since I never really shipped Buffy. Oh, I liked the character well enough. And in the latter seasons (5,6 and 7) identified. But I was more of a Spike and Willow shipper than a Buffy shipper.
Now that's a use of the term (shipper) that I'd not heard before. (As I'm a newbie to fandom that's hardly surprising.) I've only seen it used previously as a shortened version of "relationship", not "fan of an individual character." I assume that's what you mean here (and not that you "ship" Willow/Spike? Or perhaps you do?)
Which may be why a lot of fanfic writers struggled to write Buffy.
IDK about ten years ago but today, I get the impression that a lot of people simply don't like Buffy and aren't interested in her except as how she serves their favorite character's story. I do think that oftentimes there is a gendered aspect to it - culturally we are trained to identify the protagonist as "male", to excuse male characters (anti-heros) for their darkness, their flaws and fuck-ups; women aren't supposed to have any and are judged more harshly both in fiction and IRL.
For myself I've always been oriented to female characters. If there aren't any, or if they are there only as accessories to the "important" story (ie the lives of the men) then I lose interest.
Btw, I am not someone who is into bashing/woobifying one characters at the expense of others; ie the SG/ Spike / Giles / Buffy are evilest evil that ever eviled". Or "so and so never did ANYTHING wrong, ever." What I love about the show is the complexity of (almost all) the characters. Otherwise I'd watch Charmed or read a Hallmark card. I don't understand being a fan of the show if someone isn't interested in that very human complexity.
That feeling of wanting to just fall into an abyss or go to sleep and never wake up.
that's pretty much where I live, so to speak; so that probably conditions some of my feelings re: Buffy. The scene between herself and Giles in WTTH and her "Go ahead, prepare me" speech is what convinced me that I wanted to keep watching the show, but I probably identified more with Willow (and Marcie from OOSOOM) until later on.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-22 10:53 pm (UTC)Now that's a use of the term (shipper) that I'd not heard before. (As I'm a newbie to fandom that's hardly surprising.) I've only seen it used previously as a shortened version of "relationship", not "fan of an individual character." I assume that's what you mean here (and not that you "ship" Willow/Spike? Or perhaps you do?)
Which may be why a lot of fanfic writers struggled to write Buffy.
IDK about ten years ago but today, I get the impression that a lot of people simply don't like Buffy and aren't interested in her except as how she serves their favorite character's story. I do think that oftentimes there is a gendered aspect to it - culturally we are trained to identify the protagonist as "male", to excuse male characters (anti-heros) for their darkness, their flaws and fuck-ups; women aren't supposed to have any and are judged more harshly both in fiction and IRL.
For myself I've always been oriented to female characters. If there aren't any, or if they are there only as accessories to the "important" story (ie the lives of the men) then I lose interest.
Btw, I am not someone who is into bashing/woobifying one characters at the expense of others; ie the SG/ Spike / Giles / Buffy are evilest evil that ever eviled". Or "so and so never did ANYTHING wrong, ever." What I love about the show is the complexity of (almost all) the characters. Otherwise I'd watch Charmed or read a Hallmark card. I don't understand being a fan of the show if someone isn't interested in that very human complexity.
That feeling of wanting to just fall into an abyss or go to sleep and never wake up.
that's pretty much where I live, so to speak; so that probably conditions some of my feelings re: Buffy. The scene between herself and Giles in WTTH and her "Go ahead, prepare me" speech is what convinced me that I wanted to keep watching the show, but I probably identified more with Willow (and Marcie from OOSOOM) until later on.