I think it was written so ambiguously, which Whedon admits to in the commentary, that it can be interpreted more than one way.
I certainly have interpreted it both ways.
For the Bangle version which you relate above to work - Buffy would have had to go to LA directly after the fight and possibly hook up again with Angel. She clearly didn't do that. Instead she took off to Europe and he's not sure where. Also she doesn't come when he asks for help and doesn't deign to see him when he pops up in Italy.
Hung up on Angel? I think not - if we ignore the comics, which I'm doing because I don't consider them canon. YMMV.
For the Spuffy version of the text to work - Buffy would have had to have made a point of seeing Spike again or getting an explanation after Andrew told her. Assuming he did. And when they show up in Italy, at least see him. She doesn't not really. Although I can find loop holes there far better than the Bangle version - in that she either didn't know, or she was upset that he didn't come to her.
At any rate - I think if we look at it as a final battle in an on-going war, her speech and reactions to Angel take on a separate and less shippy light. Angel has been missing in action for five years. She can't rely on him, and trusts him about as far as she can throw him. He's associated with an evil law firm. (Andrew even states in S5 that Buffy doesn't trust him). Yeah, yeah, he was her first love and she will always care about him and perhaps some day down the road, but right now - she's with Spike and she trusts him, he's earned her trust, and she can rely on him to have her back and not take over or make his own insane decisions that contradict hers. She already has Robin Wood and Faith, she doesn't need Angel too. And Angel - keep in mind - has a history of doing what he believes is in Buffy's best interest (IWRY, GD, PRophecy Girl, etc.). Spike on the other hand has her back and takes her counsel. He doesn't second guess her or try to take over the lead. She doesn't another Chief, she needs a follower. And not to belabor my point - but Angel doesn't take direction well. Neither does Spike - but he does when he trusts the General.
Honestly if I was leading a war effort - I'd pick Spike and find a way to let old Angel down gently.
From a romantic perspective? I honestly don't think she has any time to think about it. It reminds me of Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games - who keeps telling gale and peetah, yeah, yeah, I get that you love me - but honestly I can't think about this right now. I'm too tired and scared to death.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2014-10-13 04:39 pm (UTC)I certainly have interpreted it both ways.
For the Bangle version which you relate above to work - Buffy would have had to go to LA directly after the fight and possibly hook up again with Angel. She clearly didn't do that. Instead she took off to Europe and he's not sure where. Also she doesn't come when he asks for help and doesn't deign to see him when he pops up in Italy.
Hung up on Angel? I think not - if we ignore the comics, which I'm doing because I don't consider them canon. YMMV.
For the Spuffy version of the text to work - Buffy would have had to have made a point of seeing Spike again or getting an explanation after Andrew told her. Assuming he did. And when they show up in Italy, at least see him. She doesn't not really. Although I can find loop holes there far better than the Bangle version - in that she either didn't know, or she was upset that he didn't come to her.
At any rate - I think if we look at it as a final battle in an on-going war, her speech and reactions to Angel take on a separate and less shippy light. Angel has been missing in action for five years. She can't rely on him, and trusts him about as far as she can throw him. He's associated with an evil law firm. (Andrew even states in S5 that Buffy doesn't trust him). Yeah, yeah, he was her first love and she will always care about him and perhaps some day down the road, but right now - she's with Spike and she trusts him, he's earned her trust, and she can rely on him to have her back and not take over or
make his own insane decisions that contradict hers. She already has Robin Wood and Faith, she doesn't need Angel too. And Angel - keep in mind - has a history of doing what he believes is in Buffy's best interest (IWRY, GD, PRophecy Girl, etc.). Spike on the other hand has her back and takes her counsel. He doesn't second guess her or try to take over the lead. She doesn't another Chief, she needs a follower.
And not to belabor my point - but Angel doesn't take direction well.
Neither does Spike - but he does when he trusts the General.
Honestly if I was leading a war effort - I'd pick Spike and find a way to let old Angel down gently.
From a romantic perspective? I honestly don't think she has any time to think about it. It reminds me of Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games - who keeps telling gale and peetah, yeah, yeah, I get that you love me - but honestly I can't think about this right now. I'm too tired and scared to death.