#character study analysis

Yep. 100%. And that’s why WICKED is the ONLY WLW love story that ended in tragedy that I liked. Nay loved.

Because that’s what feels authentic. That it is tragedy.

That’s what makes these 2 lead female characters incredibly multi-faceted in both their storytelling and representation even without any explicit romance involved between them. It’s not necessary to represent the dimensionality of themselves and their relationship.

It’s meant to be a tragedy and it works best as tragedy.

What a fantastic retrospective on ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’. I particularly loved the parts explaining Gabrielle’s role and significance to Xena as well as her individual importance as a lead character in her own right beyond the romantic subtext between them.

I’d transcribe those parts but they’re not as powerful without the context of the rest of the retrospective.

To put it bluntly though: Gabrielle is Xena’s partner in EVERY way and I love the complexity of that dynamic. I love that it’s not simple. I love that it’s not easy. I love that the creators choose to really explore this dynamic very sincerely and seriously - along with the romance - and not as a deterrent to it. That it works well together.

I love that this retrospective so concisely explains that.

I especially love that this show is so well beloved that even 30 years later so many are still talking about it.

As a fan that has been there for nearly all 30 years, this means more to me than I can possibly express. Thank you so much for keeping the legacy of XENA alive as the one TV show in thousands of others where female and WLW representation was done 100% fucking right!

At the end of the day that’s all I care about and it’s all that I’m here for. I don’t ever engage in any TV art/entertainment or media for any other reasons. I have no interest in any other storytelling with or about women.

“History, written by men, was largely focussed on the accomplishments of other men. This statement is not about the fact of the historical record but rather acknowledging the context in which it was written - and therefore what we might be missing in that historical record. Making Gabrielle a bard is a cheeky way of understanding that men are the ones who are responsible for writing the stories of other men. Gabrielle’s scrolls about Xena’s adventures come up many times throughout the series - in part to show us the artistic and cerebral side of Gabrielle - but also to remind the audience that Xena’s exploits deserve to be written down - and it shouldn’t be lost on the audience that the only person doing this is another woman.”

Another woman that is unconditionally in love with her - and therefore MIGHT embellish the truth, but never lie. I often find that that’s the best way to explain Xena’s otherworldly, somewhat supernatural powers and abilities rather than “She’s Ares’ demi-god daughter”.

Gabrielle wrote the scrolls and the scrolls are the show.

Gabrielle’s scrolls are indeed a romantic action/fantasy retelling of history. But they’re not completely falsified. They’re from the perspective of someone who is in love and never quite drops their ideal of romantic adventure.

It makes total sense discovering Xena through her lens.

Now, does this mean that it’s not historically accurate?

Maybe,… but think about it. Is telling history ever 100% accurate? There’s white lies everywhere in historical record because people don’t agree on what is what.

It’s always been this way and it will always be this way.

I would say for somebody that loves and respects Xena so dearly and fiercely - it’s 90% truthful to the action. But Gabrielle herself does confess that she can’t write action. She uses metaphors and allegories to work it in.

What she’s never truthful about is her own actions. Her own heroics. That’s R.J. Stewart and Steven L. Sears giving her her own voice and her own autonomy in their adaptations of what she had initially written down. The Xena Scrolls are titled ‘The Xena Scrolls’ for a reason.

And the writers and producers of this TV show said “Nope, that’s not happening. She’s just as significant.”

If the TV show was just about Xena I’d have enjoyed it, absolutely. Maybe watched it once or twice. But would I be as extremely dedicated to and passionate about the TV show as I am right now? Not a chance in Tartarus.

It’s Gabrielle and it’s Xena and Gabrielle why I am here. You see the power of redemption is a great theme and storytelling vehicle to work with but it’s nothing without the power of love beside it. Without redemption in love.

That’s what the TV show is in nutshell. It’s perfectly concise synopsis. It’s a story of redemptive love. Sometimes depicted as transcendental. Sometimes as epic. Sometimes tragic. But always honest real love.

Without Gabrielle - none of that would come across. It would simply be a story about Xena’s search for redemption. It would be ‘AtS’,… the female version. Xena might have had love interests that helped her find her way to redemption. But there’d be no cornerstone. There’s be no real depth to what that story provided.

Gabrielle is insurmountably important to what Xena is.

