User talk:Paul730/Buffy Summers

Relationships

Sorry it took long to get back, it was after midnight and i had to get up early for work. Hope this criticism isn't too harsh.

The first quote by Buffy, about the reunion with Angel, doesn't make sense as to why it is necessary. I assume it is meant to explain Buffy's inability to stay out of relationships with dangerous fellows, but I don't think it pulls it off. Have the writers not discussed why she is always drawn to these types of people? - I don't think the scene description is necessary unless there is a purpose. I don't see one other than the fact that she's so engrossed in telling your folleys with Angel that just stakes the vampire without her usual quips.
This, Sympathizing with her friend's inability to have a normal relationship, Willow states, "Poor Buffy. Your life resists all things average." doesn't seem to have a purpose. I think for both of these instances, it would be easier to summarize what the characters were saying, instead of putting these quotes. For Willow, say something like, "Buffy's best friend, Willow, has stated Buffy's life tends to reject the "average" things." This way, you also put it in an out-of-universe context, instead and giving qualifiers to fictional characters (e.g. Sympathizing with her friend's...). The same with the first quote. I think you could summarize it to reflect how the character herself does not understand why she is drawn to these types of men, and believes "real love", for her, must be come with "pain and fighting". Things like that.
The entire paragraph on Pike, from the Swanson film, has not context. I don't know how it relates to the character other than they dated after some friends were killed, and that he's broken up with her in non-canon comics. Other than a fictional history of their relationship, I don't see any real world context to it. Like, there is nothing that explains how their relationship is a reflection of what the writers have done to her, or maybe a push in a direction the writers wanted to take her after she dated Pike in the film. Also, it's out of place. It comes in between talk of the television series. I don't think it would matter if the section was dropped. The relationship section should focus on how the writers and directors wanted to portray Buffy's relationships, and not how the fictional relationships actually existed.
Did the writers establish why they wouldn't let her hold a relationships with a "normal" guy?
Giles' quote about Buffy and Angel's relationship doesn't really appear to have merit, unless the writers were speaking through him to convey a message of their own...which should be stated that way.
The virginity thing is good, but probably needs to be re-written for smoothness, but not something to worry about right now.
This,Angel realizes he is preventing Buffy from leading a normal life, and leaves town, but often returns to support her in times of need. - could be worked into the preceding statement about their relationship never working out.
The next paragraph has no context. It would be good to know why the writers made her vulnerable to a college guy's "good thing", or why she never loved Riley. Right now, it's simply rehashing the episodes. You get into the Riley/Buffy relationship later, so i think you could probably summarize their relationship more. If there isn't a reason for the one-night stand then I'd just drop it, and focus on the serious relationship that failed. I'd talk about how the writers never intended for the Riley relationship to work out, as he was not supposed to be a substitute for the passion that Buffy and Angel shared.
Did Mark Blucus explain what people could identify with? I don't know about you, but my girlfriend can't beat me up, nor did she date vampires. I assume he meant the "new boyfriend having to deal with the girlfriend's coping of the loss of her last boyfriend"...which anyone can understand to a degree, but it doesn't say that.
All the Spike stuff is without context. It just seems to rehash the episodes. I would summarize that relationship into 2 or 3 sentences, and leave off with the Joss Whedon quote.
In truth.... - She isn't real, so there is no such thing as "in truth" unless it's accompanied by a real person explaining the situation.
Xander and Buffy, no context. Even the ending, where people talk about them possibly being together. It's written like they are real people, and would seem more appropriate in an episode article, under a "Writing" subsection in "Production".

In all, not really bad. The main problem is that it is written for the fans, and not for the average reader who probably doesn't know anything about the series. There are spliced in mediums, in other words, there's a paragraph on the show, followed by a paragraph on the comics. Canon is not important to an encyclopedia, only the real world context of the information. Canon would be important for a Wikia type of article. Really, I think if you summarized that whole section, focusing more on what the writers wanted to do with the character, it would probably work better in the "Characterization" section. As it would characterize how the writers created Buffy's idea of love, and how they worked that into the show. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character history

This area is looking much better. There is some wording that comes across as original research, where qualifiers are added to describe the character's feelings and such. Also, Angel then leaves the show in the hopes that Buffy can have a more normal life without him - Angel can't leave the show, he's not real. Either say David leaves the show, or Angel leaves Sunnydale. In the infobox, how did Eliza portray Buffy? I mean, I know she did the personality of Buffy, when the two transfered bodies, but she didn't play the actual character so to speak. I mean, she isn't billed as the character in that episode. Technically, Faith was Buffy, and Buffy was Faith, and the two actresses merely portrayed each other's acting styles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Eliza and Sarah are credited as each other's character for that episode (Guest starring ED as "Buffy"). As for the "Angel leaves the show" bit, yeah I know I mangled the context there, I guess I was trying too hard not to sound in-universe and got mixed up. :( Also, what bits do you mean specifically about the original research/emotions comment? Paul730 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it's entirely accurate. Freddy Kreuger is credited as himself in New Nightmare. As for the television series, it's like a cross between OR and weasel words. I don't know how to describe it, but things like: Buffy faces her greatest dangers yet - this seems like we're promoting the show. It's rather dramatic. Buffy suffers much emotional turmoil - how much is "much"? Traumatised by the events of this season - Was she traumatized, or just extremely upset. It seemed like she merely wanted to leave the Slayer life behind because of the grief it caused her. Buffy must reconnect to her calling, - Changes tense from the first two paragraphs. This is more future tense. .... things like that. It was never anything major, or everywhere...just random, minor things like that. Just have to watch out that you don't word things as if you are promoting the piece of work, or drawing specific interpretations of the character which may or may not explicitely been stated in the show. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some of the stuff you pointed out; I'll go over it again in more detail tommorow when I'm less tired. As for the Eliza stuff, I probably will delete that when I rewrite the infobox (removing the bit about her telepathy powers as well). Paul730 03:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]