SCOTT: Well, the minute you announced I was doing this interview, I was getting warnings that you’d attack, but I haven’t felt the pain yet. I’m told you don’t like the book, so maybe my decision to do the interview was as weird as some readers seem to think. But I figure I have nothing to lose, right?

SCOTT: Time travel is a big pain in the butt, it’s been in a bunch of my comics the last few years, but I don’t know what you mean about Angel. He didn’t time travel to get here. Is that what fans are thinking? I think I might not understand the question.

SCOTT: I didn’t get complaints from parents or retailers about the contents of Buffy #34, so I don’t know how much of an issue that last aspect of your comment is. As role models all these characters are pretty imperfect, and having sex, in space or otherwise, is not the worst thing about them. We pushed that imagery in #34 pretty hard, indeed. For me, if I compare #34 to some Buffy/Spike stuff in the show, I feel like it’s simply the difference between having to deal with actors and TV—Joss got away with some intense stuff on television, and we got pretty extreme in the comic. I know that I don’t have a very sensitive gauge on these things, myself. I let some things into the Conan book that I thought were okay in context, and retailers freaked out. Joss and I were talking about this sort of thing, the other day, not in terms of Buffy, but our own kids, and what is okay for them to watch. We both think we know, but when it comes right down to it, how can you be sure? As with so many things, we rely on the kids’ moms to know better. It’s so hard to know what’s right in terms of mature content—the Star Wars movies are supposed to be pretty all ages, but they get pretty violent. Anyway, yes, Buffy #34 might be too racy for a fourteen year old, but there were some bits in Season 6 that’d pose problems too. So I know it pushed it, but I didn’t think it was wildly inconsistent.

SCOTT: Sierra made a comment to me, when someone wrote in to tell us that Angel had raped Buffy in #34. I think her point was basically that while we can argue about how predestination conflicts with free will, Buffy very clearly CHOSE to have sex with Angel, even if it was a bad choice. We can make bad choices, and people certainly do. But we make them. I’ve seen people say that Dollhouse is anti-feminist, because the characters are turned into prostitutes. If you make a film that involves racism, and you fail to explain clearly in the text that RACISM IS WRONG, it’s not that you’ve promoted racism, or turned your back on equality; it’s just that you’ve failed to make a piece of propaganda. Buffy Season 7 left us with this wonderful female power in the world—Season 8 turned that into an army, and that army has been far from perfect. I don’t think that’s a poke in the eye to feminism. I hope that Buffy’s continued complex romantic decisions don’t ruin her as an example of female empowerment. That thread about the Slayer army, the shared power, which began in Season 7, will continue to evolve in Season 9, and that extension will likely be viewed as more clearly supportive of feminism.

SCOTT: The move to comics changed the series in a lot of ways. I don’t feel they’re fundamental ways, but until there’s an agreed-upon list of the fundamentals of Buffy, we can’t say for sure. The things we would agree on as fundamental are unchanged. I don’t think the ability to make Dawn giant is a fundamental change. I’m pretty sure that was something Joss wanted to do on the show, and they decided they couldn’t pull it off with the budget. So is it a fundamental change that he now can pull it off? I’d be a lot more worried if Buffy started dressing like Lara Croft. Then, I think something fundamental would have changed. On the other hand, you could say that it’s a fundamental change moving from TV to comics. That’s not what I see as fundamental to the story, but I couldn’t convince someone else to see it the way I do.

SCOTT: No updates. We’re doing that Tales hardcover first, to sort of warm up to it. Got the cover from Jo today and it’s amazing. We’ve got to put some thought into special features for the Season 8 hardcovers, though. There just hasn’t been the volume of supplemental material that some series generate. Comics sometimes are just designed on the page, a lot is worked out on the comics page itself, so there’s not the great behind-the-scenes stuff you get in other media. But of course we want to do something special, so we’re not rushing into getting them made until we can put our heads together. Right now our heads are very much focused on wrapping up Season 8.

SCOTT: We’ve corrected mistakes we’ve made that readers pointed out. We’ve tried to answer the questions that have perplexed readers the most, unless we wanted them to go unanswered, or felt that taking the time to answer them would detract too much from the focus. Those are the main ways in which readers have influenced the story. We wouldn’t have done the Riley oneshot, I don’t think, if it weren’t for questions from readers. There’ve been things we thought were covered in the story that we heard loud and clear were not, and so sometimes we’ve made efforts to handle it differently.

