Fri, 16 September 2005 "Civil Serpent" By golly, put aside that Playstation and bowie knife because we've got three words: Mayor. Richard. Wilkins. Comments[17] |
Great show. I find it interesting that the Mayor actually didn't have much of a connection with Buffy. In a lot of contemporary fiction, the great villains are often somehow intertwined the hero. They're "opposite sides of the same coin." They move toward a common conclusion. However, other than the fact that Wilkins is evil, and Buffy fights evil, there's very little interaction.. I think Buffy's real foil in this storyline is Faith. But Wilkins serves as more of a foil for Giles, and possibly Angel. He seems to identify with their relationships with Buffy—Giles as her father figure, and Angel as an immortal who will eventually have to leave her. The mayor usually addresses Giles or Angel rather than speaking to Buffy directly, such as the library scene in Graduation Day that is really one of the greatest moments in the entire show. It's strange that you can have a great villain with very little connection to the hero. If there's a reason for this, it may be because Buffy is not set up to have "arch enemies" who define her, and that her most important challenges are internal.
I also liked the symmetry between the Mayor's relationship with Faith, and Giles relationship with Buffy. I like how he's this parody of the classic TV father-icons, like Ward Cleaver or Mike Brady, and the actor does a fantastic job of it. It may be just a funny detail (like the demons that speak in L.A. jargon on Angel's show), but Buffy's own father is out of the picture, so the Mayor creates a contrast between the "traditional" family man and what role Giles has taken. I hadn't thought about his parallels with Angel until you guys brought it up, but it's funny that Angel actually does follow the mayor's advice and it turned out to be the right thing to do.
Overall I have to say this episode didn’t sit very well with me. I liked the early analysis from the writer’s perspective of what a villain is and how the mayor fit into that. But aside from that I felt like a great deal was touched on but nothing was really discussed. I think the mayor as a character has a lot of implications for the show as a whole. One of the biggest influences I think is using the Mayor as a metaphor for the systems of the “real world� is something that is vital to a larger understanding of the show’s dynamic.
The mayor is very unique in a lot of ways, firstly he is one of the only real villains to have no expressed super powers until after his story arc completes. But Wilkins is ineffectual as a tough guy, even during the 100 days all he could hope to do is tire the slayer out, he has no strength to speak of, no training with weapons, no real skill in fighting. In fact the only time the two of them get into physical violence is in the hospital when Buffy is unconscious from blood loss. The only ability he seems to have until the beginning of the 100 days is that he has been alive for a century but we have no idea how he did that save his elusions to making “campaign promises.� These bargains would not constitute any internal power source and are very different from any of the other bad guys.
This brings us to the real strength of the Mayor; he is able to use systems. When you think of Wilkins words like planning, organization & cleanliness come to mind. All of these are generally goals of a system. In fact he established an ordered city-system in founding Sunnydale. When one thinks of Buffy these things do not apply. She is adaptable, resourceful, and generally messy. This means that while Buffy may have many resources they are generally of use against the supernatural while Wilkins seems to be in debt in the supernatural world but far better equipped to deal in the real world.
In many ways season 3 is about how the supernatural interacts with the natural world. Wilkins who is clearly from the natural world and who’s supernatural abilities stem from a form of purchase is able to deal with the Slayer because he uses the methodology of the natural world, he uses tactics one would find in a political environment not a battlefield. Buffy who is used to dealing with things that use magical spells, battle tactics and do not obey the rules of the natural world is simply ill equipped to “bring the fight� to the mayor.
It is only when Wilkins crosses the threshold and becomes what Buffy can deal with overtly does she succeed. When the Mayor remains in the real world Buffy fails to deal with him in any effective manner and Faith actually kills the only real way for them to deal with the Mayor on his own terms. Buffy is inherently supernatural and as such has shunned the natural world to a large extent. She has to keep secrets, break rules and live outside of the bounds of society for so much of her life she did not have time to cultivate the resources that the Mayor uses to thwart her so often.
Also I think that there was s huge piece missed with the mayor and his personality when we say that he is a villain “Despite� his chipper demeanor and traditional 1950’s American values. I think he would not be nearly so effective as a villain without these values and this demeanor. It is the sharp contrast between these aspects of his character that makes him appear almost insane. The dichotomy functions to set other characters ill at ease with him, even people like Mr. Trick seem unable to get a good read on Wilkins while he seems to be able to read people very clearly.
