Rating: 
Summary: Thought-provoking and entertaining
Review: I think that "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" are, quite simply, the two best television shows today. Period. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a wide range of television shows (I am an admitted television junkie), but in terms of emotional depth, intelligent writing, challenging storylines, and innovative and realistic characters, Joss Whedon's children are unparalleled. Turns out I'm not the only one who thinks that the metaphors and metaphysics of the Buffyverse (to blatantly steal from Shaun Narine) are worth analyzing. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale, professors and students of philosophy tackle the key events, issues, and characters in the Buffyverse in a number of highly entertaining, engaging, and thought-provoking essays. The Buffyverse has more than a few key events, issues, and characters that deserve serious debate: Buffy's role as a Slayer and her relationship to society; Faith's dalliance with good and evil; Angel's path to redemption; Buffy's self-destructive relationship with Spike; Willow's transformation from mousy teenager to Big Bad; and the metaphor which is the basis for all of it. Each of these topics are addressed by multiple authors, from different philosophical perspectives, in Fear and Trembling. Given the timing of my review (i.e. at the end of Faith's Season Four arc on "Angel"), my mind was already on Faith, so the chapters which dealt with her were particularly fascinating to me. Is Faith's amoral pursuit of pleasure best explained by Plato or Nietzche? This book doesn't provide answers ? it provides a framework for the reader/viewer to analyze and grapple with the issues themselves. And isn't that why "Buffy" is so attractive to us in the first place? I wish that Fear and Trembling had been in print while I was in college. It might have helped defeat my dismissive prejudice against philosophy as irrelevant and out of touch. That's the beauty part of Fear and Trembling ? it will serve both to give "Buffy" credibility in the minds of those few academics/intellectuals who are not already ardent fans and will give ?Buffy? fans a gateway into the realm of philosophy. I found a few chapters of Fear and Trembling particularly thought-provoking. For example, several authors seized on the exchange between Joyce and Faith (in Buffy?s body) from ?Who Are You.? Joyce: Why do you think [Faith?s] like that?
Faith: You know. She's a nut job.
Joyce: I just don't understand what could drive a person to that kind of behavior.
Faith: Well, how do you know she got drove? I mean, maybe she likes being that way.
Joyce: I'll never believe that. I think she's horribly unhappy. A lot has been written in the Internet community regarding Faith?s unhappiness as an explanation for her behavior. Rewatching ?Faith, Hope, and Trick? the other day, I was struck by how rude and uninviting Buffy was to Faith when she first arrived in Sunnydale. Sure, Faith stormed in with a series of wild stories of nude alligator wrestling and flirted with Buffy?s closeted not-boyfriend, but Buffy was defensive from moment one. Buffy?s superiority/inferiority complex as Slayer was threatened by Faith and she never really gave her a chance. In the next few episodes, Buffy got friendlier and, by the end of Season Four, appears to have convinced herself that she had reached out to Faith. In ?Sanctuary,? Buffy tells Faith: ?I gave you every chance! I tried so hard to help you, and you spat on me. My life was just something for you to play with. Angel - Riley - anything that you could take from me - you took. I've lost battles before - but nobody else has ever made me a victim.? I think that?s a little melodramatic and overstates Buffy?s real attempt to be friends with Faith. In my view, Buffy is the one who destroyed her relationship with Faith before it even began by lying about Angel?s return. Choosing Angel over Faith when Faith was convinced that he was evil wasn?t exactly a trust-builder. My imaginary backstory on Faith (and maybe this has a basis in the show that I can?t quite recall) is that she had an abusive and troubled childhood and as a result can?t open up and trust people. She came to Sunnydale looking for something. Clearly, Faith?s acceptance of a pseudo-familial relationship with the Mayor suggests that she could have had that kind of relationship with the Scoobies if they?d just given her a real chance. As I?ve said on many occasions, I am sorely disappointed that Eliza chose to do another project next year because I think that Faith adds a unique and rich dimension to the Buffyverse. The third broad topic addressed in Fear and Trembling that I?d like to draw attention to is the political/legal framework of the Buffyverse. (Check out: ?Brown Skirts: Fascism, Christianity, and the Eternal Demon? by Neal King and ?Justifying the Means: Punishment in the Buffyverse? by Jacob Held.) These articles speak to something I?ve long thought about: how does the concept of the Slayer as the sole arbiter of good and evil mesh with the American conceptions of justice and due process? While some demons, etc., are clearly drawn as evil and beyond redemption (the Master, Glory, Adam, the Mayor), what do we do about the cases at the margins? See ? I have the text (?Buffy? and ?Angel?), I have questions, and I have some insights. What I lack, for the most part, is the framework to analyze all of the random issues that pop into my head after watching an episode. Fear and Trembling provides an introduction to one possible framework, philosophy, and presents thought-provoking essays in a straight-forward, non-intimidating manner. I hope that someday they will publish a second volume that includes ?Angel? and Season Seven of ?Buffy.?