SCOTT: Ask me after #39 comes out. I’ve been holding back from answering this question till then. I’ll tell you a funny anecdote, the reason why I’m afraid to answer the question before you see where it’s all going.

SCOTT: Not as much as anyone would like, especially me, as co-writer. Spike shows up, saves the day with his weird bug-operated ship and his useful knowledge of the situation, and from that point, it’s fast-paced action to save the day. The character moments that we take the time for are those essential to getting the story through the climax—mostly between him and Buffy. Definitely some interaction between him and the others, but as with Angel, there just doesn’t wind up being the time for it. I wish we could stop it for all of that, each of the characters you mention, particularly Xander and Dawn. But it’d stop the momentum of the climax dead, and there is not that much of that. Spike and Angel basically showed up for the climax—if it were a three-act film, Spike walked in a little ways into the final act.

SCOTT: I’d characterize fame as silly—it gets in the way, it services the villains more than the heroes. Heroism, I’d say, is compromised. I think that’s true of everything Joss does. He doesn’t believe in Superman. I wonder what he’s gonna do with Captain America? But I’d say our heroes are not perfect, and fame is a distraction and hindrance. In the comic. In real life it makes you beautiful and better than other people.

SCOTT: See, that’s that sort of thing that when a reader calls it out, we go and fix. Buffyfest called us on that. Lame excuse, like all my excuses, but that kind of marketing copy sometimes gets written by committee, sort of with too much back and forth, and you lose sight. That line used to make sense, then was edited until it didn’t, and went to print not making sense. Sorry about that. Will fix, hopefully in time for #37.

SCOTT: Gotta see the end. Or at least #39. Ask me then.

SCOTT: He believed this was the inevitable evolution of the world and reality and all things great and small. He was letting the world end, but none of that had to do with him being destroyed or not destroyed. His own life is not the point—he didn’t bring Twilight about because someone threatened him, so while I think his motivation deserves scrutiny, I don’t know that that line to Connor is the point. No, in the end, Connor would not be okay—but whether Angel himself is destroyed or not wasn’t the question. Angel has shown his willingness to sacrifice for the greater good, and he’s shown his imperfection at identifying that greater good.

SCOTT: Both. The outside influence of Twilight has been a big factor, for sure.

SCOTT: The fourth arc might’ve been my favorite. When I answer questions like this, I don’t take it that seriously, I guess. If you ask me tomorrow I might say the one I cowrote, or the first one, or Goddard’s … Changes a lot. I loved Brad’s arc, because the writing was really fun, and it really upset people, but what worked best about it was more oblique, intangible, and he did the best job we’d seen in a while of moving the Season 8 plot and thematic stuff forward. He had the toughest arc to handle, and there were things he really got about it, and about Joss. In the sixth arc, I wish we handled the massive level of conflict differently. It’s a logistical issue, to some degree. Jane gets the characters so right, but comics is not always the best medium for dealing with an army.

SCOTT: The bit where Bill Willingham called me and Joss repugnant liars. I think he hit the nail on the head. No, there are really fair criticisms out there, but they do tend to get swallowed up in the din. Season 9 will be 25 instead of 40 issues. We’re leaning toward one writer per title, rather than a new body every arc. We want to stay closer on core characters, in each title. Less global, more personal, but still use the visuals in the way that comics allows.

SCOTT: We wanted a visual representation of what was going on, the way they were infused. But you should not let the characters off the hook completely for their actions. It worked like a drug, clouding your judgment, but you’re still you. You should not abandon responsibility for your actions, even if you might have acted differently if not under the influence.

SCOTT: Nope, no details. I ‘m extremely excited about Season 9, but focused on Season 8, and you guys should focus on Season 8, and the wrap up over at IDW. Big things happening across the board.

SCOTT: This is very much on my mind as we start planning Season 9. If we do it, it won’t be anything in the vein of Apollo and Midnighter, I don’t think. Wasn’t that stuff sort of shock value? It was a great moment for me when we had Willow and Tara kiss in the comic for the first time, way back before Season 8—in part because I feel like we sort of treated it like no big deal. I’d want a gay male relationship handled the same way.

SCOTT: It’ll be different in many ways. We’ll make more room for the intimacy, because the plot ate up a lot of room that got us away from that stuff in Season 8.