But where Revello says this is his undoing it is indeed his greatest strength. Because he trusts Faith, she works hard and comes up with the idea on her own to poison Angel. This ends up putting Wilkins in a place where he could have killed Buffy. He puts his faith in his deputy mayor who through his betrayal brings Faith to the dark side and puts a serious division in the Scoobies over the killing of a human. I think there could also be a strong Judas argument with the DA but I will leave that for another discussion. Also in trusting Mr. Trick he gets one of the demons he owes tribute to deal with (don’t do me any more favors).
I do agree though that his loyalty was generally a negative for him. While I will not call his staying with his wife to be selfish as much as misplaced loyalty I will say that it brought both he and his wife heartache that could have been avoided. What would have been selfish was to abandon his loyalty and seek what would have been most beneficial for him not something that only served to satisfy one’s sense of loyalty. I also have to admit it was his loyalty (or “human weakness� as Faith refers to it in the dream) that got him killed in the end.
Let’s also dismiss outright the idea that in This Years Girl the tape for Faith was at all selfish. Until this point there is NO evidence that Faith is capable of any real growth as the only changes she has made as a character have been to become more and more primal. Faith lived on the pleasure principle (again with the grunting). She stole, raped, and killed her way through life. She tried to rape Xander for crying out loud! Does no one remember this!? She was a thug, little more than a weapon. I love Faith as a character, I like her far more than Buffy but in Season 3 she was an animal (Which was part of the turn on… ANYWAY). The mayor knew her days were numbered because she was not able to as the mayor did function at anything but a baseline level in a structured society. Even Buffy was more able to deal with the world than Faith and Buffy was generally a wreck.
The Mayor gave Faith a puncher’s chance to win the fight with the woman who had betrayed her. Looking from inside the head of the Mayor you have a killing machine whose rage is her focusing factor and she has a hard on to hurt Buffy. If you cannot shield her any longer what do you do, send her to South America with a fresh knife or give her a single, useable chance to turn the tables on her nemesis? Also realize that Wilkins as a political animal realized that in her situation Faith was a wanted killer, with no job, no money and no marketable skill outside of killing which is only for CIA agents and invisible Highschoolers. By switching with Buffy he was giving her a much-needed leg up into society if she chose it as well. In the end the switch also give Buffy a chance t see the good in Faith which she would never have gotten to see without the device offered by the mayor.
Imagine Wilkins without the wholesome values, if he was simply evil he would be just another bad guy. If Faith had the mayor as a mentor and he was purely evil she would have not been able to have a return to the god world, she would have simply fallen deeper into her sadism and become a future villain for another season (or died). If Wilkins was so purely evil he would not have been able to function in the world as a mayor, the people would have (we hope) turned on him and rejected him or the city would have at least been a withered and dark place unable to support enough people for him to feed on.
So we come to understand that he is designed the way he is with these traditional values and sort of “Leave it to Beaver� mentality because he is supposed to represent a corrupted political system. That system being the system of how things are done in the natural world makes the clear advantage in many ways to the mayor until he chooses to leave the natural world and become a demon. In many ways that transition was the only way Buffy could effectively deal with him, otherwise as we see in shows like Gingerbread he could have used his political resources to destroy Buffy without ever losing his appearance of propriety.
There is a huge amount of analysis that one can do with the mayor and I just feel that this episode touched on only a few of them and did not leave many of them open for further exploration. I think you could take each episode that the mayor is in apart and get a huge amount of information that would apply to the entire series and give a greatly expanded understanding of some of the more understated themes.
The mayor is very unique in a lot of ways, firstly he is one of the only real villains to have no expressed super powers until after his story arc completes. But Wilkins is ineffectual as a tough guy, even during the 100 days all he could hope to do is tire the slayer out, he has no strength to speak of, no training with weapons, no real skill in fighting. In fact the only time the two of them get into physical violence is in the hospital when Buffy is unconscious from blood loss. The only ability he seems to have until the beginning of the 100 days is that he has been alive for a century but we have no idea how he did that save his elusions to making “campaign promises.� These bargains would not constitute any internal power source and are very different from any of the other bad guys.
This brings us to the real strength of the Mayor; he is able to use systems. When you think of Wilkins words like planning, organization & cleanliness come to mind. All of these are generally goals of a system. In fact he established an ordered city-system in founding Sunnydale. When one thinks of Buffy these things do not apply. She is adaptable, resourceful, and generally messy. This means that while Buffy may have many resources they are generally of use against the supernatural while Wilkins seems to be in debt in the supernatural world but far better equipped to deal in the real world.
In many ways season 3 is about how the supernatural interacts with the natural world. Wilkins who is clearly from the natural world and who’s supernatural abilities stem from a form of purchase is able to deal with the Slayer because he uses the methodology of the natural world, he uses tactics one would find in a political environment not a battlefield. Buffy who is used to dealing with things that use magical spells, battle tactics and do not obey the rules of the natural world is simply ill equipped to “bring the fight� to the mayor.