Rating:
Summary: Finally Philosophy made Clear
Review: As someone who never quite got philosophy- seems Buffy was the missing link. Not a light read but definitely an enjoyable one and for those more academic Buffy fans, finally some confirmation that we are not crazy- there is some "THERE" there.
Rating:
Summary: Cultural Studies at Its Finest
Review: Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy is my favorite so far in Open Court's Popular Culture and Philosophy series. It's diverse, with essays written from the viewpoint of classical philosophy, feminism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, film studies, and more. Buffy fans will have fun reading about the many ways that this show can be analyzed according to different intellectual traditions, and academics will appreciate the interdisciplinary vitality and sheer pleasure that these essays bring to reading a text. James South, the volume editor, has put together a smart, provocative, and impressive collection (as well as contributing a kickass essay on Willow Rosenberg). Instructors, you may find this book a valuable example for your students of how a popular text lends itself to an array of valid and intriguing readings, and your students will have NO trouble staying interested!
Rating: 
Summary: Why do we want more?
Review: Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Philosophy is the latest of a number of anthologies which attempt to argue that the program was more than a well-written, even inspired creation of popular culture. It follows the excellent Reading the Vampire Slayer: An Unofficial Critical Companion To Buffy And Angel and the even better Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There is part of me that likes the way books like these think about television because sometimes it's the way I think about television. In both direct and indirect ways, BtVS has made me think more profoundly about sexuality, "patriarchal standards" of same, and the nature of a feminist text, among other things. To the non-philosophy student, the writers here are less successful than those of the earlier volumes. Readers may find their eyes glazing over as Carolyn Korsmeyer's "Passion and Action: In and Out of Control" talks of how philosophical theories "...necessarily aim at abstract levels of explanation in order that general parameters and explanatory norms may be formulated. To this end, philosophers analyze prototypical emotions rather than the particular emotion events that individuals experience in specific circumstances." Which is a wordy way of explaining why, for example, James B. South (who also edited this volume) can spend 15 pages discussing Willow's actions at the end of Season Six as tragedy while barely touching on the pain which fueled it, the brutal murder of Tara. In things like this (and Buffy's tortured relationship with Angel, Faith's redemption, and other topics under discussion here), I'm first concerned with the characters I had come to love. I think it's safe to say most other Buffy viewers and potential readers are as well. In "Feeling For Buffy," the last essay included in the book, Michael P. Levine and Jay Schneider make the case that "It is BtVS scholarship that warrants study at this point, not BtVS itself. Those in English, Film and Television, and Cultural Studies departments would be better off investigating the nature of the...narrow critical responses to BtVS." The response they speak of is reflected in this book by the refusal of South and others to consider Buffy as what it is first and foremost: A dramatic serial for television. No consistent "philosophy of Buffy" emerges here; in fact, the Introduction warns almost proudly of the book's caprice. To talk about the philosophy and intellectualism of a program like Buffy is all very well, but to lose sight of the bare bones of the matter is in many ways to disappear up one's own never-you-mind. In "Passion and Action" Korsmeyer asserts that because Spike's character gradually changed as a result of the violence-inhibiting chip in his head, this was "far more interesting than the restoration of Angel's soul [because that] transformation is so abrupt that we see merely a metamorphosis from evil to good. But Spike blunders through his emotional change..." This would all resonate a great deal louder had not series creator Joss Whedon decided to short-circuit any discussion of whether Spike really had undergone this posited change. Spike's ill-conceived attempted rape of Buffy and the subsequent quick-fix restoration of his soul divested his story of any originality or interest. Save for the teenybopper straight girl crowd, which saw him -- and were encouraged to do so -- as a vulnerable puppy rather than a vicious punk, in Madeline Muntersbjorn's words. The status of Buffy as a hero or moral role model is much discussed in these pages. Jessica Prata Miller quotes Whedon on having created the show to be about "the joy of female power, having it, using it." Jason Kawal's "Should We Do What Buffy Would Do?" suggests that Buffy is "a fully-informed, unimpaired, virtuous observer." But that status should have taken something of a beating as Buffy was demeaned and marginalized.