SCOTT: Yeah, we should do something like that again, certainly. Plenty of time to plan for it at this point.

SCOTT: We’re not talking about either of those at this point. Maybe someday, but we’ll be totally focused on Season 9 once we wrap up Season 8. If there’s a way to do Ripper that hits at the heart of Season 9, we could do that, but I don’t think that’s the road to go.

SCOTT: That’d be a Fox thing. We have Goon film rights, but Fox owns Buffy, and we just license the comics rights. We can’t even do … oh wait, was that a trick to get me to comment on the Buffy motion comics?

SCOTT: When I talk to Brian, I talk about his Spike monthly at IDW. He’s very loyal to Chris Ryall.

SCOTT: We’ve definitely talked about it. I’m friends with John, would love to get him back at Dark Horse, but he is a very busy guy with a lot of his own irons in the fires. Joss loves Cassaday SO MUCH. I know they want to do more comics together.

SCOTT: It’s not on the schedule yet, but we keep talking about getting it going.

SCOTT: It’s been awesome. First sitting there and plotting it with him, that was great. Seeing what was important to him, seeing how to turn something around a character, in a more intimate way than I’d ever done with him, that was a real education. And then to find out I’d be cowriting with him, that was exciting, intimidating. As an editor, I like being hands on with notes to the writer. I’m a very hands on editor. So I’ve always felt it’d be pretty lame of me to be resistant to notes from an editor when I’m writing. But getting notes from Joss on the script has been amazing. I’ve really studied his writing, tried to see what makes it tick, and tried to use my position to get that insight. But this has been the best opportunity for that. None of these scripts went to Georges after one or two drafts, there was a lot of conversation, a lot of talk, and then even after they went to Georges, Joss came in before lettering to rewrite significant chunks of dialogue. And every little thing he changed, I tried to learn something from it. I will say that #39 went through much less rewriting than the previous two.

SCOTT: With both editing and writing, you need a certain amount of distance, I think, in that you need to be able to go in and out. You need to be right in the thick of things to understand it from the inside, and you need to go out on the edge so you can appreciate how the ideal reader would see it. As editor, you spend more time out on the edge, and as the writer, more time on the inside. I’ve always seen editing as an aspect of the creative process, the way writing, drawing, coloring, and lettering are—you’re in the middle, on the inside, but you have certain different responsibilities. I see a book I’m writing and a book I’m editing as occupying different spots on a single continuum. For instance, when I edit Hellboy, it’s different than when I edit Umbrella Academy, and different from when I edit Groo. I’ve moved away from the books at the far end of the continuum, like Groo, where I’m mainly an outside observer to the creative process. The opposite end of that continuum is when I write the book, like Exurbia. But for editing, I prefer the books where I’m closer to the core. It’s more fun, and it suits me better. When I went to LA to work out the plot for the final arc, my job shifted on the continuum, a little further away from Groo. Then when he said I was cowriting, it just moved a little further, closer to Exurbia. It still doesn’t compare to Exurbia, really, because I’m just writing what Joss tells me to write, and then changing anything he asks me to. But what I’m saying is that it’s not entire apples and oranges, from my point of view, editing and writing.

SCOTT: It changes. Bob Dylan’s probably the most consistent, but sometimes Carson McCullers, sometimes Alan Moore or Roman Polanski. And quite often it’s Mike Mignola or Joss. But that gets weird. Too close.

SCOTT: I just love his movies. Aesthetically, no filmmaker has done it as consistently for me as him. I love Lynch, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Scorsese, but something about Polanski's work takes it to a higher level for me. He's a storyteller possessed of incredible technical skill, which I can't help but envy, and a great vision, which I happen to identify with a lot. It speaks to me. There's no more accomplished filmmaker/craftsman than, say, Speilberg or Cameron, but their work doesn't speak to me. So, Polanski. It's not so much that I separate the art from the person—I know the art as intimately as one is meant to; I don't fool myself that I know the person. When you know them, it changes it. I know Joss, and it makes me like his stuff even more. I don't separate the person from the art there, which is what I meant by it getting complicated, when my inspiration comes from Joss or Mike. Because there are personal feelings there that make it different. There are comics guys I've met, where meeting them has cost me the love of their work, and others who I didn't like, but it doesn't overshadow the work. But I'm perfectly happy that I don't know Bob Dylan, and judge him, or consider him, rather, only based on his work.