I love how vast and complex this subject gets that it literally takes hours to dissect and analyze it because their relationship is that damn deep and intense and the crux of everything the show is about or for or intended.

You could seriously spend countless hours on this simple question that takes like 2 fucking seconds to answer if it’s anyone else. Any other 2 characters in TV art/entertainment. But because it’s THEM… because their relationship is the very definition and epitome of what a “relationship” is or should be, it takes HOURS.

Precisely. I’ve always said that Callisto as character was misunderstood because she never had the mental or emotional capacity to turn away from her darkness or her evil doings like Xena did. As Xena said in ‘The Promise Scene’, as I call it, she saw what she’d become and was able to turn herself around. Callisto didn’t have the mental capacity to recognize good from evil, right from wrong, light from dark when she went from one extreme into the other. Complete light, good, love, happiness,… to complete dark, evil, hate, anger. …

It’s like what the show tries to teach about the theme of balance. Without both sides of the spectrum of polarity, there’s no real understanding of either one or the other.

And that’s Callisto. That’s why she could never differentiate the difference. She kept saying “Xena made me”, and she didn’t just mean that in the sense that Xena created her. She meant as a motivator or an enforcer too. In Callisto’s mind Xena was making her do all the evil or wrong things she was doing and she took no accountability because she didn’t realize she should.

Yes, she knew it was evil but because of a severe lack of mental capacity on the difference between good and evil or right and wrong or dark and light, it wasn’t “her”.

Her perception was that twisted and her whole world was that warped that there was no click moment of “I shouldn’t be doing this” or “this is wrong” or “they’re in pain”. That just wasn’t part of her mental capacity at all.

She was mentally ill. Yes, she was a psychopath and a mass-murderer and a warlord herself but she was literally mentally ill and didn’t understand her own involvement in all of this or that she even had a choice.

She wasn’t a fully grown woman like Xena was when it happened. She was a child. In those crucial developing stages and suddenly her whole world turned to black in the blink of an eye. It makes total sense to me why she was like she was and why she was doing what she was doing and why she could never overcome it like Xena.

It’s because she never learned to compartmentalize.

Hudson Leick really knew how to portray all those missing pieces within her. Really knew what it meant. I don’t like to think about why she was so good at it because that takes away from her skill as an actress but she understood Callisto so fucking well as a character to the point where it actually got quite scary to watch.

She understood what was up with her and how to convey that complexity to the audience watching.

At the end of the day it just comes down to the fact that she truly was very mentally ill and had no support.

And there would never be a point where she could right herself unfortunately because of that reason. The only thing that could happen would be to switch her back to the complete opposite extreme yet again. And they did. Again, no understanding of the difference of why it was good or evil or wrong or right or dark or light. Nothing.

Okay… So I watched this entire video even though I hate Xander Slander. Not Xander. Xander Slander. I can’t stand it. But… I decided since this was a YouTuber who has does very good TV show analysis-ses and is a man (because I’m sick of only seeing women hate on him. It makes it seem like it’s just a gender stereotype thing), I thought “hmm… let’s see what he has to say. He might provide a logical reason why Xander is hated so much.”

He did. He is annoying. I’m fully aware of that too and don’t care. But… he also coupled it with “he starts as a little shit and he ends as a little shit”. Which I’m sorry… but that just isn’t true. There is so much growth in this character. I’m not saying the annoying parts aren’t still there, they are. But there’s much more to him than that.

And it’s like this guy completely ignores all of that just to validate his own opinion of why Xander sucks. Nope.

👎

“Whedon self-insert” this. “Whedon self-insert” that.

Just say you hate Whedon instead of hiding behind a fictional character that’s meant to represent him. Even though, every character will represent him in some way.

I know that Xander is annoying and even misogynistic in some of the stuff he says…. in the first few seasons. But after that he matures a lot. He reassesses his behaviour and realizes there’s a problem and then grows from it.

I feel like I’m watching an entirely different show to everybody else when it comes to Xander because I honestly, most sincerely see a very different person from the person I saw in the first few seasons. I just don’t get the hate for him throughout all of the show.

I’m sorry. I don’t. He seems like a great character to me. As a realistic portrayal of someone learning as they go along. I think what it is is because I see the character objectively, rather than subjectively. So I don’t ever think “Oh god, he is so ANNOYING! Why is he here?!”

