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

[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.