Rating:
Summary: A work of surprising depth guaranteed to make one ponder
Review: Compiled and edited by James B. South, Buffy The Vampire Slayer And Philosophy: Fear And Trembling In Sunnydale is a thoroughly engaging philosophical discussion about themes explored in the popular television series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Written for both academics in the discipline of American Popular Culture, Contemporary Philosophy, and those who are simply "Buffy" fans, Buffy The Vampire Slayer And Philosophy collects the writings of a variety of learned authors concerning Buffy's relation to feminist ethics, human irrationality, "high school portrayed as Hell", and much, much more. A work of surprising depth guaranteed to make one ponder, Buffy The Vampire Slayer And Philosophy is enthusiastically recommended for both academia and non-specialist general readers alike -- and readily available in a hardcover edition for library acquisitions.
Rating:
Summary: A radical interpretation of the text
Review: Did you love Oz in Earshot? If so, this may be the book for you. So you are the average Buffy fan, you do not sit around with your friends weighing the Nietzchian ideal of the ubermensch, nor do you discuss Faith's fatalistic nature. Will you enjoy this book? Possibly. Are you interested in philosophy? By chance did you take some in college, even an introductory course, but it didn't make any sense? This book may bring something to the table for you and clear up your confusion regarding some theoretical stuff. The gift with purchase will be that you will learn something new along the way. Now if you are looking at this book to be a playful romp through Sunnydale, don't buy it. It's not. It will deconstruct some characters in ways you will not like, at the same time some observations will make you roll on the floor with hysterical laughter (or that could just be me). It will definately spark some thought, and if you buy one for a friend will result in many hours of arguing fun! As one of the Buffy faithful, and a staunch reader of Slayage, the online journal of Buffy Studies, I loved this book. I loved it so much I want to buy one for all the Buffy fans I know. I want to trot over to Marquette and kiss James South if not for this book, for his AMAZING article on Willow, and his great understanding of the season 6 transformation she made. This book makes Fighting the Forces, and Reading the Slayer look like high school term papers. This book is smart, the editing is well done, and it made me feel smarter for reading it. This is by far the best of the best of Academic Buffyverse analysis. I hope that this sets the future standard for books of this type. The chapters that are not to be missed:
Also Sprach Faith: The problem of the happy rogue vampire slayer - Karl Schudt
My God, It's like a Greek tragedy: Willow Rosenberg & human irrationality - James South
Buffy in the Buff: A slayers solution to Aristotles love paradox - Kaye & Milavec
No Big Win: Themes of sacrifice, salvation and redemption - Gregory Sakal
Old familiar Vampires: The politics of the Buffyverse - Jeffrey Pasley
Rating: 
Summary: Strange and offputting
Review: Dracula once said to Xander, 'You are strange and offputting,' and the same sentiment could be applied to this book. It is essentially written by philosophy professors for other philosophy professors who happen to be Buffy fans. After reading this book, any fan will gain a new appreciation for the depth of the writing in BtVS, but be forewarned: This is rough slogging. Among the 22 articles, some writers use BtVS to introduce the reader to philosophical concepts, but many of the writers assume they can throw around philosophers' names and that the reader will already be well-versed in the history of philosophy. With such a heterogenous series of articles, inevitably each reader will have different favorites. I liked Hibbs' essay which compares BtVS to the 'noir' tradition in film, and Aberdein's article which uses BtVS to