VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:08:07 10/27/05 Thu
Author: Sunshine
Subject: Re: Addiction and responsibility
In reply to: Sophist 's message, "Addiction and responsibility" on 12:39:25 10/27/05 Thu

Let me ask you this: Xander had two such instances, BB&B and OMWF. Would one or two more cases have made Xander a plausible candidate for the events of Wrecked?
Yes. Probably doesn’t even need additional cases, but then I never pass up the chance to cast Xander in the most unflattering light possible.

First, being addicted isn't a legal defense in any case.
And since when did the legality of anything pay a prominent role in the Buffyverse. I am speaking of emotional defense, not legal defense. Being under the power of magic or inhabited by some demon has (here I go again) a long history as exculpatory factors in the Buffyverse. Addiction is just another example of victimhood where the individual is not really responsible for their actions. There is a large and thriving cult of victimhood in this country where even eating too many twinkies can be the basis for justification for heinous acts (in this case, even a legal defense).

Second, it's pretty clear that Willow's most reprehensible conduct did NOT happen as a result of "addiction".
How did I get cast as the defender of the addiction metaphor? I think it was a mistake and not at all required. I was only offering an opinion as to perhaps why the writers chose to take this route.

Nor do I think that S7 "absolved" Willow of responsibility. I'm not sure it intended to; I am sure it didn't prior to Chosen. I'm even more sure that it didn't use the addiction defense for that purpose.
Consistency was not a hallmark of the show. Willow killed one, maybe two if you count Rack, humans yet she was greeted with open arms on her return. Willow’s issue with being absolved were internal. No one, except maybe Anya, ever suggested that she should have to pay for her actions. Why was this accepted? In “Dead Things”, Buffy was going to turn herself in for what she thought was the accidental death of Katrina (or whatever her name was). No one suggested Willow do the same. I think the viewers had to somehow overlook Willows transgressions. “She was a poor victim of addiction” provides the out if that’s what you need/want. Not saying it is justified, only that it is plausible.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.