InterviewsFemale Empowerment at the Fringe Festival: Roundtable Interview with Playwrights Michelle Ramoni, Dani Vetere, and Alice Winslow (Part 2)

[On Tuesday, August 7, I had the privilege of speaking with three female playwrights who have shows premiering at the New York International Fringe Festival. Michelle Ramoni is the writer of June and Nancy and also plays June in the show. Dani Vetere is the playwright of Hadrian’s Wall. Alice Winslow is a writer and actor of I <3 Revolution. This interview will be presented in three parts.]

When people go to see your shows, what do you hope they’ll think about when they leave? What kind of message or change in perspective do you hope they’ll take with them?

DANI: I really wanted to write both about age difference and sexuality in a way that made the issue seem very neutral. I would love for people to stop noticing that after a certain point and just watch the play and think, “Oh, these people fell in love.” I very quickly address the sexuality and try to get it out of the way to try and accomplish that goal, and obviously the actresses are different ages, and it’s just kind of mentioned and moved on. That would be the main thing, I think.

ALICE: First of all, I hope people laugh a lot. I think the show is offbeat and surprising. The relationship to the audience is constantly changing, and I think we’re trying a lot of different male models of power – trying them on, feeling them out, and working them out. So I guess I hope that it’s a place of reflection for people.

MICHELLE: I think theater and art enables us and forces us to look at ourselves, and sort of look at the situation that’s happening live on stage and then ask the question, “What would I do if I was in this situation?” I would love for people to think about what they’d do, what sacrifices would they make for somebody that they loved – would they be able to live in secrecy? Would they be able to be ruled by faith, or fear? What motivates us – is it internal struggles and desires, or is it the information and influence we get from the world around us? [to Dani] And I love what you said. My hope and my dream someday for this play, and all plays that talk about same-sex relationships, that the audience forgets that that’s what they’re watching and it becomes a story about two people that really love each other, so thank you for sharing that.

I like that idea as well, to stop seeing people as labels. How are these characters different from other characters that you’ve either played or written about before?

DANI: My characters are much smarter than I am.

[We laugh.]

ALICE: Are you jealous of them?

[More laughter.]

DANI: No, I honestly am – the things that do come up, my cast and crew will tease me. “Oh, you sound like your character,” and I’ll say, “I don’t have the genius grants, it’s only the embarrassing things that ring true.” I’ve had to do a lot of work to make them sound like people that know about things that I have no knowledge of. I’m writing about science and people who have genius grants and are PhDs – so, that’s different. I think that’s where a lot of the rewriting has come in. I keep sharpening it, and sharpening it and sharpening it, and made them talk faster. I think if the actors were here, they’d say the same thing. It’s like if they were doing E.R. or something; they have to say words, they have no idea what they’re saying, and they have to say it really fast.

Did you find it a bit of a struggle to make the characters sound smart while also making sure that the audience understand what they’re talking about?

DANI: That’s a good question – I watched and read a lot of Aaron Sorkin and I read Proof maybe twelve times when writing this play. I tried to immerse myself in people who had done something like that, and I had to remember that I want the science and archaeology to be accurate enough, but it’s not what people are listening to. Every now and then somebody says, “What does that mean?” and another character explains it, and the story moves forward. That’s what everyone’s listening to, and everything else is for style. I think – yes, it was difficult to balance – “When are the times they should be just talking about science and when do they have to relate it back to us?” and a lot of that’s in the acting. The actors have given it so much that I didn’t even see writing it. I remember when we were first reading through the scene where the characters talk about their work and the director asked the actresses, “What do you think this scene is about?” They’re both super smart women and they said, “Well, I think this is how they fall in love, and why they love each other as opposed to any other person,” and it’s because they can talk to each other on this level. And I thought, “Oh, I have to spend more time on this because it’s not just science. They’re right – this is the foreplay of my play. This is the love story.” So I spent a lot more time on that and that’s how they perform it. When they talk about science, it’s as if they’re flirting with each other.

ALICE: All of our characters are based on particular aspects of our personalities – the three of us – taken to extremes. We’re all named after ourselves – I’m Alice, Alexandra is Alexandra, Tara’s Tara – but taken to extremes, really big extremes. So my character has no sense of humor.

[Everyone laughs.]

She has absolutely no sense of humor, which is pretty unlike myself, but it’s like the Type A in me taken off the charts. I’m the most concerned with how the audience sees us. I’m big on image control, how the audience is viewing us, what things might be really bad from a PR standpoint, how the revolution is branded, when we’re being too aggressive, when we’re not being aggressive enough. I’m sort of the most organized but also the least lovable of the three of us. Alexandra’s really bumbling and that’s endearing, so no matter what she says to threaten you, you don’t take it seriously, and Tara’s so extreme that you don’t take anything she says seriously, but I take myself so seriously that I think – that’s the danger of my character. My humanity is maybe a little more guarded than the others. I tend to play a lot of emotional ingénues, so this has been nice because there’s no softness – well, there is a softness, but it comes purely from self-preservation, not from genuine empathy – sort of like Angela on The Office.

[We laugh.]

She’s sort of the model.

I always feel like the Type A characters really grow on you after a while.

ALICE: I hope so! While I was writing it, I was totally fine with it, but in rehearsal, I’m terrified because it’s hard to be so unlovable and so unlikable, even!

DANI: Yeah, I had this question about whether one of my characters has been unfaithful or not – it’s a minor story point, but I just kept going back and forth with every draft. And then I finally slipped it in there that she HAS done it, and the actress playing her was so thrown, she was like, *deep breath,* “Okay.” I said, “no, we’re still going to love you!” and she said, “Okay, I just have to think about this – I’m sure she had a reason.” But it was really hard to go to a place where it’s something no one particularly respects.

MICHELLE: It’s so funny, because just in terms of logistics of the play, I wrote myself as the main character. I’ve never been an ingénue, I’ve never been the lead, I’ve always had the character role, or the really “strong and funny one,” and this is such a challenge for me in that June is so soft and lovable.

ALICE: You’re doing the opposite of me!

[Laughter.]

MICHELLE: Also, I’m onstage almost the entire time. I was having this journey last night in rehearsal. I was feeling so insecure, looking around at my other actors and characters and thinking, “They’re so much more interesting! June’s just whiny and scared!” But I know that’s not true, but that’s what I was feeling, and I think it’s just her vulnerability- I feel like I’m naked the whole time onstage, in a way that I’ve never experienced before, and it’s both so terrifying and so exciting at the same time. As a playwright, it’s been really interesting – I’m not writing about scientists, but Nancy is a lithographer, and even though my grandfather and aunt were both lithographers, I’m certainly not. I didn’t know much about it, I had to go into my grandfather’s dark room, but I didn’t really know anything, and there’s the fine line between just doing the research and writing a research paper into your play. I had an epiphany; there’s a scene between June and Nancy where they’re talking about art, and I experienced this excitement. I realized, “June and Marty can never have that conversation with one another.” For the first time, June and Nancy both are being seen and heard through this information that they’re giving one another. As for writing about the 50s – I remember in the workshop with Cheryl (King), I would write a scene and she’d say, “You know people in the 50s were people.” Because I had this idea that they’d speak a certain way, almost like Stepford-Wife robotic, and it was coming into my writing, and she said, “They’re people.” Sometimes I trip myself up as an actor, getting into the characteristics of this 1958 housewife and I have to remember, “She’s a person.” I always have a struggle – am I being too much of my modern self? Is that coming in too much? But if I don’t let myself in, then no one hears the play. So yeah, it’s been an interesting journey with that, to rewrite it and take it to a place where people see the style, people see that it’s taking place in 1958, but the characters and the story are coming through.