It is only when Wilkins crosses the threshold and becomes what Buffy can deal with overtly does she succeed. When the Mayor remains in the real world Buffy fails to deal with him in any effective manner and Faith actually kills the only real way for them to deal with the Mayor on his own terms. Buffy is inherently supernatural and as such has shunned the natural world to a large extent. She has to keep secrets, break rules and live outside of the bounds of society for so much of her life she did not have time to cultivate the resources that the Mayor uses to thwart her so often.
Also I think that there was s huge piece missed with the mayor and his personality when we say that he is a villain “Despite� his chipper demeanor and traditional 1950’s American values. I think he would not be nearly so effective as a villain without these values and this demeanor. It is the sharp contrast between these aspects of his character that makes him appear almost insane. The dichotomy functions to set other characters ill at ease with him, even people like Mr. Trick seem unable to get a good read on Wilkins while he seems to be able to read people very clearly.
But where Revello says this is his undoing it is indeed his greatest strength. Because he trusts Faith, she works hard and comes up with the idea on her own to poison Angel. This ends up putting Wilkins in a place where he could have killed Buffy. He puts his faith in his deputy mayor who through his betrayal brings Faith to the dark side and puts a serious division in the Scoobies over the killing of a human. I think there could also be a strong Judas argument with the DA but I will leave that for another discussion. Also in trusting Mr. Trick he gets one of the demons he owes tribute to deal with (don’t do me any more favors).
I do agree though that his loyalty was generally a negative for him. While I will not call his staying with his wife to be selfish as much as misplaced loyalty I will say that it brought both he and his wife heartache that could have been avoided. What would have been selfish was to abandon his loyalty and seek what would have been most beneficial for him not something that only served to satisfy one’s sense of loyalty. I also have to admit it was his loyalty (or “human weakness� as Faith refers to it in the dream) that got him killed in the end.
Let’s also dismiss outright the idea that in This Years Girl the tape for Faith was at all selfish. Until this point there is NO evidence that Faith is capable of any real growth as the only changes she has made as a character have been to become more and more primal. Faith lived on the pleasure principle (again with the grunting). She stole, raped, and killed her way through life. She tried to rape Xander for crying out loud! Does no one remember this!? She was a thug, little more than a weapon. I love Faith as a character, I like her far more than Buffy but in Season 3 she was an animal (Which was part of the turn on… ANYWAY). The mayor knew her days were numbered because she was not able to as the mayor did function at anything but a baseline level in a structured society. Even Buffy was more able to deal with the world than Faith and Buffy was generally a wreck.
The Mayor gave Faith a puncher’s chance to win the fight with the woman who had betrayed her. Looking from inside the head of the Mayor you have a killing machine whose rage is her focusing factor and she has a hard on to hurt Buffy. If you cannot shield her any longer what do you do, send her to South America with a fresh knife or give her a single, useable chance to turn the tables on her nemesis? Also realize that Wilkins as a political animal realized that in her situation Faith was a wanted killer, with no job, no money and no marketable skill outside of killing which is only for CIA agents and invisible Highschoolers. By switching with Buffy he was giving her a much-needed leg up into society if she chose it as well. In the end the switch also give Buffy a chance t see the good in Faith which she would never have gotten to see without the device offered by the mayor.
Imagine Wilkins without the wholesome values, if he was simply evil he would be just another bad guy. If Faith had the mayor as a mentor and he was purely evil she would have not been able to have a return to the god world, she would have simply fallen deeper into her sadism and become a future villain for another season (or died). If Wilkins was so purely evil he would not have been able to function in the world as a mayor, the people would have (we hope) turned on him and rejected him or the city would have at least been a withered and dark place unable to support enough people for him to feed on.
So we come to understand that he is designed the way he is with these traditional values and sort of “Leave it to Beaver� mentality because he is supposed to represent a corrupted political system. That system being the system of how things are done in the natural world makes the clear advantage in many ways to the mayor until he chooses to leave the natural world and become a demon. In many ways that transition was the only way Buffy could effectively deal with him, otherwise as we see in shows like Gingerbread he could have used his political resources to destroy Buffy without ever losing his appearance of propriety.
