There are two articles today, and we are well into the middle of the second season. These are critically acclaimed episodes and mark the beginning of the “rush to the end” that seems to occur with this series.
I’ve written a paper that suggests similar things to Deritter’s essay, that masculinity (in particular, that of Topher) is problematized by his continued “flusteredness” (his deteriorating mental state throughout the series). Madness is a feminine characteristic, primarily in the arts.
The author here is right to identify the Supergirl type in Whedon shows, as well as the emasculated (lovable) male (she even identifies Topher here). So, then, what of the crisis of masculinity that occurs in Whedon’s shows?
Does Dollhouse show a different kind of masculinity (a possible option) rather than a failed (conventional) masculinity?
Souza asks, “Why would so many characters and audience members continue to trust in such a man, given all this?” (206) This is supposedly the question after seeing Boyd working for an organization that he seemingly despised every week. The question is ultimately one we could ask of the show as a whole: why did/do we watch it? Who do we root for?
This is, to me, why the show failed. Because it is a hard show.
For PW: The following weeks have a single reading for each week. If it works, we can continue with 2 readings and finish a few weeks early.