I look at it as “Okay, so there’s this character. What can I learn about myself and about others through him?”

“Huh. People are annoying but they can still do good.”

I don’t experience Xander’s characterization as if it’s something that affects me other than what to learn from it. Therefore, I don’t complain about him as a character because he is there to serve that purpose.

I complain about the writing for him. Or the directing. Or the acting. Or the producing. The objective stuff.

I think that’s what it is. Why I cannot resonate with the hate for him. I could be wrong. But I just don’t feel hate.

No, I don’t fancy him. No, I don’t fancy his actor.

No, I’m not a Whedon apologist.

But I am a Xander apologist.

I am sorry that people cannot see the value in Xander because they’re too busy complaining about how unbelievably annoying he is as if that’s all he is.

I like the fact he gets in the way when he shouldn’t. I like the fact he tries to do better for himself even if he fails. I like the fact that nothing ever works out for him, he complains about it but then just moves on to the next. I like the fact he just does what any average fragile vulnerable human does. Which is just go on to get on.

Does his annoying traits go away completely? No. And I wouldn’t expect them to since they’re so much apart of him. But at the same time they’re not everything of him.

And when people state their case on Xander - they’ll mention every negative thing they can. But no positive.

And so I cannot take that character analysis seriously because as far as I’m concerned, he does get better.

What gets worse however, is how he is written/acted.

So instead of blasting the character. Take it up with who writes for him and who portrays him in the entire show.

If you can’t stand that he is a self-insert - then hit up Whedon and ask him why he feels he is his self-insert.

BUFFY: “Willow, just remember, a vampire's personality has nothing to do with the person it was.”

ANGEL: “Well, actually...

*gets a look from Buffy*

That's a good point.”

Can we discuss how ‘Doppelgängland’ presents a study case for Vampire Willow being like human Willow if Willow was suddenly missing an internal moral compass? I talk about Willow’s repressed sadism a lot and some overwhelming evidence for it is that there exists a vampire version of her in canon that’s a literal sadist and is just as evil as Angelus is. That enjoys inflicting torture and pain purely for fun. That has a good old time being indisputably sadistic.

Dark Willow - even though she has a soul and is human - thrives in the killing and the torturing of Warren and Rack. Yeah, she’s corrupted by black magic and feels nothing but vengeance, anger and hate. And yes, the people she does end up actually killing deserved it. But the point is that this is what she can be like even when HUMAN, even when ENSOULED. So Vampire Willow is interesting because that’s a Willow that isn’t either human or ensouled and how sadistic and evil she can be without an internal moral compass and without her humanity is reminiscent of Dark Willow.

And so I can’t help thinking that maybe that vampire has nothing to do with the demon that “possesses” Willow. Maybe the reason why that particular vampire is “so evil… and skanky… and kinda gay” is because that’s the human that the vampire is informed by. That it’s because it’s Willow why Vampire Willow is like that.

And I know it’s just for jokes why they had Angel start to say what he did in response to Buffy’s comment to Willow in trying to reassure her that that vampire is just an evil demon and has no bearing on her character at all… But I really wish we had got to hear what he was going to say. If I had to guess I feel like he was going to say something like “Well, actually… that’s not quite true. A vampire’s personality is still informed by the human that died even if it is not the person it was.”

But with Vampire Willow… the question is just how much of alternative human Willow informs her and how much is really just a demon from the ethers “possessing” the body of the alternative human Willow that died? You would think adding this particular situation on to the soul lore would be in support for it being demon possession… but I’m not so sure that that is so when much of the Willow that we see later on is what we get with Vampire Willow.

See for me, ‘Doppelgängland’ comes off more as foreshadowing than it does in being an addition to the soul lore that provides evidence for the perspective that vampires are a demon possession of a dead human because it does the entire opposite in telling and showing that to be the truth as they give us a significant look in to what Willow would be like both without a soul and without her humanity - which for me don’t mean the same thing because I don’t think of the soul that way. See, I have a very specific understanding of what a “soul” is and I don’t think of it as the human itself or as the person itself. I think of it as an internal moral compass for the human or person.