There is a huge amount of analysis that one can do with the mayor and I just feel that this episode touched on only a few of them and did not leave many of them open for further exploration. I think you could take each episode that the mayor is in apart and get a huge amount of information that would apply to the entire series and give a greatly expanded understanding of some of the more understated themes.
posted by: Miles on Mon, 9/19 11:41 PM EDT
OK so that is a huge chunk of text, if anyone would like it in .doc format you can grab it @ http://www.milescochran.com/Buffycast.doc
posted by: Miles on Mon, 9/19 11:42 PM EDT
Some good points there Miles. As for the thing about Faith, I would agree that the Mayor is meant to "believe" his plan for Faith in This Year's Girl was not selfish, but I think the Mayor's understanding of fatherhood is rather possessive and manipulative, and the effects of that plan were probably as damaging to Faith as anything that happened to her in Season 3. I wouldn't say that Wilkins doesn't have genuine affection for Faith, but he really wants her to be the way he thinks she should be. His plan for Faith might have been well intentioned, but the result is a disaster, and not all that surprising. I think if he had simply provided her with a more straightforward way of killing Buffy, she could have succeeded. But what he is actually doing is telling Faith that the only way she can live is to become Buffy. This is pretty much destined to fail, as it leads to the self-hatred that carries through until she goes to L.A. On the part of the writers—- well, they've got an amulet for every occasion, and I would say that all of this is just a set-up to prepare her (and the audience) for a redemption storyline, but I think it was pretty true to character for both the mayor and Faith.
Diagoro you are dead right on the “becoming Buffy� fail. I don’t know how I missed that, it’s really a solid point, especially given Faith’s character. Here’s the question I would pose then. Given that you believe Faith’s interaction with the Mayor was a bad thing for her overall, do you think her continuing to deal with the Scoobies given their pattern of leaving her out and not trusting her would have been better for Faith than the loving (albeit twisted) relationship that she had with the Mayor?
posted by: Miles on Wed, 9/21 01:15 PM EDT
As to the issue of her being able to take Buffy out given a more straightforward method… I honestly don’t know, I think Faith’s use of weapons would have enabled her to have done to Buffy what she did instead to Angel (Hide on a rooftop and take a sniper shot). I think her dirty tactics might have well won the day in a “real world� scenario but in the Buffyverse I don’t know. I would have really liked to see her be a 2-3 season enemy for Buffy or simply have her bail out of Sunnydale and become a recurring enemy like Ethan Raine, wow… if she and Ethan had paired up…. OH HELL YEAH! Faith and Ethan as a bad guy team! It would have been sodding brilliant! His planning, her brawn, his sly wit and her grunting. Ok I gotta stop talking now.
posted by: Miles on Wed, 9/21 01:24 PM EDT
That's a good question. Faith reached out to the mayor, so one way or the other I'd think she was ready to walk away from Buffy's team. On the other hand, I think the mayor pushes her further than she would have gone on her own. So if she had gone rogue, but without the mayor, I think she might not have been as far over the edge, so she might have been better suited to being a long term villain. But on the other hand, she might not have hit rock bottom either, in which case she wouldn't have gone to Angel looking for redemption. Actually, I always thought we would eventually see a slayer-turned-vampire as a villain, either a current slayer, or an unknown one from the past, but I guess if they were ready to brush Dracula off in one episode, then they must really have been done with vampires.
I totally missed this point about Wilkins and Faith. So, Wilkins was saying that being a so called goody-goody like Buffy was the only way for her to lead a decent life? but Wilkins relationship with Faith is skewed, and true, he might have good intentions, but what is he trying to mold her into? A daughter who kills on time, and is home before curfew? But in some way does he know this is wrong and that's why he gave her the device to use on Buffy?
In the episode Wilkins says "Here's the good news - just because it's over for my Faith, doesn't mean she can't go out with a bang." It is clear he thinks that without him Faith isn't able to survive on her own. I argue that since Faith is rather obssesed with Buffy as her nemesis that Faith would be unable to see past Buffy and get on with her life until she killed Buffy. If you accept my analysis that Wilkins survived and did well because he was able to work within the system of the “real world� then he would see the best way to help Faith and hurt Buffy was to switch their positions in life. Faith is wanted by the police, the Watcher’s Council and the Scoobies while Buffy is at this point under her mother’s care, going to school and not having any real problems in the world. What Diagoro points out is that Wilkins telling Faith that she needs to switch places with Buffy or “become Buffy� is set up to fail and I think he is right. Faith isn’t wired to be anything like Buffy as we see through the episode. As for Diagoro’s point that he is trying to mold her into his own image, you re-state that very well. He does want a girl who has no qualms about killing, maiming and causing suffering but she needs to have the traditional values of time sense, cleanliness and those “Leave it to Beaver� qualities.
posted by: Miles on Fri, 9/23 10:57 PM EDT
I can't begin to tell you how much I am enjoying the show. It is thrilling to know that people are continuing to study and dissect the Buffy-verse, and while recognizing it for its originality and brilliance but aren't afraid to criticize when it's necessary.
