The problem with this is that the long metaphor has to start from a depiction of exploitation.

Are you assuming that the exploitation will be sexual in nature?

I adore him, he's probably my favorite living writer, but while his women can sometimes be tough and competent, they have a tendency to at least spring from a problematic background.

What's the problem with problematic backgrounds? I mean, does he stand out in that?

I hadn't connected that, P-C. How sad.

It was like, "She'll never get another job! She won't be on any new shows!"

Good God, Kevin, you don't waste any time.

Are you assuming that the exploitation will be sexual in nature?

No. But that doesn't cause a difference in my concerns. Women are exploited in lots of ways in today's society, and in some ways, the sexual ones are the least of them.

I mean, does he stand out in that?

No. And lots of his women become really strong characters. I would be happier if more of them weren't previously prostitutes. And by contrast, his men don't seem to have similar problems in their backgrounds, they're just guys who have their profession.

Case - out of work geek, thief, Bobby - aspiring geek, Mick - steampunk era geek, Mallory - paleontologist, Rydell - failed cop, Konrad - he had some trauma in his history, Yamazaki - student of pop culture.

Laney is the closest analog to the topic at hand; he, like Cayce, is afflicted with an ailment that amounts to a career. His history is, next to Molly's, nearest our new show's protagonist's situation. He, an orphan, was exploited and damaged and his resultant talents put at the disposal of people with an agenda other than his own personal good.

There seem to be fewer of his female characters who are just women, living their lives, doing their jobs, than there are male characters doing such.

So I suppose you could say that the background alone does not indicate the tenor of the resulting content. Eliza is certainly capable of rising about problematic material. But again, I think it all depends on tone, and attitude toward the viewer.

After catching up on the conversation I feel pretty sure that the epiphany that Joss had on his way to the bathroom was "Wouldn't it be cool to sell a show that implies Roger Corman's The Big Dollhouse, but is really Ibsen's The Doll House."

Plus lots of opportunities for Eliza to go all acting class on us. (Which I don't mind since I thought she was excellent as Fuffy.)

Still, like Ple, I think Joss and Tim have some blind spots that worry me a bit. Mostly I worry that there's going to be such a backlash to the premise that it won't get off the ground.

I ended up feeling protective of Sarah Michelle Gellar whether or not she deserves it, because I love Buffy Summers.

Hm. I think in retrospect I like Buffy more because I kind of dig Gellar. So we feel the same way for totally different reasons, which I find strangely satisfying.

Though it's probably an offshoot of this weird protective feeling I had toward Boreanaz after a few years of Angel, like I could make fun of him, but other people should leave him alone. And yes, I am very disturbed by that. Recapping did weird things to my brain.

I liked Faith on Buffy. I thought everyone else behaved incomprehensibly toward her, which probably is what made her so crazy. That's another thing I filed under "It's probably 'cause of the Hellmouth." But I did like her more on Angel, where she was arguably the sanest person in the room.

This has been "Strega's random opinions for the evening."

Case - out of work geek, thief, Bobby - aspiring geek, Mick - steampunk era geek, Mallory - paleontologist, Rydell - failed cop, Konrad - he had some trauma in his history, Yamazaki - student of pop culture.

Liese this is brilliant, and leads to a conversation about cyberpunk character builds - both genders = good, strong characters, but the females seem often very comic-drawn visions, instead of slightly weakened, run-down, fighting back types (esp. Case and Rydell) - you don't see that with Cayce necessarily - she sets her own terms and makes others abide by them. This may seem bound for literary, but if Dollhouse ever springs any razor ware, this is good reference material.

Ok if I bring in another set of dolls? Blade Runner? Just to be a pest.

This has been "Strega's random opinions for the evening."

But what are your thoughts on yaoi?

People who are used to seeing Buffy in a power stance or Zoe with a gun and holster are going to see Echo in a passive role without any agency. Even her name reflects that she doesn't have her own voice.

See, upon hearing the premise I immediately zeroed in on the idea of this character having to piece together who she's going to be from bits and pieces of the roles she's assigned to play, deciding for herself what she wants to keep and what she lets go. That didn't take me to a Real Girl place, it took me to Memento and Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. The idea of those themes in the hands of Joss, Tim, and Eliza is very exciting.

And as much as it sounds like Echo's going to be discovering the joys of agency (it's like Ibsen! updated!), for me, starting from a baseline of Exploited Female for your central character is problematic.

Didn't Tim start from something that could be described in that general manner with Rebecca's story on The Inside?

But I did like her more on Angel, where she was arguably the sanest person in the room.

During the first season? Really? MAYBE at the end of the second episode, but prior to that she was batshit crazy, IMO.