Which then further means if that human or person is suddenly bit by a vampire and dies - it doesn’t come back as a vampire because its body is possessed by a demon. It comes back as a vampire because IT IS a demon. A newly created or newly born demon in a human body that is informed by both the demon AND the human respectively. That’s why and how it can’t be a possession by the demon or human because possession means it’s an entirely different entity from the demon or human. And a vampire isn’t because it’s a half-breed of both the demon and the human. So it is still the same entity that died all the while becoming a newly created entity. It is, essentially, a resurrection or reincarnation of the human or person that died but just with personality traits and qualities that are only evil and sadistic in nature depending on what the human or person could be capable of that the newly created demon exacerbates in them with abandon.

Vampire Willow is a very interesting study case for this because what she is depends on whether human Willow can be capable of being that evil and sadistic all the while being a human. And… she can… as Dark Willow eventually and inevitably shows us. Yes, for her to get there it required the themes of power corruption, addiction and vengeance… but the point is that she was still capable of it. And, for me, it only just proves that if somebody that pure can become that evil and sadistic as a human… then so could we all.

Vampire Willow is not a study case for vampires being entirely different from their human counterparts. It’s a study case for learning that they are or can be alike if they’re missing an internal moral compass and therefore their emotions or desires were not being repressed. Vampire Willow is an uninhibited entity. They make that very clear in the writing when using it in juxtaposition with human Willow’s inhibitedness. Willow even acknowledges that both her and Vampire Willow feel like the world’s “no fun” anymore but then recedes that acknowledgement in the final scene, realizing that being “reliable dog geyser person” isn’t so bad. That she could actually be the entire opposite to that and she never wants to be like Vampire Willow if this is the pain and damage that she could cause.

So Vampire Willow truly is what we would get if human Willow was completely free of all constraints on her good character. If she suddenly believed that she didn’t need to be the good person she always is and could do what she wants without any thought for the risks or consequences of her actions and choices and without any concern for any pain or damage she may cause through her carelessness and recklessness. It is very much in her capability and nature to become what we see of Vampire Willow’s appearance. And I think that if Xander had not have been able to save Willow in ‘Grave’, this is precisely what Willow would have become. Not simply just Dark Willow. But Evil and Sadistic Willow. She would have lost her humanity.

Fortunately… she still possessed an internal moral compass and so her humanity won over the battle and Vampire Willow remained just a fantasy in fan-fiction. But it does give me pause to realize that Willow’s selfishness, arrogance and entitlement in Season 6 would still inform everything that Vampire Willow is precisely because she is the human psyche for her.

I have to post this brilliant character study video analysis again and provide some commentary for it now that I have figured out what I actually want to say.

Five By Five Takes mentioned ‘Performance’.

“So much of Willow’s evolving identity is tied to the idea of performance. Becoming a competent witch helps Willow project a very curated idealized image of herself. One of the first iconic insults that Cordy makes towards her is about her appearance. It’s not just that she’s a nerd, it’s that someone else has dressed her. Think about the implications of that. So for Willow, her appearance, her identity and her confidence with magic becomes deeply entwined. And we can even see this with Dark Willow. Even grief-stricken, there’s a layer of performance here. Black hair, dark clothes, the corny maniacal villain lines. I’ve seen the dialogue here and Alyson’s performance get criticized as too hammy or cartoonishly evil but I think that’s kind of the point if we read Willow as purposefully putting on a front. So much of Willow has been costumes. This is just her latest and most intense.”

This piece of commentary is on the money for Willow.

I always talk about performance regarding Willow Rosenberg. I believe in this interpretation so much that I actually think Willow never appears authentically as who she actually is throughout her entire arc. But at the same time - I also believe that because her authentic self isn’t ever a solitary or specific thing at any point. Her identity is not solid or permanent. It’s malleable and fleeting. It fluctuates wildly all the time to the point where anything she identifies as is entirely performative. It’s only who she is to make up for her negative perceived image of herself and the image that she believes of others constantly perceiving of her. And both these images are one and the same. Because she deep down perceives of her character as the weak and ugly loser, she also believes everyone else that she loves and that love her perceives of her character that way too. And there is quite a few moments where there is evidence for this so she’s not just making it up entirely based on her paranoia of not having control and neurotic feelings of unworthiness. She has experiences where people do actually express that she’s weak and ugly. It’s just those people don’t really know her very well and therefore don’t matter. Like Percy for example. He directly expresses the way he perceives of Willow to his then-girlfriend and Willow hears these comments about her and immediately gets uncomfortable at the notion that Percy sees her as a nerd and therefore not physically appealing. It bothers her and is on her mind so much that she directly expresses it to Buffy over the phone what he said and immediately defends her character. She hasn’t been a nerd for a long time. She’s cool now.

