just as in-equitable as state #1 then they have every right to complain about it. The localised social conditions that created the state #3 may well mean that it is socially very, very difficult for them to complain, but that fact does not detract from the basic validity of their complaint.

You only have a case of someone unacceptably defending their 'privilege' if a state #2 has been achieved or proposed and the A person tries to argue for a return to the former state #1. But every A person should be entitled to argue against #3 as much as every B person is entitled to argue against #1.

Or in other words, I'm not a fan of counter-cultures :o)

believe me, I had to stifle quite a few gut responses of "But that's not fair to me (as a male)!" when first entering fandom (e.g., when answering polls and such).

But it isn't fair. It is a fact of fandom life, but it isn't fair. I hate that fandom puts you in this situation. And I hate even more that you feel yourself unable to express your dissatisfaction that it does. I do understand of course, I have seen the result when a man tried to express his discomfort with how disadvantaged men are in the female dominated fanfic world (that chap after Writercon, I forget his name) and I would never encourage anyone to risk their own peace by standing up and speaking out when they did not want to. But it makes me feel sad that it happens. I'm not sure anything much can be done. I didn't have the courage at the time to step into the debate after Writercon because it would simply have attracted the shitstorm in my own direction and I was in no mental state to be risking that. There are, I'm afraid, too many women in fandom with too strong a sense of their own entitlement and of course they have the general opinion of society to bolster them. It makes me cross that we thus lose the company of so many potential friends who happen to be men. Needless to say, as an individual I can state that I will never object if you wish to express your discomfort at feeling excluded in my hearing. I can't do much more than that but if enough other people did it might start to make a difference.

Though of course one shouldn't over-blow the problem. There are plenty of fan spaces that are welcoming to men. I think it is the peculiar culture of fanfic writers on LJ, especially slash writers, that is so particularly exclusionary. And it's a shame, and makes me very glad I don't happen to be male, but it's not that big a deal I don't think. After all, we can't be that desirable a society to break into or more people would be trying!

I'm mainly grateful that a few men are willing to put up with the disadvantages because so many of you guys who are around provide fresh and interesting perspectives that we otherwise would be short of.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

But it's not as if it were merely state #1 over here and state #3 over there. State #3 is, when it occurs, inscribed within state #1, and never truly escapes it.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

The gender dynamics become the most clear in his post on Tara's death, especially when one compares it to the treatment given in [Unknown site tag]'s race post, which I know you read.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here - do you mean a post Joss made about Tara's death, as mentioned in hederahelix's race post? She was using that as an example of heterosexual prejudice, I believe, so I'm afraid you will have to unpack that for me as to how it is relevant to gender dynamics.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I mean(t) that when you compare the post made by the person whom I am/was attacking on the subject of tara's death with the post made by hederahelix the dender dynamics involved become quite stark. Joss' killing of Tara can easily be explained in narrative terms, of course, if one oignores the social context in which it exists--but it ends up looking like Anti-feminist Bingo. So the OP's position on Tara's death is at least as gendered as his position on the role of the (coded male) author/ity in canon construction.

[mecurtin.livejournal.com]

I would call the comics "deutero-canon": material that's not part of regular canon, but from canonical sources or closely-related. Along with out-takes, the better novelizations, interviews, etc.