Joss Whedon Allegations: The Undoing of the "Buffy" Creator


log in or register to remove this ad


Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Getting kind of tired of all the "he's only human" talk in my social media circle. "This is what happens when you put people on a pedestal, Joss Whedon is just a human being," they will say. I'm quick to remind them that the problem isn't Joss Whedon being human. The problem is that Joss Whedon is an abusive, cruel human.
Quoted for truth. Everything we've learned about Whedon at this point, even from his own mouth, is that he is a horrible human being. And no, we shouldn't "idolize" horrible human beings.

There is, however, virtue in exemplars and role models. This is, after all, the central thesis behind inclusive media. People who open doors that have been shut by people with power and privilege, and who pave the path forward so that those who follow in their wake can get by a little bit easier, push a little bit farther. Of course, this is not at all mutually exclusive; Marion Zimmer Bradley being one of many examples. One could argue Whedon did the same, pushing the envelope of female-lead action television, to say nothing of some of the first positive portrayals of gay people on American TV. Buffy is considered as ground-breaking as it is for a reason, after all. And yeah, there are parts of it that do not hold up at all for a variety of reasons, several of which don't even involve Xander.

There is importance both in boosting role models and in holding bad actors accountable. We can do both, and probably would, if not for the power and privilege that is afforded anyone to reach a position to be a nationally-known role model at all.

Say what you will about the Harry Potter books, there's a reason they resonated as well as they did for its generation of fans, in particular the outcasts and misfits (many of them queer! Seriously, the only millennial I've ever met that was both queer and didn't get way into Harry Potter growing up is... myself, and I'm both (a) barely a millennial at all at (b) didn't realize I was queer until my early 30's). That J.K. Rowling has developed into a distinctly horrific and cruel individual doesn't change what her works meant to those who it meant so much to.

Harry Potter has been a good test case for "what am I, a consumer, supposed to do now that I know", because the Venn Diagram between "Trans People active on the internet" and "Harry Potter fans' is essentially a small circle completely inside a larger circle. Of course there's been disagreement, but the best I've seen to a consensus is this: the time to be an open and effusive Harry Potter fan has passed. That does not mean you have to throw all your books and merch on the bonfire, nor does it mean disavowing the memories you had of the books shaped the person you eventually became; the parts of the books that once spoke to you and might still speak to you still can. But also like... not financially supporting a loud and powerful voice for bigotry is kind of a given. This includes anything that promotes the works at all; don't talk somebody else into buying and reading all the Harry Potter books, for instance.

This is, I think, a sensible solution for the "horrifying reveal and pedestal shattering" phase of most of horrible peoples' careers, up to and including Whedon.

Terrible folks who are dead are another beast entirely, to which I would say follow the money. The Eddings' trust is in the hands of a school, for instance.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I don’t think that Buffy is still selling enough boxed sets at this point to make anyone’s living, and very few people work on just the one show, ever.

But either way, “what about the other people who make a living from the thing” isn’t a strong argument against holding creators accountable.
You can't hold him accountable through a boycott, though. Like at all. If all of his revenue streams ended tomorrow, he's still set for this life, the next one and the one after that. All you can affect are the ones who didn't do anything wrong and need the money from residuals. A lot of actors only get smaller roles which don't pay tons in residuals, so anything they get is needed.

If you want some sort of boycott, don't give him future work.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
good point. probably bad example. But somebody gets paid residuals on DVD sales besides Whedon.

My point is, not everybody approves of drone strikes because of the collateral damage.

Crapping on people for being concerned about that isn't a good look.
And not just DVD sales. There's also syndicated re-runs and streaming services.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
What? She's obviously not a Bard.

She spends all this time telling you she's levitating ... and you choose a class that doesn't even have that spell on its spell list?

Bolares, I think your Bard obsession has gotten in the way of your critical thinking.
Psh! Goddesses have class levels as we have seen from their stats over the years, and goddesses of song have bard levels. As for levitating, she added that spell to her class list as one of her 10th level Magical Secrets spells. You're fighting the good fight on this one, but... ;)
 


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Psh! Goddesses have class levels as we have seen from their stats over the years, and goddesses of song have bard levels. As for levitating, she added that spell to her class list as one of her 10th level Magical Secrets spells. You're fighting the good fight on this one, but... ;)

I am 164% certain that "Magical Secrets" is just some sort of Bard's Cant that means, "Ima cheat, cuz Ima bard."
 


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
That one I can't argue against. You got me there. I'm not really sure that helps her out, though. ;)

Has anyone ever considered that Dua Lipa is a Warlock, with the Patron of Awesome, who resides on the Positive Energy Plane, the source of all late-night dancing?

Occam's Razor, and all that.
 

Remove ads

Top