Posted in Interviews | Leave a comment

InterviewsFemale Empowerment at the Fringe Festival: Roundtable Interview With Playwrights Michelle Ramoni, Dani Vetere, and Alice Winslow (Part 1)

[On Tuesday, August 7, I had the privilege of speaking with three female playwrights who have shows premiering at the New York International Fringe Festival. Michelle Ramoni is the writer of June and Nancy and also plays June in the show. Dani Vetere is the playwright of Hadrian’s Wall. Alice Winslow is a writer and actor of I <3 Revolution. This interview will be presented in three parts.]

Let’s start with the basics. What are your shows about?

ALICE: Our show [I <3 Revolution] is about three girls who want to completely do away with the current world order and try to start a new world, to create a new day. The problem is that they’re pretty disorganized and there’s a lot of internal conflict. They can’t quite figure out who the enemies are or how to target the enemies. They’re so concerned with being liked – both by the audience and by each other – that it makes it hard to get anywhere. It’s a comedy, but we’re not suggesting that change is impossible, just difficult.

MICHELLE: My play [June and Nancy] is about this woman June living in 1958. She’s in a marriage where they both love each other, but they’re two very different people. June is an artist who’s unsatisfied in her life – she’s not doing what she loves, not pursuing her passions. Then comes along Nancy, who’s a trailblazer, so cutting-edge for the time – she knows she’s a lesbian, so she’s out to herself, but not to the world. They meet, both coming from very different worlds, and they connect on this spiritual and emotional level. They have a love affair, and June has to make a decision whether or not to stay with her husband or leave him for this woman that she loves.

DANI: My play [Hadrian’s Wall] is about an archaeologist who was accused of stealing something from a site and has been a recluse for fifteen years. She has a former boyfriend from that time who’s a lawyer and trying to help her clear her name in the context of an academic trial, and she’s just sort of stuck in her apartment and her life. She’s not working. She operates in this little tiny kingdom, and a new girl enters the picture. She’s an archaeology student and thinks that the archaeologist is amazing and should be working. The two women fall in love, and a mystery begins to unfold about whether she committed this crime or not, and why.

Is this your first time at the Fringe Festival? If so, how did you decide that the Fringe Festival was the best platform for your work?

MICHELLE: This is not my first Fringe show; my first was in 2003. I was an actor in a show called Civil Liberties. I was able to touch on the experience of the Fringe – the excitement and frenetic energy and opportunity – and I’ve had friends before me become part of the Fringe Festival. Gabrielle Maisels, an actress in my show, had two shows in previous Fringe Festivals, and just watching their experience and what it was like for them to have an opportunity to get their work seen out there, and their excitement – I think there’s this community and camaraderie in the people who are participating in the excitement of new works being shown for the first time, and that’s what drew me into the Fringe Festival in particular.

DANI: This is my first time at Fringe, and my first theatrical production, period. I work mostly in TV. I needed something where my not having done it before would be an asset, or at least not a detriment. With any other avenue I chose, I thought, “How do I get this done?” and “I don’t know what I’m doing.” [laughs] I actually did it the way you apply to dream things – I did it, forgot about it, and moved on, and the acceptance letter was actually sent to my spam folder.

ALICE: I was involved in another show in the Fringe a few years ago that I auditioned for. My friend Tara [Schuster], one of the writers, had a show in 2008 in the Fringe that she’d written. We wrote [I <3 Revolution] in our senior year of college in 2008, performed it in Tara’s basement, and invited people to see it. That was our first round of the show and it’s been on our minds ever since. It was this incredible, rewarding production. It was outside the system of student theater, something we felt passionately about and wanted to bring to our friends, so it’s been on our minds ever since and we’ve been chewing it over. We applied and completely forgot about it. We got the acceptance letter and were like “oh, oh, we have to do this!” But yeah, it was kind of the perfect venue for the show, I would say.

Were any of your shows inspired by real life events? If so, how did they shape the development of these plays?

DANI: I think when I first started writing the play, I thought, “For once, I want to not write about myself and make this show have nothing to do with me.” So I started doing all this research about archaeology and science and I spent a lot of time on that. When I finally got ready to write the play, I just started writing the characters. It wasn’t until I was halfway through the draft that I realized, oh yeah, these are all people I know. They’re talking about things I don’t really understand, but the characters are all from my life, as usual. So, the play wasn’t necessarily based on events, but certainly inspired by people I’ve met or known or been in relationships with.

MICHELLE: I was in a relationship. I fell in love and was in a really beautiful relationship. This woman was sort of my muse, and I started writing these love monologues and love letters. This is how the play first started, and it was really interesting because this voice of this woman in her 50s, this 50s housewife, kept coming through the writing. At the time, I was doing a showcase for Stage Left Studio called Forbidden Kiss and I thought, “Write a sexy monologue about love,” and that’s how it started. Then I started developing actual different scenes and… [to Dani] it’s kind of what you were saying, I didn’t really know where these characters were coming from. They’re all either me, or people I know. In fact, Nancy is hugely based on my aunt and her experiences at that time. Originally, the play was set in both the present and the past, and the inability of my girlfriend and I to get married was certainly a motivating factor to get this play out there – a “see how far we’ve gone, and how we haven’t changed at all” kind of thing. That had changed here in New York, which made me think – are we bound by external obstacles or our internal obstacles? That started to shape the play, and I decided to really focus on the story in the 50s and keep it there for now, for this version of the play. So yeah, what was happening externally and politically was informing the writing, certainly.

ALICE: Our show – when we first started writing it, we were about to graduate, we were feeling incredibly frustrated and disenfranchised politically, and I think it sprung a lot out of feeling the first time that we were picking up on – maybe not for the first time – but picking up on the subtle misogyny, and latent misogyny on campus, particularly in campus theater. We went to Brown, and part of the thing is, in an environment like that where it’s such a progressive student body, you sort of assume that you’re all on the same page and then you realize the more subtle ways that power dynamic is operating, just in the way that men – it was easier for them to speak up because they’ve been listened to their whole lives, and I’ve been told to give people the floor my whole life. The play is a response to feeling frustrated by that, by our political climate, by not knowing what we were going to do when we graduated, so in that way, it was very much of the moment of our lives and in response to that, and this new version is almost more…about these three girls trying to start a revolution but can’t totally figure out how to work outside the system, or out of the roles and examples and models of power they have or see. So with Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring and everything that’s happened since the first version of the play, it seemed even more relevant and of the moment, and it speaks to the impossibility – maybe not impossibility – but difficulty of finding and making real change within the complicated dynamics of personal relationships and culture at large.