Does she actually believe it or is she just performing? Is she just trying to tell and convince herself that this perception of her character isn’t true but ultimately fears that it is and always will be the truth about her?

Well, it’s hard to say for sure until her dream in ‘Restless’ that she feels this way about herself because there’s no direct statement of it by her. However, I am very well aware of this behaviour in insecure people. So no, I don’t believe she truly believes and perceives of herself as “cool now”. I think she’s just performing as “cool now” and that her immediate defensiveness proves that she is because truly authentic people don’t have to defend their their character at all. Like Oz. He is never boastful of his “cool” identity. Other insecure people like Xander point it out for him. He never needs to because, to him, it’s not a big deal if he is “cool”. He is just himself because he is happy being himself. He wears his confidence authentically and so “cool” naturally follows because he isn’t trying to be something that he is not. He never really needs to think about his identity. It’s his nature that he is conflicted on but that’s only because he is a werewolf. If he wasn’t - nothing would ever faze him. He’d always be confident in who he is or how he is. Contrasting somebody like Oz with Willow is quite the striking difference because while Willow is so insistent on performing an identity, Oz has no such needs or desires to perform as anyone. And I love how he always tries to tell Willow that she doesn’t have to prove anything to him for him to love her and stay with her. It’s not about her at all why he eventually breaks up with and leaves her. She’s the one that believes of it that way. Of course she would.

Healthy codependency.

That’s a really good way of putting it.

I often talk about how codependency depicted in this show is bad or negative surrounding the characters of Willow, Riley and even Xander. But codependency in itself is not bad or negative. There is heathy versions just as there are unhealthy versions. And yes, despite how much I can’t stand the way the Scoobies treat Buffy sometimes, she’s definitely better off with them in her life than without them. And vice versa of course.

The main problem I have with Season 7 is really how they don’t consider this even half as much as they used to even though it’s the season where they need to work as a team the most. I mean the ‘father figure’ starts to act like your average Council Watcher again and a lot is taken away from Buffy and Giles’ dynamic because of it. The intelligent nerdy girl and best friend is suffering with her own self-control issues and therefore can’t be as useful as she probably wants to be to the Slayer. Plus their relationship is in shambles following the events of Season 6 and doesn’t get properly reconciled. It’s sort of just skimmed over as a “necessary” requirement to the final plot. And as for Xander… well… perpetual victim mode is just something that never really seems to change for him and as for how that informs his relationship with Buffy… well, let’s just say he deserved to say what he did in ‘Empty Places’ as much as I hate that episode.

I don’t know. They’re all just sort of ‘Scooby Gang but less’ in this final season. They’re so distant and empty. It’s not enjoyable to watch. It’s frustrating because everything just feels forced rather than natural. The organically built significant character interaction just isn’t there between really any of the main characters and because they bring in a load of other characters (the potentials) that may be the focus of the season but don’t really get proper development either, it all plays out like one big chaotic mess. But not like the way it does with Season 6 - which the point is for it to play out like one big chaotic mess for the sake of the main character’s representation and development (both negative and positive). In other words: it feels unintentional and therefore unnecessary. Like the writers didn’t know what they wanted to do but because it was the season to end off the entire show, just did what they thought might be entertaining and compelling but, to me, ended up being anything but.

Yeah, Buffy is one of the greatest superheroines ever. But only when they they knew what they were doing. And I’m not convinced they always did. Still, it’s a hell of a lot better than what we get today with female superheroines - which as you’ve pointed out - may as well be cardboard cut outs given the lack of emotional vulnerability they display on screen.

You’ve got to hand it to Gellar - she definitely knew how to portray a very relatable and human superheroine. And you can see how she was stronger for it, not weaker. That is indeed the problem with depiction of “feminism” on TV today. Which is why I just turn it off. It is not inspiring or motivating to watch. It’s fucking insulting. Well-written characters have layers… depth… nuance. They fluctuate because real people fluctuate. They’re flawed because real people are flawed. Females characters in particular get shafted of all of this characterisation because it’s “feminism” written by people who don’t know or understand how important keeping the balance is.