Wanted to cover a few things in this that have come up over the past few weeks, so forgive the randomness of the topics:
a.) How has Buffy affected my life? To be honest, Buffy was the one constant in my life after college. I loved the concept from the movie (I know, sad) and was thrilled when it was announced it would be a TV series. Through 7 years, two companies, three moves and a LOT of life changes, my little world where girl-power was a given was a source of comfort, humor, speculation, and occasionally during season Six, some severe cussing. No, I can't point to any specific show that "changed my life" - I didn't lose my virginity while an episode played in the background (loved that story, btw), and I have never had to deal with the death of a parent. That being said, I truly feel that without my Tuesday night obsession, this growing up thing would have really sucked.
b.) What characters would I love to see covered in a specific show? Oddly enough, as much as Season Six occasionally made me want to kick out my TV screen, I really enjoyed the concept of the Nerd Trio. Seeing the levels to which each of the Trio was willing to go to win what they saw as the ultimate prize I think was a nice counter to what each of the core Scoobs was willing to go to in order to survive adult-hood. Yes, I realize compared to such great big-bads as the Mayor and Angelus they are kinda wimpy, but at the same time it was truly terrifying to watch as they started out with one set of goals (money and chicks) and ended up with completely different goals.
c.) The sadness of Xander's character arc - While I loved Xander is every season, I agree the writers never really fully developed him for what he could be. I blame this on the fact that once it became apparent that they were never going to pursue the Buffy/Xander love angle, they didn't want to make him into too strong of a character so that the audience didn't start to think that Buffy had obviously suffered some sort of serious head trauma in chosing Broody Dead Guy over Strong Xander. Just my two cents.
Keep up the great work - looking forward to the next episode!
Wanted to cover a few things in this that have come up over the past few weeks, so forgive the randomness of the topics:
a.) How has Buffy affected my life? To be honest, Buffy was the one constant in my life after college. I loved the concept from the movie (I know, sad) and was thrilled when it was announced it would be a TV series. Through 7 years, two companies, three moves and a LOT of life changes, my little world where girl-power was a given was a source of comfort, humor, speculation, and occasionally during season Six, some severe cussing. No, I can't point to any specific show that "changed my life" - I didn't lose my virginity while an episode played in the background (loved that story, btw), and I have never had to deal with the death of a parent. That being said, I truly feel that without my Tuesday night obsession, this growing up thing would have really sucked.
b.) What characters would I love to see covered in a specific show? Oddly enough, as much as Season Six occasionally made me want to kick out my TV screen, I really enjoyed the concept of the Nerd Trio. Seeing the levels to which each of the Trio was willing to go to win what they saw as the ultimate prize I think was a nice counter to what each of the core Scoobs was willing to go to in order to survive adult-hood. Yes, I realize compared to such great big-bads as the Mayor and Angelus they are kinda wimpy, but at the same time it was truly terrifying to watch as they started out with one set of goals (money and chicks) and ended up with completely different goals.
c.) The sadness of Xander's character arc - While I loved Xander is every season, I agree the writers never really fully developed him for what he could be. I blame this on the fact that once it became apparent that they were never going to pursue the Buffy/Xander love angle, they didn't want to make him into too strong of a character so that the audience didn't start to think that Buffy had obviously suffered some sort of serious head trauma in chosing Broody Dead Guy over Strong Xander. Just my two cents.
Keep up the great work - looking forward to the next episode!
Just a quick word regarding Xander who "sees" things... throughout the whole Buffy series, there are a handful of characters that really "see", ie comprehend, what is going on around them. The Mayor is one of these, with respect to Faith's needs, and the fundamental Buffy/Angel problem. But in the longer term, the role of Greek Chorus belongs to Anya and to Spike. Anya, while anti-empathic, is also completely uninhibited by normal human restraint, and is the only character who speaks her mind ALL THE TIME, while all the other players can only speak openly in song. Spike too, is rarely afraid to rub people up the wrong way. His role as commentator is highlighted in that wonderful Angel episode: "Quickly, to the Angel-mobile, away!" Loving your podcasts. Professor, Australia.
posted by: Professor on Fri, 10/14 01:25 AM EDT
about xander "seeing" "being the eyes" of the group...buffy breaks his heart and he still helps her save the world. all his friends move on to college, and he hopes to say to drunk co-ed's "rough day? need a light?" being with anya, who is selfish, pushy, opinonated, etc, accepting his more professional side and getting a better job and out of his dysfunctional drunken parents basement, getting engaged, not getting married, saving the world by way of a yellow crayon, and eventually getting his eye poked out by caleb.
what does all of this mean?