illustrate the argument between classicists versus scientists. My least favorite was Marinucci's feminist critique of BtVS. One would think that the series is a feminist's dream come true, with its female hero, powerful lesbian characters, absentee fathers, and considering that almost all the men are either villains or weak sidekicks. Yet, whereas most viewers see Buffy's clever witticisms as proof of a sharp mind and self-confidence, Marinucci sees sexism and patriarchical oppression. This sentiment is also echoed in the essay by Levine & Schneider, who oddly enough, seem to dislike the series - one wonders how they sat through enough episodes that they were able to discuss their dislike in such detail.
Rating: 
Summary: Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy....an ok book
Review: I have read half of this book, and I have to say that it takes buffy fandom to a whole new level. This book is based on Buffy, and it analisizes every chacter and event in the book. It is great if you would like to understand about that kind of thing. Alot of Pop Culture References, I guess that is what you could say. Good book, I would suggest you get it.
Rating:
Summary: Yet to finish this book
Review: I have read half of this book, and I have to say that it takes buffy fandom to a whole new level. This book is based on Buffy, and it analisizes every chacter and event in the book. It is great if you would like to understand about that kind of thing. Alot of Pop Culture References, I guess that is what you could say. Good book, I would suggest you get it.
Rating:
Summary: Buffy does Plato
Review: I picked up this book with the assumption that it would use philosophy to explain Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Instead, it uses BtVS to explain philosophy, which is quite a different approach. Each essay, written in a highly academic style, takes a particular philosophical theory (Nietzsche, Feminism, Fascism, Plato, Freud, Kant, Post-modernism, utilitarianism, and many others, even Film Criticism and Film Noir analysis). Some essays contrast two theories, using BtVS as a reference point. And each academic is obviously writing about his or her pet theory and using Buffy as an example to point out the "rightness" of that theory. An informed reader, will most probably like and agree with those essays which discuss their own favorite philosophical or academic theories, while disagreeing with essays on theories that the reader does not like or academically believe in. However, this requires a certain amount of sophistication in the reader; it also means wading through a great deal of academic writing at it's worst (e.g., long-winded, theory-dependent, and with a tendency towards reductionism and detailed analysis which misses the big picture while concentrating on the details over-much); yet, by picking a cultural icon, all the essayists here make even the most academic theories accessible. For example, many people know that Nietzsche supposedly said "God is dead", yet How many people really know the core of Nietzsche's theory? [The theory that strength is good; the noble and the aristocratic is good; but the weak are many and can pull-down and destroy the good, noble and rich. "Nietzsche desires that there come those who can go beyond good and evil and create their own values through strength of will.... His ideal figure is not one who does evil for its own sake, but rather one who does not shrink from what is necessary for the satisfaction of his or her own desires." Schudt, Karl, "Also Sprach Faith: The problem of the Happy Rogue Vampire Slayer" p. 25 This is the theory that is in practice today, whenever one says or implies "might makes right" or "to the victor goes the spoils" or most often, "Those in power know what's right for the rest of you" ("What's good for General Motors is good for the world.")]. Leaving aside for a moment, if Nietzsche was wrong or right, Schudt's essay does make Nietzsche's theory understandable to the general reader.
