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.

Does the quote carried over from Other Media contain spoilers for the Buffy comic? I haven't read it yet.

And I really hesitate to post any of this, because it all feels like third-rate rehashes of stuff that Plei and many, many whip-smart folks on her flist have been talking about in LJ (more WRT Supernatural, but very similar issues). But, yeah:

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.'

In each individual instance the choice makes perfect narrative sense, but at some point, after 7 years and 100 episodes, someone on the writing staff might have stepped back and said, "Huh. Good individual choices each time, and yet they're adding up to a pattern that we should possibly be not quite so thrilled with."

And now I'm almost talking myself into wishing they had gone ahead and killed Giles. I need to go lie down.

It is disturbing as a pattern, but they did sort of back themselves into a "more female characters" area by having Willow, Xander, AND Giles all date women, by Buffy's father being absent, and by Buffy's SO's being semi-Immortal

Perhaps they should have created a little brother for Buffy instead of a little sister and then they could have killed him off.

No P-C, the discussion had veered, far, far from the comic and JZ rightly commented (twice) that we should move the discussion...so I did.

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.

Yeah, but Joss says a lot of things I don't believe to be factually accurate.

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.'

I tend to agree.

A lot of things that form disturbing trends in media seem fine divorced from the trend, but the problem is, the trend's still there.

There are many times when killing Spike would have made narrative sense after he became a sympathetic character, but they fell prey to what Hec said about Oz:

And I think they wanted to get some more episodes with that character. They loved writing for him.

Which just isn't an excuse or a good reason for doing things.