in the episode before restless, xander is the "heart" of the joining spell. it's his loyalty and deep love and respect for his friends that he "sees" with. he did see that cordy was working at the dress shop, but his heart saw that he could buy her that dress because she couldnt. and it wasnt because she deserved it. he cared about her. so he did something selfless for her. he also had nothing to gain by talking to willow-she kept hurting him, and he kept saying "i love you"
what does all of this mean?
in the episode before restless, xander is the "heart" of the joining spell. it's his loyalty and deep love and respect for his friends that he "sees" with. he did see that cordy was working at the dress shop, but his heart saw that he could buy her that dress because she couldnt. and it wasnt because she deserved it. he cared about her. so he did something selfless for her. he also had nothing to gain by talking to willow-she kept hurting him, and he kept saying "i love you"
i agree about mayor he is one of my favorites because of his personality but what i love most about him is the fact that he stays behind the scenes, hes a planner he has a plan and he goes with it this is the main reason Wolfram and hart on Angel is my favorite villian of both shows because we never see them they are everywhere as holland manners tells Angel.
I am writing this before I read the other comments.
This is in response to the podcast which I only recently discovered on ITunes.
An aspect that you miss about the mayor is that he is a funnier, cleaner, more engaging Richard Nixon. I think this was consciously a part of the conception that Whedon and his team had of Mayor Wilkins from the beginning. I received many insights from this particular episode, but the fact that you only dealt with Mayor Wilkins as an "authority figure" and not as a politician was a bit disappointing.
Let me be specific on how dealing with Wilkins as a Richard Nixon stand-in (or as a special kind of corrupt politicican) might have helped you in your interpretation of Wilkins.
You mention the many incidents in which Wilkins "fights evil". And this is true. But you don't mention his ultimate motivation for Wilkins fight against various kinds of evil. He wants to impose "law and order" on Sumnydale. It is only his conception of "law and order" but it is none-the-less law and order. Let me remind you that of course Nixon was the first post-war "Law and Order" president. It should be noted that all presidents -- and most politicians - who have run on a "law and order" plank have turned out to be deeply corrupt and in practice opposed to the the rule of law. Or more precisely they identify the "rule of law" with their own personal rule. This was the case with Richard Nixon and it was also the case with Richard Wilkins. According to Wilkins's own statement in "This Year's Girl" his project was to bring order to Sunnydale. Wilkins's obsession with "order" also helps us to conceive of his "origin" story without actually having to see it, though I agree with you it would have been nice to have had a stand alone episode (or at least a comic book?) that would have given us the Mayor's origin myth.
I think that conceiving of Mayor Wilkins as a "Law and Order" politician, solves many problems of interpretation, a part from the Mayor's ultimate motivation. For instance look at his "need" to be "loved and adored" by masses of people. This is an aspect of personality of many authoritarian personalities and corrupt and/or populist politicians,through-out history and has often been represented in literature -- Mark Antony (and apparently the actual Marcus Antonius if we are to believe Plutarch), Willie Stark/Huey Long, Mussolini, and of course Richard Nixon. It also clarifies Wilkins's use of "power" as not just a means to an end but as an end in-itself. He is a typical politician in that he does not dirty his own hands but rather lets others do his dirty work. His need to be loved and adored, is a vital part of his hypocrisy in his use of power. He needs to be seen as bringing law and order to Sunnydale while at the same time fostering a transformation of reality that will negate all human laws, imposing a demonic "order", on the city. In public he greets boy-scouts and poses as the caring Mayor, but in private he sells his very soul for absolute power.
Now for a personal note. I am not sure of your age. But both Joss and I are at the tale end of the baby boom. For us the forming political experience was not so much the Vietnam War but Watergate and its aftermath. For those of us who came to political awareness at the time of Watergate and who are at all "anti-authoritarian" Richard M. Nixon is the model hypocritical politician. It was hard for me to see the portrait of the Mayor in the third season of BtVS and not think of Nixon.
Since I discovered your podcast on ITunes I have been listening to all of your shows. For some reason I have been working my way backwards. They are the perfect shows to listen to while performing "clerical" work on my files and projects. Great shows and great insights. I really hope you motivate yourself (or find the time) to produce them more often. I am especially looking forward to future Spike episodes. Also more shows on specific episodes.
