Moved from Other Media:

Bleah. It's just...problematic. In order to level the playing/dying field, you've got to dig out really, really minor characters on one side to balance out the deeply rooted, longtime, extremely emotionally weighty characters on the other. And they really don't. And of course every death individually made perfect sense, was demanded by the narrative, increased the stakes, etc. etc. etc. But, still: Given that Joss and co. had already decided that no core characters were going to die (or, at least, die a no-takebacks no-resurrection no moving to another show Death), it's still at least mildly uncomfortable that all but one of the big heart-filled secondary characters to die were female. Of course, it's all positively hugs and puppies compared to AtS.

Ugh. This really needs to move to Buffy.

I completely agree JZ. Especially in light of Joss' overt feminism. Unless, of course, feminism in this case means strong, vibrant, emotionally engaged characters of the female brand must die to prove their superiority equality?

Okay. No. That doesn't work.

So we're talking Joyce, Tara, Jenny Calendar vs. Jonathan, Snyder, The Mayor (really his own fault), Trick (can he count? Vibrant AND dynamic),

Would it have been better if Willow had lost Oz AND Tara?

I mean, Buffy sent Angel to Hell. And she gave up on say, Owen to prevent his untimely demise.

Maybe it would have been better to kill off the scooby gang? Xander, Giles and Oz.

sumi, I think JZ's point (forgive me, Hon, for not waiting for you to respond) was that a disproportionate number of 'good' characters who died were women.

While I adored the Mayor, his actions dq him from that list.

Oh, you mean "good" in a moral sense not in an "interesting to watch" sense.

I included Flutie for a couple of reasons. He was in more than one episode and his death was part of Xander's character development. He was more than just a random redshirt. I can be persuaded otherwise, though, as he was really a minor player over even the short run of season 1.

"good" in a moral sense

Right.

In fact, I can't think of a character that I didn't find 'good to watch'. Hm. Must think.

Okay, I really, really did not enjoy Nathan's screentime as Caleb and will confess to fforwarding through those bits.

But other than that...::drumming fingers::...nope, that's all I've got.

I was lucky that I saw Caleb before I saw Firefly. On the other hand that did make it hard for me to trust Cap'n Tightpants.

It's an interesting question.

Joss has said that if Oz had stayed, it was his death that would've sent Willow to the dark side. That's how he planned it.

Joss had also set it up for either Willow or Xander to discover they were gay, and Seth's leaving nudged him towards Willow exploring that part of her sexuality.

Originally they were going to kill off Xander instead of having him lose an eye, and then the First would appear to Buffy as Xander.

But they decided that was the wrong message to send in a show like Buffy. That Xander's reward for fighting against evil without any powers was to get offed.

That it was okay to have Wesley die in AtS because that show was not about hope but about doing the right thing even in dark times, without reward. "Down these mean streets a man must walk who is not mean..." etc.

They could've killed Oz off when Seth left but they weren't ready to have Willow go dark. And I think they wanted to get some more episodes with that character. They loved writing for him.

They could've killed off Riley but that would've muddied Buffy's dealing with her mother's death.

So I do think they considered offing some core males, but largely went in another direction because of where they were with story arcs.

It actually would've made more sense for Giles to die than for him to abandon Buffy at such a vulnerable time. But they were still very keen on doing the Ripper series at that point (and now again), so they didn't.

That's the one death that I think would've made more sense in the narrative arc.

But then we never would've had "I'd like to test that theory."

But then we never would've had "I'd like to test that theory."

Which makes me wibble every time.

Thanks for the backstory recap David.

And while that all makes sense, whether the imbalance was created thoughtfully or through expedience, doesn't diminish JZ's point in my mind.

Perhaps I'm too keyed up from the discussion in Natter, but it seems like saying that...over 7 years and more than 100 episodes...the imbalance 'just happened' is sort of like saying that it is okay to buy a fur coat because it is 'dead already.' Which, of course, makes sense to no one but me, now that I see it in print.

Yes. I think I'm too keyed up. Off to get some chocolate.

Yeah, I definitely meant good as in "on the side of the hero(es)" -- because damn if I can find more than one or two characters in all the Jossverse who weren't good in the "fun/pleasurable/deliciously wicked to watch" sense.

And I still hesitate to add Flutie to the list of good men bumped off; he was just so minor. A sweet, well-intentioned, clearly-on-Buffy's-side minor character, but just hopelessly minor. Nothing like Giles's season-and-a-half-long passionate, sparky antagonist/love interest; or Buffy's mother who curled on the couch with her stroking her hair and watching the candle on her little birthday cupcake burn down; or the woman who opened Willow's heart again after Oz left her in order to save her from himself; or Anya with her played-for-laughs but deadly serious immortal to human to immortal arc, her need for Xander and terror of that need, her fruit punch speech.