Given that these essays cover a very large number of academic and philosophical theories this collection of essays reads like a textbook for Philosophy 101; by the end of it the attentive reader should know the basics of a number of different and contrasting theories. It is interesting to note that different story arcs and sometimes even the same bits of quoted dialogue appear in a number of different essays, often as "proofs" or "examples" of not only different theories but of contrasting ones. One can almost picture the "academic fistfights" that would erupt if these contributors were confined to the same room for a weekend. However, that certain bits of dialogue, certain scenes, and certain story arcs are referenced again and again is not to be taken as academic laziness, or even bad writing. On the contrary, this is something so common in media fandom that is forms the basis of the fannish theory of the universe (if fandom had a single, unifying, academic theory or a single, philosophy, which it most probably does not). It is my informed opinion, with fifteen years of practical experience, a thesis, and two other academic papers to my own credit, that fans approach source products differently than the casual viewer. Fans a) insist on "wholeness"--it is virtually essential to see every episode of a television series, to watch all of, not just an excerpt from, a film or film series, and to read every book by an author or in a book series. This creates knowledge of the "complete" canon. Part and parcel of "Wholeness" is "context"--fans view parts of a television series within the context of the whole thing; therefore examples that contradict the rest are thrown out ("Spock's Brain" is a *bad* Star Trek episode for example); or non-consistent behavior is explained away (Rick hit AJ in ... episode because he was drunk and out of it). Taking a line or a scene or even an entire season out of context for any program is bound to cause errors in judgment; according to fans. The judgment of a program is again, based on wholeness. But the third part of fannish theory is "Core episodes" or "important episodes"--these are the basic episodes which are thought to be "essential viewing" for any true understanding of the program, from Classics like Star Trek and The Man from UNCLE to newer programs like Farscape and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Time prevents me from listing examples of core episodes for each of these series; but trust me, how ever a fan "names" the Core Episodes of a series (many fans do not use that term), if you have never seen a particular program before, those are the episodes a fan of that program will show you first and use as examples of character behavior and traits, character relationships, and as being important to the understanding of the whole. (The one exception to these rules is any type of "soap opera" or "continuing drama" such as Law & Order, The West Wing, or Babylon 5. The continuing drama formula requires consistent watching of all episodes, in order, from beginning to end, without skipping around to 'important' episodes). It doesn't surprise me, in the slightest, that specific episodes, lines and themes are mentioned over and over again in BtVS and Philosophy, the writers of these essays are merely following typical, fannish practice.
Overall, the book, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy, works better as a clever, 101-type textbook for philosophy-made-accessible-through-popular-culture, than as a good analysis of it's source material. One essay in particular, "Feeling for Buffy: The Girl Next Door" by Michael P. Levine and Steven Jay Schneider, even spends considerable time blasting academics for wasting their time on a popular culturally iconic television series, such as BtVS--yet, the author's then make the very same mistake that they criticize in other academics--they use Buffy as an example to put forth their own pet theory, re-reading BtVS as an example in Freudian analysis, in particular the Electra/Oedipus complex and desire of the forbidden. Even the most die-hard fan is likely to strongly disagree with these author's interpretations of everything Buffy. And it is particularly rich to hear an academic condemn other researchers for being obsessed with their own version of the truth, before turning around and presenting "The Truth" as they see it. It is the academic equivalent of a revival meeting or evangelicalism ("one must believe *my truth* because, because, because it's TRUE"). Essentially, Levine and Schneider are saying "all those other theories are cr*p, and WE are right, this is the truth, believe us"--I've never found that a particularly convincing argument; and I've seen it presented in a variety of academic settings and with a variety of academic theories. One cartoonist even described it as "The Quincy Syndrome", that is "Everyone in the whole world is wrong, and I'm right!". Well, even if that is rather a incomplete and stereotypical view of the TV program Quincy, ME --it is a dead-on description of various primarily academic, or mass/popular sociology non-fiction journal/textbook writing. My recommendation is to purchase this book only for a crash course in philosophy, and not as a hommage to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and certainly not as an explanation of what Buffy's creator, Joss Whedon was thinking.
|