Another idea for an episode, if I may suggest it, is the idea of "what if..." within the Buffyverse. I am not specifically referring to alternate realities, etc. but rather to "narrative variations" and the representation of "human choice." BtVS seems to me unique among television shows in that it presents the dilemma of human choice and its consequences on both the characters and of the narrative world. We feel that "choices" change the world and we can see the changes in the fact that if this choice was not made then these consequences would not have ensued. But further, there is a direct relation between "choice" and "fate" and this is where "narrative variations" and alternatives come into play. The choices that the characters make actually form the fate of the Buffyverse. The best example is the "discontinuity" in the Slayer line caused by the double resurrection of Buffy herself. Perhaps the Scooby Gang should take responsibility for the second resurrection and perhaps this second resurrection leads eventually to the first, but the first resurrection caused the problems in the slayer-line, and it shaped the seven season arch in many aspects. There was no "responsibility" here but there was certainly "choice" and where "fate" took advantage of the chanciness of human choice.
I will write more at some other times, perhaps trying to reply to Miles, and to other shows. By the way, your use of Ockam's Razor for you show on "Normal Again" was an inspired idea brilliantly carried out.
Jerry
This is in response to the podcast which I only recently discovered on ITunes.
An aspect that you miss about the mayor is that he is a funnier, cleaner, more engaging Richard Nixon. I think this was consciously a part of the conception that Whedon and his team had of Mayor Wilkins from the beginning. I received many insights from this particular episode, but the fact that you only dealt with Mayor Wilkins as an "authority figure" and not as a politician was a bit disappointing.
Let me be specific on how dealing with Wilkins as a Richard Nixon stand-in (or as a special kind of corrupt politicican) might have helped you in your interpretation of Wilkins.
You mention the many incidents in which Wilkins "fights evil". And this is true. But you don't mention his ultimate motivation for Wilkins fight against various kinds of evil. He wants to impose "law and order" on Sumnydale. It is only his conception of "law and order" but it is none-the-less law and order. Let me remind you that of course Nixon was the first post-war "Law and Order" president. It should be noted that all presidents -- and most politicians - who have run on a "law and order" plank have turned out to be deeply corrupt and in practice opposed to the the rule of law. Or more precisely they identify the "rule of law" with their own personal rule. This was the case with Richard Nixon and it was also the case with Richard Wilkins. According to Wilkins's own statement in "This Year's Girl" his project was to bring order to Sunnydale. Wilkins's obsession with "order" also helps us to conceive of his "origin" story without actually having to see it, though I agree with you it would have been nice to have had a stand alone episode (or at least a comic book?) that would have given us the Mayor's origin myth.
I think that conceiving of Mayor Wilkins as a "Law and Order" politician, solves many problems of interpretation, a part from the Mayor's ultimate motivation. For instance look at his "need" to be "loved and adored" by masses of people. This is an aspect of personality of many authoritarian personalities and corrupt and/or populist politicians,through-out history and has often been represented in literature -- Mark Antony (and apparently the actual Marcus Antonius if we are to believe Plutarch), Willie Stark/Huey Long, Mussolini, and of course Richard Nixon. It also clarifies Wilkins's use of "power" as not just a means to an end but as an end in-itself. He is a typical politician in that he does not dirty his own hands but rather lets others do his dirty work. His need to be loved and adored, is a vital part of his hypocrisy in his use of power. He needs to be seen as bringing law and order to Sunnydale while at the same time fostering a transformation of reality that will negate all human laws, imposing a demonic "order", on the city. In public he greets boy-scouts and poses as the caring Mayor, but in private he sells his very soul for absolute power.
Now for a personal note. I am not sure of your age. But both Joss and I are at the tale end of the baby boom. For us the forming political experience was not so much the Vietnam War but Watergate and its aftermath. For those of us who came to political awareness at the time of Watergate and who are at all "anti-authoritarian" Richard M. Nixon is the model hypocritical politician. It was hard for me to see the portrait of the Mayor in the third season of BtVS and not think of Nixon.
Since I discovered your podcast on ITunes I have been listening to all of your shows. For some reason I have been working my way backwards. They are the perfect shows to listen to while performing "clerical" work on my files and projects. Great shows and great insights. I really hope you motivate yourself (or find the time) to produce them more often. I am especially looking forward to future Spike episodes. Also more shows on specific episodes.
Another idea for an episode, if I may suggest it, is the idea of "what if..." within the Buffyverse. I am not specifically referring to alternate realities, etc. but rather to "narrative variations" and the representation of "human choice." BtVS seems to me unique among television shows in that it presents the dilemma of human choice and its consequences on both the characters and of the narrative world. We feel that "choices" change the world and we can see the changes in the fact that if this choice was not made then these consequences would not have ensued. But further, there is a direct relation between "choice" and "fate" and this is where "narrative variations" and alternatives come into play. The choices that the characters make actually form the fate of the Buffyverse. The best example is the "discontinuity" in the Slayer line caused by the double resurrection of Buffy herself. Perhaps the Scooby Gang should take responsibility for the second resurrection and perhaps this second resurrection leads eventually to the first, but the first resurrection caused the problems in the slayer-line, and it shaped the seven season arch in many aspects. There was no "responsibility" here but there was certainly "choice" and where "fate" took advantage of the chanciness of human choice.