It’s funny, something you said reminded me of another question so I guess I’ll just jump into that – but are there any particular struggles that you face in being female playwrights and actors? Are the challenges different for actors than they are for playwrights? 

MICHELLE: It’s so interesting because the thing that came to my mind when you were speaking was my own internal struggles with this. I’ve heard my whole life that men are funnier. I hear people ask, “Who are your favorite directors and playwrights?” Often, most of the answers are men. So it’s like this subconscious message that I’ve either taken from what I’ve heard and what I’ve been exposed to. I’ve even done that to myself, almost disqualifying myself as a playwright, and that’s something I’m still struggling with. I don’t know if it’s a conscious thing, like, “Because I’m a woman, I don’t know if I’m as good,” but I think there’s that piece that has been in the back of my mind, you know, in working through that, and it’s certainly come out in the struggles with these characters. You know, the play asks the question, “What it is to be a woman?” and the two different characters show that in different ways. As an actor, well, I’ll just give an example: I was in an on-camera acting class and when all the women went to do their thing on camera, we were sort of picked apart – I was told I had a lot of wrinkles on my face, and somebody else was told that if they held their eyes a certain way, they looked crazy, and what I noticed was that nothing was said to the men about their physicality. It was all about their work and their craft. That showed me in 2010, “Wow, how much has changed?” You know? This is my sort of response to that, creating my own work, and if you’re asking me to put Scotch tape between my eyebrows so that I won’t show my wrinkles and practice in the mirror – yes, that was said – then I think that I’m going to create an avenue for myself, for something satisfying beyond worrying about my physicality. And again, all of that I’ve experienced in my life certainly comes through in the play.

DANI: I think that I have more anxiety or concern about the fact that I only write about women. Obviously I hope my work applies and relates to everyone, but I don’t ever really write male protagonists, so I worry, “Is there enough interest for this?” I always feel like I’m writing in this niche, and I’m only really writing about fifty percent of the population. I’m writing for this tiny audience, because so much more of what you see out there is about men. I remember when someone recommended my director to me…I was in L.A., and I had to speak to him for the first time on the phone, and thought, “Why does he even want to do my play? Why is he interested in this?” I automatically assumed, “Why would a man want to even do something with two female protagonists?” He was really interested in it, and I think a lot of this worry is in my own self-consciousness about it, not necessarily coming from the people I’m working with. The fact that it was about women was the thing he was MOST interested in. He loves women and he thinks they’re interesting.

ALICE: It’s funny, though – theater in a lot of way is considered gendered female, and yet so many of the power positions, so many artistic directors, so many best-known directors are all male, so there’s definitely still a problem in terms of inclusion and diversity of work.

Posted in Interviews | Tagged | Leave a comment

ArticlesThree Reasons to Like Gwen Stacy

[This post was originally published at Bitch Flicks.]

I have now seen The Redundant Amazing Spider-man twice in theaters – the first time with friends, and the second time with my brothers when it was a rainy day and we didn’t have time to see The Dark Knight Rises. I liked the film more than the previous Spider-man movies, largely because of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, but I also liked the film’s treatment of Gwen Stacy.

Women in superhero movies don’t often get much to do. If they’re not completely invented for the film for the sake of throwing a bone to female viewers (Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins), they’re left in the role of damsel in distress who do nothing but get into trouble and get rescued (Mary Jane Watson in the original Spider-man trilogy). Female superheroes and anti-heroes, like the Black Widow in The Avengers or Catwoman in Batman Returns and The Dark Knight Rises, are more complex, but if you’re not a hero and simply dating one, forget it – no good characterization for you.

That is, unless you’re Gwen Stacy in The Amazing Spider-man. (Note: I haven’t read the comics and this post will only talk about Gwen in the film.)

Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy

As far as superhero love interests go, Gwen Stacy is very cool. Here are three reasons why:

1) She’s intelligent for her own sake, not just for Peter’s.
In The Amazing Spider-man, Gwen Stacy is a student at Midtown Science High School with Peter Parker, as well as an intern at OsCorp. She’s gifted in the field of science, hard-working, and has a good sense of humor, gently ribbing Peter after Flash Thompson beats him up in front of the school.

But she doesn’t come across as the Token Smart Female, the one-dimensional character archetype who’s thrown in the story so the hero can have a love interest and the female viewers can stop complaining about lack of female representation. She’s smart in a way that makes sense to the character and to the plot. Of course Gwen Stacy is smart; she’s a student at a magnet high school! She’s also shown researching and working at her computer in several different scenes, and the direction indicates that she’s a girl with an active life outside of Peter Parker and Spider-man. We don’t get to see much of it, but we can tell it’s there.

Gwen in the halls of Midtown Science High School

2. Gwen helps save the day.
The main hero of the movie is, of course, Spider-man/Peter Parker himself, as it should be – it’s his name in the title, after all. But I was pleasantly surprised to see how active Gwen was in the plot of the film. When the Lizard tried to turn all of New York City into reptile-people, Gwen was the one who cooked the antidote. Captain Stacy passed it to Spider-man, who released the antidote in the air and cured not only the people of New York, but Dr. Connors/The Lizard himself.

Again, I’m not used to seeing the superhero love interest take an active role in saving the world. Spider-man could not have saved the world without Gwen’s help. She wasn’t just a participant in Spider-man’s plot; she played a vital role – and she did it using her brain and applied knowledge.

Gwen working at OsCorp

3. Gwen has Peter Parker’s number.
I loved that Peter told Gwen about his secret identity halfway through the movie. It felt like a fresh take on the story to have the love interest learn of the hero’s identity early in the story. But I groaned near the end of the movie where [spoiler alert!] a dying Captain Stacy asked Peter not to involve Gwen in his heroics anymore. I could see the plot of the next film playing before my eyes: Gwen would have hurt feelings that Peter was ignoring her, and there would be a Classic Misunderstanding between the two of them until the very end of the movie.

I should have given the screenwriters more credit. It takes about sixty seconds for Gwen to realize what’s going on after Peter tells her he can’t see her anymore. She understands very quickly that her father must have asked Peter to stay away from her and keep her safe. She doesn’t like it, but she gets it.

Gwen and Peter (Andrew Garfield)

I’m happy that The Amazing Spider-man made Gwen Stacy an actual character instead of turning her into a nameless, faceless love interest. I hope the writers continue with Gwen’s strong characterization and put equal care and attention into writing Mary Jane Watson, if and when they introduce her. (And if they can have a red-haired Emma Stone play Mary Jane as well, that would be great, because Emma Stone makes everything better.)

Posted in Articles | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Blog PostsStoneybrook Revisited: BSC Books 11-14, Super Special #1

#11 – Kristy and the Snobs
This is the book where Kristy snarks at the snobs in her neighborhood and eventually becomes friendly with them, and also the one where her dog is put to sleep. Which one of these plots gets the title? The snob one. Well, at least that prevents the book from being a complete Very Special Episode About The Time We Put Our Dog To Sleep.

Kristy doesn’t like squirrels. We have that in common. We should form a squirrel-hating support group. The members would be me, Kristy, and Dug from Pixar’s UP.

Okay, we know how chapter 2 of each BSC book is the chapter where Ann M. Martin lists everyone’s background and character traits? Well, the chapter 2 in this particular book is the most awkwardly-written one so far. Kristy actually documents each member’s likes and dislikes as though they’re Playmates of the Month.

I know the message of this book is that Kristy and Shannon Kilbourne pre-judge each other and they’re both guilty and blah blah, but I actually have no problem with Kristy deciding that Shannon is awful after Shannon pretends that a house is on fire while Kristy is babysitting. That is a perfectly legitimate reason to think someone is a jerk! Kristy’s real mistake is forgiving Shannon and inviting her to join the club after Shannon exhibits irresponsible and dangerous behavior. Oh, well. Maybe their conflict can all be chalked up to sexual tension.

For some reason, I’m stuck on a throwaway line from the narration: “Sam was helping David Michael with a tricky subtraction problem.” Unless you are hopelessly bad at math or have dyscalculia, what exactly would count as a “tricky” subtraction problem for a seven-year-old? I don’t know why this bugged me, but it did. Why can’t she just say that Sam was helping David Michael with his difficult math homework?

Oh, I think this is the first book where Dawn’s brother Jeff misses California and wants to go home. This arc actually lasts for a couple of books, with an attempt to build up tension along the way.

Hey, when Kristy misses a meeting, Dawn has to take over as president since she’s the alternate officer. So Claudia’s vice-president title basically means nothing. How rude.

Also, the descriptions of a sick Louie are rather uncomfortable to read. But it’s okay in the end, because they get a new dog, and David Michael names her Shannon. So there are two Shannons: one’s a snob and the other’s a bitch. *rimshot*

#12 – Claudia and the New Girl
This is the first – but not the last – book where the POV character makes a friend outside the club, and the other club members turn into selfish, cliquey assholes because they cannot handle any outsider threatening the status quo. They are jerks to Claudia regarding Ashley from minute one, and while Ashley does indeed prove to be a jerk herself, Kristy and Mary Anne are icy-cold to her for no reason the minute they see Claudia talking with her. SO RUDE.

This actively annoys me, to tell the truth. We’re supposed to see the BSC members as Claudia’s true friends while Ashley only likes Claudia for being an artist. We’re supposed to see that the BSC are the REAL DEAL where friends are concerned. Yet these supposedly great people judge Ashley immediately because she dresses weird (according to them) and doesn’t talk to them comfortably. Then they get to smugly pat themselves on the back when Ashley turns out to be a user, and we, the readers, are meant to applaud them For Having Been Right All Along. When all I can think is, “Run, Claudia, run! Run away from Ashley AND the BSC!”

Seriously, I know I’m supposed to frown at Claudia for her whorish meeting-skipping ways, but there’s really nothing wrong, in theory, with an aspiring artist to become close to another artist her age, and develop a friendship with someone who shares an important common interest. When Claudia claims that they’d all still like each other even if they didn’t have babysitting in common, I want to shout, “LIAR!”

The worse part is that this is NOT the most obnoxious the club gets when one of them makes a friend outside of the group. We haven’t even reached the massive shit fit they collectively throw when Mary Anne gets a haircut. (I can’t WAIT for that book.)

Also, Jackie Rodowsky is still wicked adorable. I also like the Perkins girls, who name their characters Mrs. Xerox and Mrs. Refrigerator.

Also, the first chapter description of Claudia feeling bored in class is decently-written and kind of funny, but Claudia is seriously missing out by not having read The Westing Game. Get on that immediately, Claud.

HA. In a Claudia book, Janine is not mentioned until page 66. No one even tried to edit this, did s/he?

#13 – Goodbye Stacey, Goodbye
The very title of this book gives me a headache. The one comma but not the other. Why. WHY?

Anyway, this book is super boring. Stacey learns that she is leaving. Everyone is sad that Stacey is leaving. Stacey is sad that Stacey is leaving. People cry and talk about best friendships. The BSC throws a goodbye party for Stacey that includes them having to watch after a bunch of little kids, because these girls have problems. They’re thirteen years old and their idea of the most fun thing ever is to PAY for a party that entails them watching children.

Also, Stacey is all huffy that Howie Johnson asked out Dorianne Wallingford, even though previous books pointed to Pete Black as Stacey’s sort-of boyfriend, and basically she’s pouty over nothing, and how can we care when these two characters (Howie and Dorianne) haven’t even had LINES in most of the books? What the hell ever, Stacey.

The best thing about this book is Stacey’s full name: Anastasia Elizabeth McGill. Because of this book, I fully believed for a really long time that “Stacey” was almost always a nickname for “Anastasia,” and I was shocked to hear that it was a name in its own right. Thanks a lot, BSC books.

Dawn says that “people in California don’t have yard sales.” Any Californians want to contradict/confirm? It occurs to me that Ann M. Martin could’ve trolled us all and dropped made-up tidbits about California all these years, knowing we’d all swallow it.

Charlotte reads Iggy’s House, a story about a black family moving to a white neighborhood. And the next book will introduce Jessi. Well-played, Martin. Well-played.

#14 – Hello, Mallory
Mallory joins the club, but that’s only the second-most important part of the book. The most-important part of this book is that JESSI IS BLACK.

In all seriousness, though, this book manages to be…not completely unsubtle about racism, unlike future books that bring up the fact that JESSI IS BLACK in the most awkward ways possible. I want to snark at the over-the-top racist comment from Mallory’s classmate when she thinks that Jessi’s “real name is Mobobwee or something,” but then I remember that a girl my own age once sneered at my American Girl Addy doll and said that “those people smelled bad,” so maybe the “Mobobwee” comment is, sadly, not that over-the-top after all.

Anyway, Mallory and Jessi become fast best friends, mostly because Mallory becomes pretty stalkerish and possessive of Jessi and decides that she’s going to be best friends with the new girl the moment she sees her, and obsesses over whether or not she’ll have any classes with the new girl every damn period of the day. Still, they have a lot in common and DO become friends despite the adversity they face, given that JESSI IS BLACK. Jessi also likes to tell a lot of corny jokes. I don’t remember this character trait of Jessi appearing at all in later books. Where did Jessi-the-amateur-comedienne disappear to?

Wait, I just thought of something. Jessi is now living at Stacey’s old house. Jessi occupies the house that Stacey and her family once occupied. Jessi has a sister named Becca and a best friend in Mallory. She has a “girl,” though not in a romantic sense. So, Jessi’s girl once lived in the house as Stacey’s mom.

I know, I know. My jokes are hilarious. Not to mention timely.

So, in terms of plot, Mallory annoys me from the very beginning by acting like she’s SO UNUSUAL and SO PUT-UPON for having to wear glasses and braces. Yet, she manages to be less annoying than the BSC members who are two years older than she is, so I’m going to cut Mal a little slack. The parts where she and Jessi get to know each other are pretty cute, and she makes me chuckle when she speculates on Dawn’s job before Dawn took over the treasurer position: “Nothing too important, I guess. Maybe she was just another sitter.”

Wait. Hold on a minute. These supposedly super-superior excellent babysitters don’t know the difference between soy SAUCE and soy FORMULA? That’s it. They’re all fired. Except Mallory and Jessi, I guess. The fate of the club rests in the hands of two eleven-year-olds.

In these last four books, Kristy, Claudia, and Mallory each make a new friend, but Claudia is the only one judged for it. Let the lesson be learned: new friends are only acceptable if they become members of the Baby-Sitters Cult. I mean, Club.

Super Special #1: Baby-sitters On Board
This is the first super special and it’s a weird book for a few different reasons.

First, the book was published in between Hello, Mallory! and Little Miss Stoneybrook…and Dawn, yet it doesn’t fit with the timeline. In this super special, we have yet to meet Jessi, Stacey is still with the BSC, and Mallory isn’t in the club.

Second-of-ly, the book’s timeline is all off, not syncing up with the other books at all. This is their summer vacation, but it was published after Logan Likes Mary Anne!, where the girls first start eighth grade, and before Mary Anne’s BadLuck Mystery, where it’s almost Halloween. WHOOPS your timeline is non-existent!

Thirdly, Ann M. Martin decides to show the perspectives of three non-BSC characters. One is Mallory – okay, that makes sense. She’s going to become a BSC member shortly in the alternate timeline where they don’t go on the cruise, and this is the author’s way of introducing her to the readers. Another narrator is Karen Brewer. I can’t stand Karen, but maybe Ann already had the idea for the Little Sister series and was testing another narrator. Fine. But the third non-BSC POV character is Byron Pike, one of Mal’s triplet brothers, and – why? What does Byron bring to the table? Was this a misguided attempt to get boys interested in reading the BSC books? I don’t get it.

Finally, the book is boring. Super Specials are hardly ever boring, but the plots here are so dumb: Kristy makes friends with an old man. Stacey makes friends with a boy in a wheelchair because it’s just like diabetes!!! The boys think there’s a treasure on the ship. A daughter of two singers lies to Mary Anne. Boys like Claudia and Dawn and there’s no tension or suspense to make anyone care about their little romances. The only thing mildly interesting is Kristy and Dawn’s Odd Couple-esque feud but the story doesn’t live up to its potential. Kristy is mean to Dawn for no reason, and then stops being mean. Okay then.

The one good thing about Baby-sitters on Board is Mal wanting to keep a spy book like Harriet the Spy. This gives me more affection for Mal. I wanted to be Harriet the Spy at one point in my life, too. But it doesn’t make up for Karen being SO obnoxious. She sneaks away for like an hour, gets a manicure and charges a bunch of stuff to her father’s credit card, and Kristy’s response is to laugh and say “You’re too much?!” Is Karen that spoiled or is she that creepy kid from The Twilight Zone who could control everyone’s mind?

Coming up next on Stoneybrook Revisited: Jessi gets her first book which is also the first Very Special Episode book, Mary Anne has bad luck, the girls visit Stacey in New York, and Claudia breaks her leg.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Blog PostsA Few Announcements

Greetings and salutations, readers. I have a few announcements for the month of August.

Announcement #1: I have become a weekly contributor at Bitch Flicks and will be writing a post for them every Thursday. My introductory post is here. Bitch Flicks has featured a few guest posts of mine in the past, and I’m honored and flattered to be included as part of their regular team.

Announcement #2: I will be covering part of New York City’s Fringe Festival. I’ve been invited to take part in a roundtable interview with representatives from three different plays, and I will also be attending and reviewing anywhere from four to five shows. In the second half of the month, my blog will focus heavily on the Fringe Festival and New York City theater. My blogging schedule will change a little to adapt to the play schedule, and I hope everyone will be interested to read about some innovative new theater in the New York City scene.

Announcement #3: A very talented graphic designer friend of mine is creating a customized design for my blog. Once the design is complete, I’ll be moving to a different hosting platform and web address. I’ll let you know when I have a new domain name and web address so that subscribers can keep following me.

Announcement #4: I’ll be going away from August 11-August 19. There will be no new posts during that time and I won’t be able to respond to comments. I’m doing some intense volunteer work that week that gobbles up ALL of my time. Expect radio silence, people. Even my closest friends and family will be lucky to get a text from me that week.

Announcement #5: I haven’t forgotten about The Rom-Com Project! Really, I haven’t! I just don’t expect to write about them on a weekly or even bi-weekly basis anymore because of the changes in my schedule. Don’t worry – I’ll have new updates soon.

Thanks for reading!

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | Leave a comment

Blog PostsCan’t Get Enough of That Gotye Song

You know what happens when you first hear a great song? You LOVE the song. Then the radios play it all the time and you get sick of it, and your favorite song becomes your least favorite song, and you want to TEAR THE RADIO OUT OF THE CAR AND THROW IT ON THE STREET?

That feeling has not happened to me with That Gotye Song. I have been obsessed with that song since I first heard it in September. Usually favorite song obsessions last two or three months. My obsession with Lady Gaga’s “Bad Romance” lasted six months. But “Somebody That I Used to Know,” otherwise known as That Gotye Song, has been my favorite song for almost a good year. I love it even more than I did the first time I heard it. LOVE.

You know something else I like? Mash-ups! On the list of three things that made me stick with Glee long after the show became bad, mash-ups were third on the list, after Kurt/Blaine and Santana.

Therefore, I have to share with everyone my favorite mashups of That Gotye Song and other songs. This post doesn’t have much to do with feminism, but I don’t care. Sometimes I just blog about things I like.

1. Pomplamoose – “Do Not Push” – A Gotye/Carly Rae Jepsen mash-up.


I love the way they combined a heartrending breakup song with the silliest song since “Friday.” It works, too. “Call Me Maybe” without the chorus sounds rather haunting when combined with That Gotye Song.

2. Ben and Rachel Leddy – “Someone Like Somebody That I Used to Know” – Gotye/Adele

Combining That Gotye Song with That Adele Breakup Song is an obvious choice, but a good one. Their voices are light and pretty and sound great together, and I’m a sucker for families that sing and perform together. I blame the Von Trapps.

3. Naikha Cruz – “Are You That Somebody That I Used to Know” – Gotye/Aaliayh

Jaw. Drop. I can’t believe this is a thing that exists. More than that, I can’t believe that this is a thing that has existed for a whole WEEK and I didn’t learn of it until today. Putting these songs together from a lyrical perspective doesn’t make complete sense, but musically? Rhythmically? I have on my dancing shoes and I’m listening to this twenty times a day.

4. La Sessica – “We Found the Floor That I Used to Know” – Gotye/Rihanna/J.Lo


I wasn’t sure I liked this one at first, but it’s grown on me. It’s incessantly bubbly and cheery while also creepy.

5. Caitlin Currie – “Mr. Brightside/Somebody That I Used to Know” – Gotye/The Killers


Hey, it’s That Gotye Song combined with another song I used to be completely obsessed with! Sung by a singer with a really pretty voice! Who also plays different instruments!

Those are the favorite ones I’ve found so far. In the meantime, here are three more videos – two about That Gotye Song, and one about a different mashup.

Walk the Earth Gotye Cover – 5 People, 1 Guitar

Two Guys Show Us What Happens When That Gotye Song Comes on the Radio


Biggie Smalls/Thomas the Tank Engine Theme

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | Leave a comment

ReviewsBtVS and Consent Issues: Episodes 5.15 – “I Was Made to Love You” and 5.18 – “Intervention”

[Note: I’m writing a series about consent issues in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will post a new entry in this series every other Tuesday – or perhaps on a weekly basis, if I have the time. In this series, I will look at an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that deals with rape, sexual assault, or consent issues as a main plot point or as a featured event of the episode. I will examine these episodes in chronological order. If, in my writing of this series, you feel that I have skipped an episode that should be a part of this series, feel free to submit a guest post, and I will consider publishing it.]

EPISODE: “I Was Made to Love You,” “Intervention”
INCIDENT: Uh…robot sex?
PERPETRATOR: Warren Mears, Spike
VICTIM: April, Buffybot

The specifics: In these two episodes, two different male characters create walking, talking robots to be their walking sex toys. Warren creates a robot named April to be his girlfriend, but then abandons her when he falls in love with a real-life woman named Katrina. Spike has Warren create a sexbot that looks and sounds exactly like Buffy. Both robots are programmed to be hopelessly devoted to the men who created them (or in Spike’s case, the man who commissioned the robot to be built).

The mind of the perpetrators: Warren is a lonely person who created a robot girlfriend when no real-life women wanted him. He explains to Buffy that he wanted more than sex – he wanted a girlfriend, and programmed April to be in love with him. Unfortunately, he found that he could not love April because she was too perfect:

“You know, she got boring. She was exactly what I wanted, and I didn’t want her.”

After he falls in love with Katrina and begins dating her, he abandons April in his dorm room, hoping that her batteries will run out before she can come after him, showing that he doesn’t think of her as a person (which, granted, she isn’t).

Spike, meanwhile, is in love with Buffy and knows he can never have the real Buffy, so he makes Warren build him the Buffybot. She looks exactly like Buffy and sounds exactly like Buffy, but is chirpy and ditzy in the way that the real-life Buffy isn’t. The Buffybot is also slavishly devoted to Spike.

The victims’ perspective: They’re programmed to love Warren and Spike, respectively, and they do. There’s not much else to say.

What does this episode say about misogyny and rape culture?

First of all, I’d like to say that I don’t consider the robot sex a violation of consent in of itself. Building a robot girlfriend is creepy, without question, but at the same time…they’re robots. Programming a robot’s mind isn’t the same as trying to control a human being’s mind.

At the same time, though, I think that the personality traits of the robots reveal a lot about the men who built them.

Warren programs April to be voice-activated. She has to respond when he calls her or else a buzzing feedback will ring in her ears. (Buffy calls him a “creepy little dweeb” when she hears this, and I think she was being kind.) He also programs her to never cry if she’s upset:

“APRIL: Crying is blackmail. Good girlfriends don’t cry.”

It’s nice that he manages to make a genuine human connection with Katrina, and likes her for her personality (he tells Buffy that she was really funny and smart). But his treatment of April – abandoning her in his dorm room and hoping for her batteries to run out – shows that he only cares about people/women as long as they serve the needs he wants at the time. April was useful to him when he wanted a girlfriend to worship him, and Katrina was useful to him when he wanted someone more challenging, but he abandoned April in a dorm room, and as for Katrina…well, we’ll see what he does to her when we get to season six.

Spike’s case is a little different. Unlike Warren, he doesn’t program the Buffybot to experience physical pain if she doesn’t answer Spike’s calls, and he doesn’t emotionally manipulate her by making her believe that “crying is blackmail.” However, his robot is built to look and sound like a real person, the woman Spike can’t have. His robot is still gross, just for a different reason than Warren’s is gross.

There’s still creepy programming involved in Spike’s robot, anyway. He programs the Buffybot to know exactly three facts about each one of Buffy’s close friends, to not correctly pronounce Giles’s name, to not ask about Dawn or care much about her. He also programs the Buffybot to become turned on after fighting and to feel sexually unsatisfied if she doesn’t stake enough vampires during a night’s patrol. (This turns out to be somewhat true for Buffy herself, as she is attracted to the mix of sex and violence, but not to the porn-movie extent that the Buffybot is.) Later in season six, he’ll tell the real Buffy that she doesn’t belong with her friends and belongs “in the dark,” with him.

By the end of “Intervention,” the Buffybot is out of commission, and Spike has been nearly beaten to death by Glory because he refused to give information about Dawn. He’ll give his own life if it means saving Buffy’s or Dawn’s, and that’s why Buffy forgives him for his gross escapade.

Both Warren and Spike did something terribly creepy with their sexbots, but the way they handle the aftermath speaks volumes about their characters. When Warren realizes that he has to dump April, he tells the robot that he’s fallen in love with Buffy, thereby directing April’s wrath away from himself and Katrina to a third party. It doesn’t matter to him either way if an innocent bystander lives or dies. Spike, on the other hand, will undergo torture and possible death if he can save Buffy or someone important to her. This doesn’t absolve him of his actions, though – it merely shows that he has more potential to be a better person than Warren does.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Blog PostsLady T Recommends “Fencer”

Do you like stories about women’s sports? Do you like stories about women in competition with each other? Then check out Fencer, a short film-in-progress by Armen Perian in Glendale, California.

The description of the project is up at Kickstarter here. From the website:

What happens if the thing you’re really good at isn’t what you want to dedicate your life to?

FENCER is a short film about having the courage to reject expectations set by talent. Our protagonist, Hayley, is the embodiment of the last-minute panic we all feel before important, life-changing events. A twenty-one year old junior at a prestigious East Coast university, Hayley Ashford is poised for a lifetime of success as a naturally gifted fencer. But not all is well days before a crucial, career-defining competition. As internal and external expectations mount, Hayley’s self doubt manifests itself in a very real hand tremor, which may be her downfall.

Will she have the courage to reconcile her abilities with her desires, or will she succumb to the pressure?

Why I’m recommending this project: I did junior varsity fencing in high school for three years. In my senior year, I decided that I was more likely to get a good part in the school play than make varsity fencing. I turned out to be right, but I still enjoyed my three years fencing and developed an appreciation of the sport. I don’t read or see a lot of stories about fencers and fencing.

I’m also intrigued by the concept of a female athlete who’s really, really good at her sport, yet isn’t sure she wants to make it her life’s calling. The question, “What happens if the thing you’re really good at isn’t what you want to dedicate your life to?” is always appealing to me, which may explain why I’m so fond of characters like Dottie Hinson and Britta Perry. Throw in another female character, a rival and competitor who has the passion that the lead character lacks, but doesn’t have the skill, and I’m hooked. I want to see this story.

Finally, I’m impressed with the cinematography and camera work in the video. I think this short film will demonstrate how exciting fencing can be.

Fencer is seeking $20,000 and has raised $1,490 so far, but there are still 25 days to fund the project. Please consider chipping in a few dollars, or spreading the message to other people who might be interested.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | Leave a comment

Blog PostsGaston, the Beast, and Choosing to Change

About two weeks ago, The Nerve posted an article called “Ranked: Disney Princesses From Least to Most Feminist,” because apparently the feminist blogosphere would collapse around itself if us writers went for more than a month without politicizing the Disney princesses.

I’ll spare you my thoughts on Sonia Saraiya’s opinion of Ariel, since I already defended The Little Mermaid here and here, but I need to take some time to talk about Belle and Beauty and the Beast. From the original article:

“She resists her village’s expectations of what her life should look like; she’s the first princess to express some skepticism about married life. But ultimately, Belle falls for a domineering man, because she thinks she can change him. Sure, you can believe it’s love, but it could also be Stockholm syndrome.”

Sometimes I think I watched a different version of Beauty and the Beast than many other feminists did, because Stockholm syndrome isn’t what I saw in this movie. If you look at the basic plot structure of the film, Belle does NOT, in fact, “fall” for a jerk because she “thinks” she can change him. She has no interest in changing the Beast or interacting with him at all, not even for dinner, and doesn’t start being nice to him until he’s nice to her (by saving her life and then giving her a library).

I also think that people who assume that most little girls will get a “be nice to your abuser” message from this movie aren’t giving little girls enough credit, and I’m willing to make a cash money bet that most little girls will absorb the intended message of the movie: “It’s not what’s on the outside, but what’s inside that counts!”

Still, I can acknowledge that an author’s intention and a viewer’s reaction are not always one and the same. There are people who still don’t know that The Colbert Report is satire, after all, and there is something a little creepy about the fact that Belle falls in love with the Beast while she is still, technically, his prisoner.

However, I still think that the message of Beauty and the Beast is more feminist than not, and the feminist slant of the movie is supported by an unlikely source: Gaston, the aggressive, misogynistic villain.

When we first see Gaston, we notice two things about him: his handsomeness and his aggressive personality. He responds to glowing compliments with a conceited, “I know,” and uses hunting imagery to discuss the object of his affection, saying, “I’ve got my sights set on that one,” while pointing at Belle with the hand that holds his gun. He wants to marry Belle because she’s beautiful, and he doesn’t particularly care what she has to say in the matter. He doesn’t think that she’ll refuse – he’s the best man in town, after all, and why wouldn’t Belle want to marry him?

Gaston has a lot in common with the prince that we hear about in the prologue of the film, the man that the Beast used to be: spoiled, selfish, and unkind. The Beast that we see is similar to Gaston, but angrier and more aggressive. He also has a clear self-loathing that Gaston lacks. Unlike Gaston, the Beast doesn’t want anyone to look at him, and gets angry and violent when he thinks that Maurice has come by his house just to gawk at him.

At the beginning of the film, these two characters both view Belle as an object, not a person. Gaston wants her to marry him so his wife can be the most beautiful girl in town. The Beast wants her to love him so that he can break the spell. There’s not much of a difference between the way Gaston treats her and the Beast treats her, except for one important moment right after Belle agrees to become a hostage in her father’s place. As she cries that she’ll never see her father again, the Beast looks momentarily guilty, showing a brief glimmer of humanity in his aggressive exterior. It’s a small thing, but it’s more empathetic than Gaston ever gets.

Meanwhile, how does Belle treat these two men? Her behavior towards Gaston is remarkably similar to the way she treats the Beast. She rebuffs every single one of their advances. She calls Gaston “primeval” and sends him flying into the mud when he tries to force a kiss on her. She sees right through the Beast’s forced politeness and play-acting when he “asks” her to eat dinner with him. She doesn’t give either of them an inch. Even when the Beast saves her life, she doesn’t fall into his arms weeping with gratitude – she yells at him for scaring her into the woods in the first place, and tells him to control his temper.

It’s only after she wins this argument, after the Beast stops arguing with her, that she thanks him for saving her life.

Then, yes, the Beast falls for her pretty quickly and has a personality change almost overnight, his change in character is about more than a pretty girl saying “thank you.” This is probably the first time that the Beast has received genuine gratitude. People aren’t fawning over him out of respect for his princeliness or cowering in fear of his beastliness. He seems to find joy in doing good things for other people.

This is a lesson that Gaston never learns. He treats his loyal sidekicks as disposable objects and uses Maurice as a pawn to get Belle. He, unlike the Beast, isn’t inspired to rethink his actions when Belle tells him off. When Belle tells the Beast to control his temper, he listens. When she tells Gaston that he’s a monster, he locks her up, turns the town against her, and still plans on marrying her so that he can “own” his object.

In terms of characterization, the Beast and Gaston start off in remarkably similar places at the beginning of the film, but by the end, they can’t be more different. Belle is one reason that the Beast changes, but is she the only reason? Far from it. The biggest difference between the Beast and Gaston is that the Beast wants to change, and Gaston doesn’t.

A movie that tells little girls “you can change a mean person if you’re nice to him” is a dangerous movie, but Beauty and the Beast is not that movie. Beauty and the Beast shows us that a person must choose to change in order for change to be possible. Belle is certainly a catalyst for the Beast’s positive growth, but she couldn’t inspire Gaston to become a better person, showing that the responsibility for growth lies with the person doing the growing. That’s a positive message, and one that makes Beauty and the Beast more feminist than meets the eye.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 9 Comments

ArticlesWillow Rosenberg: Geek, Interrupted

[This post was originally published on Bitch Flicks for their Women in Sci-Fi Week.]

Joss Whedon is known for creating and writing about strong female characters in his science fiction shows. One of the most popular and complex of these characters is Willow Rosenberg from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Willow speaks to many people and quite a few have named her their favorite character on the show, from Mark at Mark Watches to Joss Whedon himself, who put the most Willow-centric episode of the series (“Doppelgangland”) on his list of favorite episodes.

Another thing that makes Willow so appealing is the fact that her character arc over seven seasons can’t be described in only one way. Some see Willow’s story as a shy, brainy computer geek embracing her supernatural power in becoming a witch.Others relate to her arc as one of a repressed wallflower who explores her sexuality and finds more confidence in coming out as a lesbian. Still others are fascinated with the different ways she handles magic, and her recovery after drifting too far to the dark side.

What story is told when those three arcs are put together? For me, the story of Willow Rosenberg is the story of a woman who spends years defining and re-defining herself, rejecting roles that other people have chosen for her – for better and for worse.

From the very first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Willow has been presented as a shy, sweet, helpful friend to the titular heroine– and from the very second episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Willow has shown herself not to be as sweet or innocent as everyone thinks she is. When she meets Buffy for the first time, she’s eager and friendly, bubbling over with information, in awe that this mysterious, cool new girl is talking to her, but also wanting to help in any way she can.

 Willow (Alyson Hannigan) talks to Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar)

This eager beaver persona is the one that Willow adopts for most of seasons one and two. She becomes the Hermione to Buffy’s Harry, using her computer hacking skills to assist whenever Buffy needs more research for demon-fighting and she can’t find the answers in one of Giles’s books. And for these two years, Willow is notonly content in this role, but she thrives in it. Like her best friend Xander (my favorite character on Buffy), she’s found a place where she belongs. She’s found a purpose in fighting the good fight against the forces of evil, and she doesn’t seem to mind that she’s a second banana to Buffy. As long as she can put her skills to use and she’s fighting the bad guys, she’s happy.

This changes when Willow discovers magic.

Near the end of season two, Willow begins exploring supernatural arts. She doesn’t do much beyond research and reading, but despite her lack of practice, she thinks that she has what it takes to perform a spell that will restore Angel’s soul.

Watching the season two finale with the perspective of hindsight is more than a little uncomfortable, because we know how much Giles turns out to be right when he tells Willow, “Challenging such potent magics through yourself…it could open a door that you might not be able to close.” It’s also uncomfortable because we can see that Willow is more interested in proving her skills in magic than doing the right thing. She wants to help Buffy, obviously, but she also wants to prove to everyone – and to herself – that she can do the spell.

And she does.

Willow possessed as she performs the spell

Angel’s soul is restored several minutes too late, and Buffy has to kill him anyway. But Willow doesn’t think about this potential consequence. She excitedly tells her friends, “I think the spell worked. I felt something go through me.”

After that,Willow becomes less meek, less shy, and more risky with her use of magic. She tries to use magic to make her and Xander fall out of lust with each other (in a plotline that I hate and always will hate, by the way), and is angry with him when he confronts her for resorting to spells. She becomes even angrier in season four when she, Oz,Buffy, and Xander are trapped in a haunted house and Buffy criticizes her aptitude in magic, saying that Willow’s spells have a 50% success rate. Willow responds with a flustered, “Oh yeah? Well – so’s your face!” but then follows up with a bitter, “I’m not your sidekick!”

Shortly afterwards, Willow tries to perform a spell that winds up failing. This is in an episode entitled “Fear, Itself,” where each major character confronts his/her major fear. Oz is afraid of the werewolf inside him, Xander is afraid of being invisible to his friends, Buffy is afraid of abandonment, and Willow…seems to be afraid of her spell going wrong?

 

Willow’s spell goes wrong

Compared to her friends’ worries, Willow’s fear seems a little superficial. At the end of the season, though, we learn that Willow’s fears are about much more than simple experiments going wrong.

By the end of season four, Willow has gone through a few pretty significant changes. She’s become more focused on magic and less focused on her scientific, “nerdy”pursuits. She’s farther apart from Buffy and Xander than ever, despite loving both of them. She’s entered a romantic relationship with a woman. Most significantly of all, Willow is confident. She has a life that is fully her own, where she has two things (Tara and magic) that are hers. She’s entered a new phase in her life.

Or has she? After watching Willow’s dream in “Restless,” we can’t say that this new Willow is any more confident or self-assured than the old one who couldn’t stand up for herself when Cordelia Chase insulted her by the water fountain.

Joss Whedon’s writing for Willow’s dream is clever and filled with misdirection. Characters talk about Willow and her “secret,” a secret that she only seems comfortable discussing with Tara. Dream-Buffy constantly comments on Willow’s “costume,”telling her to change out of it because “everyone already knows.” We’re led to believe that Willow is afraid that her friends will judge her for being gay and being a relationship with another woman…but this isn’t the case at all.

Instead, when Dream-Buffy rips off Willow’s costume, we see a version of Willow that is eerily reminiscent of season one Willow: a geek with pretensions of being cool.

Dream-Willow delivering a book report

In her dream,Willow is dressed in schoolgirl clothes, delivering a book report on The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.Anya and Harmony are snarking at her from the audience, Buffy is bored, Xander is shouting, “Who cares?!” and Tara and Oz are mocking her and flirting with each other.

This sequence is haunting, heartbreaking, and foreboding. Those of us who watched Buffy for the first four years know that Willow’s perceptions are far from accurate. Buffy was supportive of Willow far more often than not and Xander defended Willow against anyone who threatened her. As for her love interests, well, Tara practically worshiped the ground Willow walked on, and Oz admitted that Willow was the only thing in his life that he ever loved.

But none of that changes the way Willow feels. Despite the friends she’s made, despite thevchanges she’s had, she still thinks that everyone will eventually discover her secret: that she’s an uncool, childish, awkward geek.

I think that this fear, more than anything else, is what motivates Willow’s actions over the second half of the series. The show talks about magic addiction and getting high off of power, but ultimately, Willow wants to change who she is. She doesn’t want to be the nerdy, lonely bookworm that defined so much of her childhood and adolescence. She jokes to Tara, “Hard to believe such a hot mama-yama came from humble, geek-infested roots?” and she might as well be pleading, “I’m not that geek anymore, am I? Tell me I’m not.” She says to Buffy, “If you could be, you know, plain old Willow or super Willow, who would you be?…Buffy, who was I? Just some girl. Tara didn’t even know that girl.”

Willow talks to Buffy after coming down from a high

Eventually, Willow confronts her addiction and power issues with magic. Her arc in the last season of the show is largely about the way she learns to be more careful with magic, her steps forward and her steps back, until she handles her power more responsibly. But one thing she never does is confront her deepest issue: her fear of being an unlovable geek.

I could write for another two thousand words about how Willow’s insecurities made her dangerous to people around her, and how her arc paralleled the arc of the three misogynistic sci-fi geeks who provoked terror all throughout season six, and how her fear of abandonment turned her into the abuser in a controlling relationship, but that’s an essay for another day. I will probably write that essay in the future, but for now, I want to talk about how Willow’s insecurities affected Willow.

A part of me feels truly sad that Willow could never find it in her to reclaim the geek label. I look back at the cute, eager computer nerd from the first two seasons and feel nostalgic for her Hermione Granger-like enthusiasm. I wish she had felt comfortable enough in her own skin to realize that being smart and knowing a lot about computers is a good thing, dammit!

At the same time, I wonder if there’s another lesson in Willow’s story. Audience members like me might yearn for the days when Willow was more interested in computers than she was in magic, but who’s to say that hacking and breaking into government files was the best way for Willow to spend her life? Sure, she was good with computers, but did she had to let that skill define the rest of her life? Isn’t it positive for her to branch out and explore that she has talent in other things in more than one area? After all, even if we’re nostalgic for Willow’s nerdier days, doesn’t she have the right to explore other sides of herself, even if she makes mistakes along the way?

To this day, I still don’t know how I feel about Willow’s arc. I’m glad she discovered another side to her personality, but I’m disappointed that she couldn’t reclaim her geeky days and make it a source of power instead of embarrassment and loneliness. Ultimately, I would have liked to see the show address Willow’s “geek-infested roots” in the last season of Buffy,so we could have seen her make a choice about that part of her life and her identity, instead of seeing that part of her character fall to the wayside.

Posted in Articles | Tagged | 9 Comments