I will write more at some other times, perhaps trying to reply to Miles, and to other shows. By the way, your use of Ockam's Razor for you show on "Normal Again" was an inspired idea brilliantly carried out.
Jerry
posted by: Jerry Monaco on Sun, 3/25 02:04 PM EDT
Just a correction to the final paragraph which got cut and mangled in my on-line editing:
Another idea for an episode, if I may suggest it, is the idea of "what if..." within the Buffyverse. I am not specifically referring to alternate realities, etc. but rather to "narrative variations" and the representation of "human choice." BtVS seems to me unique among television shows in that it presents the dilemma of human choice and its consequences on both the characters and of the narrative world. We feel that "choices" change the world and we can see the changes in the fact that if this choice was not made then these consequences would not have ensued. I do not mean that human choice should be looked at only from the point of view of the "consequences" to the characters or the consequences to the narrative as a whole. And here is where the notion of "narrative variations" comes in. Uniquely (I think) for a television show, the Buffyverse allows us to see the "negative space" (to borrow the highfalutin term from "The Body" and artcrit) of the choices that are made. We are allowed to sketch out the narrative lines of other choices that the characters might have made but didn't. In other words we are allowed to see the possibility of "hypothetical" Buffyverse narratives or "what if" this choice was made instead of that choice. This gives the Buffyverse much of its narrative and moral depth.
But further, there is a direct relation between "choice" and "fate" and this is where "narrative variations" and alternatives come into play. The choices that the characters make actually form the fate of the Buffyverse. The best example is the "discontinuity" in the Slayer line caused by the double resurrection of Buffy herself. Perhaps the Scooby Gang should take responsibility for the second resurrection and perhaps this second resurrection leads eventually to the [First Evil], but the first resurrection caused the problems in the slayer-line, and it shaped the seven season arch in many aspects. There was no "moral responsibility" here but there was certainly "choice". In the Buffyverse "fate" takes advantage of the chanciness of human choice. And yet human choice is always "there", it cant' be abrogated or ignored, because to not make a choice will also change the narrative universe and will also have consequences. Few television series actually "show" choice as an actual problem, as an imaginative alternative. This is something that BtVS, over the course of seven seasons has in common with the best 19th century novels.y aspects. There was no "responsibility" here but there was certainly "choice" and where "fate" took advantage of the chanciness of human choice.
Another idea for an episode, if I may suggest it, is the idea of "what if..." within the Buffyverse. I am not specifically referring to alternate realities, etc. but rather to "narrative variations" and the representation of "human choice." BtVS seems to me unique among television shows in that it presents the dilemma of human choice and its consequences on both the characters and of the narrative world. We feel that "choices" change the world and we can see the changes in the fact that if this choice was not made then these consequences would not have ensued. I do not mean that human choice should be looked at only from the point of view of the "consequences" to the characters or the consequences to the narrative as a whole. And here is where the notion of "narrative variations" comes in. Uniquely (I think) for a television show, the Buffyverse allows us to see the "negative space" (to borrow the highfalutin term from "The Body" and artcrit) of the choices that are made. We are allowed to sketch out the narrative lines of other choices that the characters might have made but didn't. In other words we are allowed to see the possibility of "hypothetical" Buffyverse narratives or "what if" this choice was made instead of that choice. This gives the Buffyverse much of its narrative and moral depth.
But further, there is a direct relation between "choice" and "fate" and this is where "narrative variations" and alternatives come into play. The choices that the characters make actually form the fate of the Buffyverse. The best example is the "discontinuity" in the Slayer line caused by the double resurrection of Buffy herself. Perhaps the Scooby Gang should take responsibility for the second resurrection and perhaps this second resurrection leads eventually to the [First Evil], but the first resurrection caused the problems in the slayer-line, and it shaped the seven season arch in many aspects. There was no "moral responsibility" here but there was certainly "choice". In the Buffyverse "fate" takes advantage of the chanciness of human choice. And yet human choice is always "there", it cant' be abrogated or ignored, because to not make a choice will also change the narrative universe and will also have consequences. Few television series actually "show" choice as an actual problem, as an imaginative alternative. This is something that BtVS, over the course of seven seasons has in common with the best 19th century novels.y aspects. There was no "responsibility" here but there was certainly "choice" and where "fate" took advantage of the chanciness of human choice.
posted by: Jerry Monaco on Sun, 3/25 05:04 PM EDT
Post your comment:
