What made Angel and Buffy Innovative, and why I prefer one to the other...

[shadowkat]

Managed to figure out how to make fried chicken and fried zuccini/summer squash with almond flour last night. Seasoned it with garlic/parsley/sea salt/pepper, and used coconut oil. Was rather tasty.

Read that some online blog or zine believes :

AtS is better than BtVS. "If Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a show about becoming, then Angel is about something far more challenging: existing. There is a rot to the world, one that threatens to infect us all—not in grand, dramatic ways, but mundane ones. Entropy and inertia are the natural order of things. According to Holland Manners, the world doesn’t work in spite of evil—it works with it".

Eh, the two series are so completely different in tone and style, that it is akin to saying an apple is better than a pear. You either prefer the pear or the apple, but one is not necessarily better than the other. I personally prefer apples - I like the crunch and variety, pears are too mushy. Not a fan of mushy texture. Also pears are sweeter and have a higher inflammatory index. But I know lots of people who prefer pears.

My brother never understood why I preferred Buffy to Angel. He thought Angel was more adult (eh, not really - well not if you include the last four seasons of Buffy, which he wasn't fond of.) Also, my sister-in-law and brother never understood why my mother and I preferred Spike. My mother didn't like Angel and could never get into the series that bore his name, because in part she found the character uninteresting and the actor wooden. While my brother and sisinlaw loved the series, and found Angel adorable. Also they found the physical comedy on Angel hilarious, while it tended to fall flat for me - but the witty by-play and absurdist comedy on Buffy had me laughing out loud.

My father, on the other hand, blissfully ignored both series and watches NCIS instead.
Never been a fan of fantasy serials.

We don't discuss it much. But it is interesting - how people swear one series is better than another, when if fact they are merely just pointing out a preference which has zip to do with any objective criteria whatsoever. I mean, I can argue both are excellent and both are campy cheesy serials, with little effort.

I do however think that of the two, Buffy was far more innovative. Let's face it - Angel has been done multiple times. Brimstone (short-lived), Koljack the Night Stalker, Forever Knight, Moonlight, etc. The most innovative take on the whole Angel trope is probably the serial The Originals, which isn't nearly as well written or captivating. But Buffy? I can't think of anything that resembles Buffy past or present. The closest might have been Veronica Mars. Vamp Diaries - is more about the vampires, not about a girl's coming of age story fighting them. And is there any female superhero shows on at the moment? Not that I can think of. In the past? Maybe Wonder Woman or Dark Angel - but neither featured quite the type of character line up that Buffy had. No, I think one of the reasons I became a die-hard fan of Buffy in a way that I have not become a fan of anything else before or since, is that it just broke the mold or stood outside of the trope, often making fun of or satirising the tropes it found itself in. It just was so different. And unlike a lot of tv shows, never sat on its laurels or phoned it in - the writers kept experimenting and playing with the narrative form. I can't think of many tv shows that have done all of that.

So yes, from that perspective Buffy was the more innovative and interesting series. Angel was a spin-off that initially followed a fairly safe and traditional anti-hero noir detective trope. What Angel did do that separated itself from the pack, however, is it became highly serialized and built a mythology. It also played a little with the trope and commented on it, often making fun of itself in the process, particularly in the latter (and in my opinion at least far more interesting and innovative) seasons.

Actually if you think about it - both shows have that in common. The initial seasons sort of follow a standard and somewhat formulaic traditional television trope. A gang of high-school kids fight and occasionally fall in love with monsters, and the monsters reflect the nasty high school issues they are dealing with. That has sort of been done before and after Buffy - Vampire Diaries was sort of that trope, Hex, and a few others. Albeit not as often as the supernatural noirish lone detective trope has been done (the latest entry to that fold is Constantine and well Sleepy Hollow, Gotham, and Supernatural). Angel started out that way, then sort of drifted away from it - making a law firm of all things the main villain. Normally it's other vampires, family members, demons, or some criminal mob boss - but here it was lawyers and their ability to create order through "laws". Angel tackled order, law, regulations, and control as problems. The Authority - was always the main problem for Angel, the monster or demon that had to be overcome - whether that authority was religious in nature (ie. God or the PTB), legal (the evil law firm WRH), or societal pressures. The phrase "Everybody thinks this is a good idea" - was often the opposite on Angel. And this was in a way what set Angel apart from it's predecessors who often focused on chaos as the bad guy. In Forever Knight - the lead character was a cop, and the monsters were people outside of the police force. On Angel - the bad guy was the police force.

Buffy was similar in a way - it too had issues with Authority. The Mayor was one the major villains in the series. As was the Watcher Council - who could not be counted on and often did more harm than good. Buffy was in some respects based heavily on the Western Trope of the lone gunfighter who comes into town to fix it up, the police, mayor, principal, council - all being a bit on the shady side and part of the problem. It's notable that when Buffy finally becomes an authority figure herself - she becomes her own worst enemy and must blow the town apart along with her image, until she becomes once again - the fighter, not the leader of an increasingly bureaucratic and fascist system.

While it's tempting to think that the writers/creators of these series have been reading a wee bit too much Ayn Rand in their spare time, I don't believe this to be the case. For one thing, not all authority is circumspect, nor is the individual always right. In Rand's universe - as satirized recently online, Buffy would not suffer the aid of Xander or pre-witch Willow. She would do it on her own. And she'd demand to be paid for it. (Although to be fair, I always thought the Council should have given her some compensation. I don't buy into the naive and somewhat childish theory that superheros should save people for free or out of pure altruism - when they have no income and aren't independently wealthy. Heck, soliders, firemen, and cops don't. Support your local sheriff. But that's beside the point and has zip to do with Rand, who was a bit of an extremist in her views. Probably the result of growing up in Stalinist Russia. A good and nasty dictatorship could turn anyone into an extremist.) At any rate - the rebellion against Authority or the Powers that Be is certainly not a new concept and not limited to Whedon or even Rand, although I think Rand had more problems with people who wanted to be taken care of - than authority per se, as long as she was the authority. Phillip Pullman certainly tackles similar issues with his controversial series of children's books entitled His Dark Materials - where a couple of kids challenge The Authority or the organization supporting HIM, the Authority doesn't appear to be around. An idea that has been borrowed to a degree by Supernatural - where Dean and Sam, demon hunters extrordinare, equally question the unknowable and notably absent Authority - and his crumbling organization of angelic followers. Or George Orwell and Adolus Huxley who warn of the dangers of trusting an Authority too much with our basic freedoms and rights in the sci-fi novels 1984 and Brave New World respectively.

But just because it's not a new idea, does not mean you can't be innovative. After all, to borrow an old adage from copyright law, there are no new ideas or even original ones, just new ways of playing with them. What Angel and Buffy did differently was how they envisioned the Authority, and dealt with the struggle to defeat it - discovering to both their considerable chagrin - that when they did finally overthrow or seemingly overthrew the Authority, someone or something had to fill the vaccume left behind - and in both cases it turned out to be Buffy and Angel.
When they became the Authority or guy/gal in charge - things didn't quite work as they thought. They found themselves making some of the same mistakes the authority figures they spent so much time fighting had made. In the end, the only escape, was to blow it apart. Creating another problem - chaos.

Unlike most series, there is no neat ending here. Buffy blows up her town, shares her power, journey's off into the horizon - but is suddenly responsible for all those girls she empowered and the consequences of unleashing them into the world with no rules or authority to train or hinder them. Angel similarly blows up the law firm, and is dumped into Chaos...with hell raining down on him.

The writer's don't provide neat answers. Just questions. Destroy the authority, do we become it? And what then? The child rebels against the adult order, only to become that order...Neither extreme works, and both try to work towards the happy medium.

Most series don't appear to explore it to quite that degree or in quite that fashion. Since Buffy and Angel don't just tackle religious order but also societal order. Most series seem to stop short somewhere along the road. And that may be how these differed at least to me.

Your Mileage May Vary of course.

Need to make dinner. This was unedited and not proofed. Read at your own risk. I may come back and edit tomorrow. Not sure. Didn't plan on writing it. Just sort of came out. [ETA - has been edited somewhat.]

Comments

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I mean, it's even interesting that both series returned to some of the same plot elements, but either took different tactics or came to different conclusions (and sometimes, to the same conclusion) -- and that often how one feels about the ideas behind it reflects one's feelings about the shows. For example, in A Hole in the World, Angel lets Fred die so as not to kill untold others, whereas Buffy is willing to let the world die to save Dawn, and only finds a way out by sacrificing herself. Idealists view "Buffy" as better because she won't sacrifice her personal values; consequentialists view "Angel" as better because he puts the needs of the many, etc. But really both are partly just about those characters' reactions to circumstance. Buffy, at the end of season five, is in a different frame of mind than Angel is, and has different feelings toward Dawn -- I think the contrast is less about which position is "right" than what it says about the characters.

I guess to continue on the theme, it's interesting how some ideas from one show get picked up in another -- for example, the way "The Wish" and "Birthday" tell a kind of similar story centred around Cordelia, of a world in which Cordelia is "the star" and in which she is no longer an adjunct to the main character's journey. However, "The Wish" very deliberately, and I think even subversively, cuts short the obvious narrative -- where Cordelia learns Buffy's importance and comes to terms with it, etc. -- completely short, killing the episode's apparent protagonist halfway through, and then going on to tell the "real" story, which is following through on the consequences of Buffy's absence on Buffy, her friends, the town, etc. Whereas "Birthday" is a more traditional story in which Cordelia recognizes her value to the cause over her value as a star. The latter is in some ways more traditionally satisfying as a narrative -- Cordelia has a character arc with a real beginning, middle, and end -- but it's also I'd argue less imaginative and in some ways easier on the character (Cordelia has to choose between being an amazing person because she's a Champion selected by the Powers That Be, or being an amazing person because she's a television star -- as opposed to "The Wish," where she has to choose between being a bit player in someone else's story or the star of a narrative that ends with her death).

I'm definitely aware of the ATPOBTVS site :) I've browsed there before.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

For example, in A Hole in the World, Angel lets Fred die so as not to kill untold others, whereas Buffy is willing to let the world die to save Dawn, and only finds a way out by sacrificing herself. Idealists view "Buffy" as better because she won't sacrifice her personal values; consequentialists view "Angel" as better because he puts the needs of the many, etc.

Except, the two scenarios aren't really comparable. Because it's "Fred" not "Connor" that Angel lets die. In "Home" - Angel puts the team, the world, LA in great jeopardy to save Connor. He sacrifices everyone to save Connor - and doesn't find another way. He takes the deal with the devil. In fact it can be argued that Fred dies because Angel sacrificed Fred to save his son. A son who tried to kill a mall full of people - who was not an innocent young girl who never hurt anyone and bravely fought alongside her sister.

While in Buffy - Buffy realizes that she can save Dawn and the World, by sacrificing herself. She doesn't allow the world to end, and she doesn't allow Dawn to die. And she doesn't sacrifice her friends for Dawn. She only sacrifices herself.

When it has been other people - for example "Angel", who she has to kill in order to save the world in S2 - she kills him. Actually that's why she balks at killing Dawn and Spike. Angel - notably has never had to make that choice until Fred - and he didn't love Fred the way Buffy loved Angel. But in S7 - she states she'd do it - if there was no other way.

This is why Buffy was a hero and Angel was an anti-hero.

Buffy put others needs first, Angel put his own needs first. Both were consequentialists and idealists - in their own ways. The difference is in tone - Buffy is lighter, Angel is the dark side of both. Both saw the consequences, they just chose which ones mattered the most. Angel never sacrificed himself or his son, he sacrificed his team, which is why notably at the end of Angel - all the original members, his versions of Willow (Wes), Xander (Cordelia), Giles (Doyle), Anya (Gunn), Tara (Fred) - are either dead or soon to be dead - and mainly due to their involvement with him. That's the genre - in noir - the hero isn't a hero, he's an anti-hero, and everyone who champions him is dead by the end of his story. And unlike Buffy, Angel's idealism - was that he would shanshu that he would be seen as a champion. He isn't interested in saving the world - he's interested in being saved. He remains up until the very end deluded about who and what he is - WRH manages to pull a major con on him because of his idealist opinion of himself.

Buffy in contrast sees the good in others, and sees others as worth saving. Unlike Angel, she doesn't want or need to be the hero, she just steps up because she wants to make the world better.

Unlike Buffy, Angel can't share his power - because it is stolen. It's not his. His power comes from sucking life from the living. He's has superpowers purely through being a vampire. And when he's given the opportunity to be human, to no longer be a vampire - he squanders it - believing that if he did so - he'd destroy Buffy? Please.

The writer's took the theme a step further with Cordelia in both The Wish and Birthday. Note that Cordy needs to be the lead actor, important, the center of attention in both episodes. In one - she's killed off early - and the focus shifts to everyone else - not even Buffy is the lead in that episode. No the main characters or heroes are actually Giles and OZ. It's not Buffy being absent from their lives, so much as Buffy and their interaction in Sunnydale being what changed. Because when Buffy pops up - she's bitter, angry, and useless.
Everyone dies. While in Birthday - which is a delusion that Skip and the PTB feed Cordy - using Cordy's insecurities to build on it, her deepest wishes and desires. Cordy needs to be important, integral to the team, a superhero. She needs to be a star. She was always Queen Bee. Cordy is the classic narcissist - she has no inner self, all of her self esteem comes from what others think of her, how they view her, how important she is to them. It's no wonder she eventually becomes possessed by a Goddess who reflects everything she most desires.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Right. I agree with this.

I think part of the reason Buffy does kill Angel, though -- is that she recognizes on some level that Angel has some responsibility for Acathla. Dawn has no responsibility for Glory. And while Buffy on some level keep Angel's souled and unsouled actions separate, I think she doesn't entirely -- if she could completely separate the two sides of Angel, then she wouldn't let Angelus "get" to her. If Angelus has some Angel inside him, then Angel has some Angelus inside him.

Part of the way I read "Becoming" also comes down to how real, or not-real, Angel is as a person. Angel is a vampire. He's already dead. He doesn't cast reflection. And indeed, if you look at seasons one and two, we don't get much of a sense of Angel's inner life -- perhaps because, for all intents and purposes, he doesn't have one. Out-of-story, Angel is made up of fantasy tropes, of Buffy's fantasy, in order to do the horror tale that they tell in season two. In-story, Angel's only way of interacting with humans is to do what he did as a vampire -- to show them what they wanted to see in order to entrap them. I don't think Angel is trying to entrap Buffy before his soul loss -- I think that he is consciously trying to do what he tells Whistler he wants to do in the "Becoming" flashbacks: he wants to help her. But Angel, as we know, has been away from humans for decades. So he presents himself as fantasy boyfriend because I think he intuits that's the role that Buffy "wants," to get close. Angel, as a human -- died with Liam, or at least, that is one of the possible interpretations of the story. And in that interpretation, Buffy is not killing an innocent person.

It's a very good point that Angel does basically sign the world away for Connor -- and that is the true equivalent. Meanwhile, what Angel does isn't even the same as "saving" his son. He not only "saves" his son's life. As we see, Angel can get close to Connor, and manages to "defeat" him in combat. If Angel got his whole team with him, I think it's very likely he would be able to subdue Connor, bring him back to the hotel, lock him up in the cage used for Angel earlier in the season still in the Hyperion basement, and try to talk to him. This could be done without selling his team's futures away. But no -- he's already given up on Connor as he is. Which is, I think, because Angel doesn't fundamentally believe in his own redemption. Angel had to have someone magically transform his life for him to get where he is, and even that was apparently not enough -- so he magically transforms Connor, and sacrifices his team in the process.

Now, Buffy risks several lives to trade the Box of Gavrok back for Willow -- which has a fairly close equivalent, I think, in Angel agreeing to release Billy for W&H in order to get Cordy back. I don't think Buffy would truly, absolutely let hundreds of people die to get Willow back -- but she is unwilling to follow Wesley's harsher code and give up Willow for a certain victory over the Mayor as opposed to the possibility of defeat (and they do, after all, defeat the Mayor).

One thing that is pitiable about Angel, when compared to Buffy, is that Angel really wants to be a hero partly because...he has done so many terrible things. The only way to make up for what he's done is to do something big -- to work for one day where he's "redeemed." Buffy's cosmic score card is mostly empty when she shows up in Sunnydale -- with not many pluses and minuses -- and she is able to take things one day at a time more easily. Angel's need to prove himself, to be a hero, is his way of attempting to make up for a long and bloody past which *nothing* can make up for, at all. He can't make up for his past, but he also finds it very difficult to ignore it -- and so he hangs his hopes on the idea that he might some day be able to. I think both shows suggest that being a hero is something that one can't achieve by *trying* to be one; the best one can do is to try to be one's best self, to try to do more good than bad on any given day.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think part of the reason Buffy does kill Angel, though -- is that she recognizes on some level that Angel has some responsibility for Acathla. Dawn has no responsibility for Glory. And while Buffy on some level keep Angel's souled and unsouled actions separate, I think she doesn't entirely -- if she could completely separate the two sides of Angel, then she wouldn't let Angelus "get" to her. If Angelus has some Angel inside him, then Angel has some Angelus inside him.

I agree and interesting take on Becoming. I think after Becoming, it is impossible for Buffy to trust Angel or any man for that matter. Her issues with Riley and Spike in some respects circle back to Becoming, and her discovery that she can't trust Angel. Note, not Angelus, Angel.
She admits this to him in S3 - finally. She loves him but she can't trust him. And because Angel doesn't believe he should be saved or redeemed - never makes the choice to have a soul, for him its a curse. He'd actually prefer to be without it. Notably, Buffy begins to trust again - Spike - when he chooses the soul. Spike chooses hope, while Angel always chooses despair.

Going back to S1 Finale Prophecy Girl - it's notable that Angel doesn't save Buffy - but instead provides the information leading her to her demise - because hello, destiny/prophecy - it's been foretold and Angel is a fatalist. When Xander and Angel find Buffy in Prophecy Girl - Angel decides it is over, she's dead. Xander says screw you and saves her. And in Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest - Angel tells Buffy she's going to fail. The Master is stronger.

It's Spike in Becoming - who decides that this isn't necessarily the case, and that he and Buffy working together can take down Angelus. That the world is not doomed to end. He's not a fatalist.

It's one of the reasons Buffy and Angel can't ever work in the long run. Buffy believes in herself, in hope, and a positive outcome - that you can change the world and your destiny remains in your hands unwritten, while Angel believes in nothing, and the world is doomed to failure, and there's nothing you can do to avoid destiny. The two views are opposed. He brings on the end of the world, Buffy finds a way to prevent it.

In other words - what motivated Angelus to resurrect Acathla and bring about the end of the world - is the same thing that motivates Angel.
Both are empty vessels for whatever prophecy or destiny or external force that comes along for them to attach too.

[spikesjojo.livejournal.com]

I think it's best shown by the fact that Buffy ended her story by sacrificing Spike to destroy the hellmouth and save the world from invasion by demons or really monsters. At the end, the black and white universe exists but has evolved with benign demons (Clem etc).

Whereas Angel not only sold his entire crew down the river, he then figured the most grandiose way possible to negate that choice and kill that crew, as well as opening the world to an invasion of monsters. I love the way Spike pegs him - always needed to think he was the leader, needs high quality accoutrements, refuses to see an almost inevitable disaster because he now takes the place of God.

And btw - I'm a Spangel fan, so I do love Angel. Just prefer to keep it real.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Mostly agree. But..

I think it's best shown by the fact that Buffy ended her story by sacrificing Spike to destroy the hellmouth and save the world from invasion by demons or really monsters. At the end, the black and white universe exists but has evolved with benign demons (Clem etc).

Interesting, I viewed it differently. Buffy didn't sacrifice Spike. He sacrificed himself. In fact, she attempts to get him to leave. She even tells him that he's done enough - and tries to save him. But Spike refuses - insisting that she leave, let him finish this. Let him save the world. It's his choice. She tells him she loves him - and he says, no you don't, but thanks. In part what he is saying there is - don't save me, don't go back there with the killing of Angel in Becoming, I got this - let me choose to do this. Similar in a way to what Buffy did in The Gift - where she ended her life.

I think it is important from a story thread perspective to see that Spike sacrificed himself. Otherwise Spike's redemption in Chosen makes no sense. It's an important distinction between Spike and Angel. Spike doesn't need the shanshu and doesn't require external approval. He serves as a sort of foil for Angel in this way. Because Angel, who gave them the amulet - wanted to do what Spike did - but for Angel it wouldn't be a pure sacrifice, it would have been s suicide or a get out of jail free card - which WRH were counting on him taking because it would ping him back to WRH and under their control. But Spike was a wild card and what he does - in some respects influences Angel's decisions in that final season.

[spikesjojo.livejournal.com]

Yes, Spike did chose it, and that's critical for his growth. But Buffy told Angel she couldn't risk him, and she chose not to wear it herself. Faith could have worn it - as could Dawn. Obviously Wiilow could and Anya. Hell, we've seen Giles work magic.

I really believe Spike knew absolutely that he was going to die, and delighted in it - finally Buffy would survive an apocalypse, and besides he was her chosen champion. But come on - sudden appearance of magical amulet from a dark and not remotely trustworthy source. Like Giles says earlier "Mist, graveyard, Halloween, this should end well." If Buffy didn't know he would die she was rationalizing. She knew Angel would, so she sent him away, YMMV.

Buffy didn't exactly sacrifice Spike but she chose him knowing he would die. He was more than willing to do so. But she allowed him to be the one to die when there were other options never looked at. Doylist - works great and very much needed on many levels. Watsonian - let's just say it leaves gaps to be filled (where stories are born). As a Spangel fan - and not just sex but who they were and who they are now - I am quite happy for everything thereafter.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't know. That group of episodes can be interpreted more than one way.
Another thing that I love about this series is it can be interpreted in multiple ways.

When I first saw the episodes or even as far back as 2010, I'd have agreed with you. But now that time has passed and I'm admittedly no longer obsessed with Spike or Spuffy for that matter - I'm starting to see things from another angle.

Now, I think Buffy was trying to persuade Angel to go but leave the amulet which could change the tide. Angel's incredibly stubborn. And if she told him that Spike was her champion and earned that right and it felt right to let him make this choice, Angel would have balked and refused. It was after all given to Angel and Angel clearly saw it as his last chance at redeeming himself - he needed to do something after his decision in Home.

Buffy craftily tells Angel that she can't risk him - that she "needs" him in LA. Smart move. She cleverly strokes his ego, and tells him she cares about him - which she does. Keep in mind Buffy is also looking at the big picture here. From her perspective everyone might die tomorrow - and the First could jump over to LA - and she needs someone who can come in and fight the First, should they lose. So, her statement to Angel is practical. Spike can't lead the second front, he has no connections in LA.

As for whether she knew it would kill him? She didn't know what it would do. And she also told him that it probably was not a great idea to wear it, but it could change the tide of the battle. And to give Buffy some credit - it does change the tide of the battle - it does save the day. And it doesn't actually kill him - he survives.

Also, again, keep in mind, from Buffy's perspective there was a 75% chance that everyone would die. Quite a few people actually did, permanently.
And quite a few were injured. Spike actually came out of it fairly well all things considered.

So, no, I don't think she chose him knowing he would die. I see no evidence supporting that.

Watsonian - let's just say it leaves gaps to be filled (where stories are born). As a Spangel fan - and not just sex but who they were and who they are now - I am quite happy for everything thereafter

See - I prefer a Watsonian and Doylist interpretation - or one that combines both. But, I'm admittedly not really a fanfic writer, which makes a big difference. Fanfic writers fall into the trap of wanting the text to reflect their story, in their heads. The Watsonian often, not always, wants to see the story that is playing in their head. The Doylist, not always, but often, is trying to figure out the story in the author's head.

Interpreting text is difficult to do from an objective angle. You will bring to it your own prejudices, desires, wants, craziness, and well dreams. It's inevitable.

I think a combination of Doylist and Watsonian helps analyze the text on a more objective level, if such a thing is even possible. Also you really can't critique on a Watsonian level without considering the Doylist. (ie. it's a bit silly to critique Buffy for not being a dark enough universe like Angel is - it wasn't written to be, you knew that going in. Or to critique a superhero flick for being a superhero flick.)

I'm not really an either/or analyst, I'm afraid.

[spikesjojo.livejournal.com]

You are so right - I do see this as a writer - I am a writer even when I don't write. So I bring my own prejudices, but more than that - I bring questions and struggle for answers.

This is just pure YMMV - I see what you are saying but still hold to my own beliefs. It isn't against Buffy - she did what she had to do. In the script she tells Angel that it would be too confusing to have them both there. I see that as a better answer than having him planning a second front (which he apparently didn't do anyway). If they lose then the entire country becomes a Turok-han playground. I guess W&H would actually be a useful tool but Buffy knows nothing about that. More than anything I hold to what Buffy said "Because I cant risk you." She had to protect him, couldn't risk the pain of losing him again. She also couldn't risk his tendency to take over. Even his presence would be disruptive.

I truly believe all three of them knew the amulet meant death - and that is a large part Doylist. It ups the ante - brings another layer of challenge. Why would there be any problem with handing over the amulet if it wasn't risky? And what was the possible risk? Nothing makes sense except death. Then I take that Doylist choice and see the story - try to make sense of it. This is the only sense I can make of that choice.

Buffy was not willing to risk Angel. But she was willing to let Spike take the risk. He pretty much demanded the amulet. She told him what he meant to her named him her champion. It was his redemption, to be her champion and to die in her place - and I truly believe he knew this would happen and wanted to do it.

Spike doesn't survive. That is really important. Just because he is brought back to life at W&H doesn't mean he didn't burn to death. Let's not take his sacrifice away. He died, wanting it to be the end, satisfied that he had saved Buffy.

As for Watsonian and Doylist, I do agree both a needed. It's just jarring to be deep in a Watsonian discussion and have it made moot by bringing up the Doylist reason for what you're discussing.

I am truly enjoying this!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Part of the way I read "Becoming" also comes down to how real, or not-real, Angel is as a person. Angel is a vampire. He's already dead. He doesn't cast reflection. And indeed, if you look at seasons one and two, we don't get much of a sense of Angel's inner life -- perhaps because, for all intents and purposes, he doesn't have one. Out-of-story, Angel is made up of fantasy tropes, of Buffy's fantasy, in order to do the horror tale that they tell in season two.

I agree and hadn't really thought of it that way before. But I think part of what the writers were doing with the Buffy/Angel story is examining those romantic fantasy tropes. They set them up like carefully placed dominoes..and slowly struck each one down, examining the flaws. The whole Beauty and the Beast fantasy trope is spun on its ear - she sleeps with "Angel" and he turns into a Beast. Her love seemingly turns him into a monster. Because he can't accept her love - her hope. It gets sucked into an abyss. He's not a person so much as an ideal - whatever she needs him to be. He has no self. So when they make love - share their real selves, expose their real selves - who should emerge? Angelus. Free from the curse. Almost as if the cursed self is the false self or false trope, the sugar coating. While beneath is the monster..?

Angel is the tortured soul - another fantasy trope, but Buffy can't save him.
Angel can't do it himself. He's always a hair-line away. And you can't help but wonder if he wants to be saved?

The creators of both series - clearly studied these tropes in horror films and films - and felt the need to deconstruct them. I think it's the deconstruction of the tropes - that partly attracted me to the series. Particularly what they did with Angel. I was admittedly not that invested in the series...oh I liked it okay, but no more than anything else - until Innocence when Angel flipped and how he flipped. That surprised me. Suddenly the series became about something else. And it became clear that Buffy/Angel was not meant to be a positive romantic relationship. The writers were taking a hammer to the star-crossed lover trope in more ways than one.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Re: Cordy -- yeah, I mean, it's worth noting in "The Wish" that Cordelia wants for *her* to be the star, whereas Buffy freely credits Xander and Willow as what keep her grounded, and, as we see, Buffy needs her friends and Giles etc. to function. It's what Spike observes early on and what we see repeated again and again -- Buffy is the leader, but she can't fully function as a lone wolf, or, for that matter, as the star whose charges follow her with the same kind of lapdog-like behaviour that the Cordettes followed Cordelia. To be fair to Cordelia -- in "The Wish" she is reacting with shock at Xander's betrayal, and Xander, like Doyle later on, is someone who Cordelia found herself attracted to in spite of herself -- someone who was really *not* the star, someone who according to her value system should have been beneath her notice. It's part of why Cordelia/Xander and Cordelia/Doyle worked for me as relationships in a way that Cordelia/Angel doesn't (sorry, Cordy/Angel shippers -- I am just speaking for me!) -- when with Doyle, especially, it seemed as if Cordelia was accepting that the less-than-glamorous people had something to offer. Whereas Angel very much is the star, the dreamy male lead -- and that means that Angel & Cordy can very much become a closed off system, like royals. They're not *big* moments, but even without any external influence, Cordelia agrees that Angel has a right to kill Holtz, encourages him (and later Harmony) to torture Eve, encourages his decision to cut Wesley out entirely and not listen to his side of what happened in s3, etc. -- she ends up supporting Angel entirely.

And definitely -- knowing that "Birthday" was a setup from Skip changes the tenor of the episode a great deal. I sort of read it on two levels (well, at least two levels!) because it actually sort of works when read straight-up -- as a traditional story of choosing what is difficult and right over what is easy. But this is just the first layer -- the layer that is designed to appeal to and trick Cordelia. It's pretty ingenious as a trick for both Cordelia and audience -- because dig deeper, and Skip is offering her a false dichotomy, of a life in which Cordy is the star of a chintzy TV show, who has lots of fans -- or the star in a cosmic battle of good vs. evil, in which she is truly the only woman in all the world who can handle the terrible burden of the visions dropped on her. The same kind of false dichotomy is dropped on Cordelia in the finale -- in which Skip "makes her" choose between becoming the leading lady in the personal drama of Angel's life, or the leading lady in the world drama, the key player in good vs. evil.

Part of what is interesting about it -- is that it really suggests that there are no circumstances in which a person should be set so high above others. It goes in direct contrast to Buffy refusing more power in "Get it Done." I don't think it's as simple as that Buffy is selfless and Cordelia is selfish -- because we are reminded that Buffy could have been like Cordelia, and more to the point, I think Cordelia really is very strongly motivated, by s3 or so, to do good. Rather, it questions the idea at all that any human, even with the best of intentions, can truly be a "Higher Power." Or perhaps there are humans who have achieved some degree of enlightenment -- but heroes are basically people like us. That is the realization Buffy eventually comes to -- that being "better" than other people hurts both her and others, and that the solution is to bring other people to her level.

I think Cordelia's desire to help the helpless is pretty genuine -- and while there are definitely narcissistic elements in her martyrdom, re: the visions, her staying with the visions is still a pretty remarkable willingness to endure incredible pain for what she thinks is right. She trades in her old values of glamour and the like. The problem is, she picks up a different kind of glamour, of being a Champion -- which is part of Angel's problem as well. I think the two reinforce each other's bad habits to a degree.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Pretty much agree with all of this.

Regarding Cordelia & Angel and what narcissism:

I recently learned what "narcissist" means - it's someone who does not have a strong sense of self, at the core for whatever reason, they have no true sense of their own self-worth or their own inner voice. They can't get value internally - they have to get it externally - from other sources.

This need for approval, for acceptance - to be a hero or champion in others eyes may be the fatal flaw in Angel and Cordy's characters. And the reason they need it - is in part environmental - neither had unconditional love. Buffy had her mother's unconditional love. Cordy and Angel seem to be without that. And if you look through all the episodes of both series - it is in a way a recurring theme. The characters who seek external approval or glory, tend to fall apart. You can't get your self-worth from others, that's not how it works.

The metaphor of the vampire - and the inability for Angel to cast a reflection (except in photographs) is interesting - for the narcissist desperately needs to see his reflection in another - to get that approval. Angel's need for approval, for that positive reflection was what motivated Liam (who rebelled because he couldn't have his father's approval), and it motivated Angelus (to become the worst vampire ever to obtain the Master's approval and admiration - which he did), and Angel (to become a hero/champion to obtain the PTB, Buffy, and possibly God's approval and admiration). Note everything Angel does is to obtain approval from another source. He can't get it from himself. He has no core self. And with Angel, more so even with Spike - we constantly see him looking in mirrors - and wishing to see himself.

Cordelia is similar - everything she does is to obtain external approval. Cordy is constantly talking to mirrors in the series as well. Ironically, the song she selects to sing, while possessed by the Gods that tricked her, is "The Greatest Love of All" - which is of course your self. You really can't love anyone else until you love yourself first. Because otherwise all you are doing is attempting to fill an empty void. Being self-less is really no better than being selfish. The Gods in a way are telling us what is wrong with Cordy.
She needs someone else to tell her what is right.

Same with Angel - he needs the oracles, Doyle or Cordy's visions to tell him what to do. Who to save to obtain that approval.

This by the way is why Cordy and Angel could not work as a couple. They enabled each other - their relationship at its core was about mirroring what they wished to see about themselves reflected in the other.

What neither can wrap their heads around, even though various people tell them at different points - "that it's the choices we make each day, the individuals we save or help or care about along the way. The seemingly unimportant people. Not the big stuff." In Epithany - Angel is told that - but he promptly forgets it.

But Buffy seems to get it -in part because she is loved. She's not self-less. And doesn't need to obtain approval. She knows in her core, in her heart, who she is. That's what makes Buffy powerful enough to say no to the shamans in Get it Done.

I think this is a theme in both series. Superstar - is about a boy with no sense of self, who makes a deal with the devil to become a star - to do all the things that he believes will obtain love and approval. But it's never enough. He's never satisfied. And it feels empty, not real. And Superstar is very similar in construct to Birthday. The theme explored seems to be: How we view and define and feel about ourselves - has a huge affect on how we interact with the world around us and the decisions we make. I think you need to be your own hero/champion before you can be anyone elses - if that makes sense?

[local-max.livejournal.com]

That makes sense. And in a lot of ways we see this with all characters - that how genuinely they feel loved determines how much they trust themselves which determines how early corrupted or duped they are. Ultimately, the characters who did have unconditional love from a parent (mother) are Buffy, Dawn, Tara, William, and Tara. The periods in which these characters, especially Spike, are unable to function are those in which they doubt that love - until Spike consciously recognizes that his mother did love him, and that what she said after he turned her did not really represent her true view of him, that he can escape the First's conditioning. With Xander, Willow, and Anya, I think they manage to heal themselves by season seven by loving each other (Xander giving Willow truly unconditional love, which helps both of them, and then standing by Anya even when she's a killer) - but they were terribly self-less, making them (especially Willow and Anya) very dangerous. Wesley, Cordelia and Angel largely don't - perhaps because they have no one to serve as a guide, and the closest was probably Fred, who died.Gunn I am not so certain about - he seems slightly more together then Wes or Angel in NFA, and maybe closet to Spike - but he has for the second time seen a loved woman transform into a monster (his sister, Fred) and I'm not sure whether he is able to love himself at the very end of his story. Before Fred's death he was chasing external rewards, partly I suspect because of inadequacy related to his breakup with Fred and falling out with Wesley. He had a violent upbringing and the only source of love when we met him seemed to be his sister. His having to kill his sister is a bit like William and his mother - but she didn't reject him, he 'rejected' her, just as it's ultimately Gunn who cut Wes out of his life and who broke up with Fred to prevent her from dumping him (and killed her professor to prevent her from doing it). I wonder if he doubts his ability to love.

I'm on my phone so sorry if there are any mistakes!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee - I deleted a whole section I'd written on Willow - due to space constraints.

Agreed on the above.

Willow is interesting though. And you could make a valid argument that she's another classic example of narcissism. Her parents barely acknowledge her - and from what little we see in Gingerbread, they view her as a trophy or a validation of themselves. So, her family is narcissistic.

Also, Willow gets her self-worth from others. It's why she falls apart when OZ leaves her, and falls apart again when Tara leaves. It's also why she needs magic - because she feels like a 0 or loser without it.

But what distinguishes Willow from Cordelia and Harmony and Angel as well as Wes...is she does have some inner strength. She manages to survive without the magic and without Tara. And when she accesses the magic again in S7- she is provided with a choice, whether to become like Amy or for that matter Warren, or more like Tara.

Willow doesn't completely rely on external validation, any more than Xander or Spike do. They don't really want or desire center stage. Willow only takes center stage when she's either pushed there after Chosen, or out of grief - when she loses Tara. But it's temporary in each case. And they appear to be beaten down a lot, yet still stand without constant stroking. They aren't told they are chosen or destiny.
Spike isn't cursed with soul. And Willow is good at the magic like the hacking, but she does seem to know who she is without the magic. She's not quite as lost.

In part it's the difference between the two genres...Angel's story is a dark one, it's about falling into the pit of despair and attempting, possibly futilely to rise above it. And like you stated so well above,
Angel doesn't believe in himself, any more than Cordelia does. Their friends were never real or true. They just had "groupies". Angel never quite trusts those around him, any more than Cordy does. Both surround themselves with groupies or people who will stroke them.
Angelus did this as well - with the Fanged Four (who were his groupies, he didn't love them or trust them, their purpose was to adore Angelus.)

Willow as lost as she seems at times - doesn't surround herself with groupies. She doesn't require Buffy's approval. Not really. Nor Tara's.
Nor Giles. If she did, she may not have gone quite as off the rails.
In some respects, I found her to be more complex than the characters on Angel - but that may just be my own preferences - since I know there are people online at this moment who felt the exact opposite.

Part of the reason Willow and Tara are doomed though, is well the same reason Willow and Oz were - Willow needed Tara and Oz's love, stroking, validation...and was petrified of losing it, but I don't think she trusted them completely. I think she was always afraid of their betrayal or desertion. And she couldn't quite be there for either OZ or Tara, without trying to control them in some way. Willow has major control issues - which has less to do with feelings of self-worth and more to do with trust.

[spikesjojo.livejournal.com]

Wesley also managed to find self love, which Angel took away.

He learned from this new father figure and began to trust in himself. Then disaster, but after some some angst he finds himself now able to believe in himself. Lilah does give confirmation in a very real way. He rescues Angel but no longer needs affirmation from the fang gang. He even prepares what Angel will need next, without needing to listen to Angel's rationalizations for forgiving him.

So when his new father figure became abusive, Wesley stayed moral and detached. He reinvents himself over those seasons. And Angel takes away the memories.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

True - Wes did seem by the middle of Home to really be getting better, before Angel did a hard reset on him.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'd agree.

It's interesting though that in Origin (I think it was Origin or something's window?) where Wes unravels with Illyria's help Angel's deal with WRH, aka the memory wipe - he thrusts those negative memories at Connor again. Except Connor, due to what Angel had done, can handle them.
He has the good memories to counter-act them. Connor has been reset and rewritten to a degree that he can love Angel and accept him. He's the only character who survived the memory wipe in this fashion. The others...not so much. Although it has been successfully argued that they may have ended up going down this road regardless of Angel's deal with WRH. Fred seemed on the fence. Not sure what they would have done if the memory wipe hadn't occurred.

Wes, being Wes, leaps to the conclusion that things would have been better - that Fred would not have died, but there's no evidence of that.
He also believes he'd be different - if anything, he may have been less likely to fall in love with Fred again - since he sort of disassociated himself from her at the end of S4, and if anything was harboring feelings for Lilah, who had died in part because of him. His guilt regarding Lilah - was standing between him and Fred. If it weren't for the memory wipe - he may have hung onto that. Note - he doesn't appear to remember Lilah in S5. (Doylist again? They couldn't get the actress - she'd jumped to another series. So they had to create a new character - Eve to take Lilah's place.)

[local-max.livejournal.com]

This mostly seems right to me. A lyric in Strawberry Fields Forever that reminds me of Willow is 'No one I think is in my tree / I mean it must be high or low.' That Willow fails to connect to others leads Willow to both have major trust issues, and major self-esteem issues. In Restless - she is exposed as a nerd and rejected, which is presumably what she thinks is her fault. But no matter how much of a loser she is - no way should the classroom stand by and watch her be devoted, have the life sucked out of her. Her nightmare is that she is hated forever because she's a loser - but much of the problem is that others failed her. Which is why she alternates between self-hatred and bright hot rage and mistrust.

I think unlike Angel especially - Willow was exactly what her mother apparently wanted her to be. There were no rules she failed to follow, no academic achievements she fell short of. But approval never earned her love. And I think Willow wants love more than approval. I think she wants approval too to an extent - but I think part of that is that she strongly suspects that what little love she gets will disappear with disapproval. When she gets her mother's disapproval in Gingerbread, her mother tries to burn her at the stake. So I think she fears disapproval too. But if she really believes that she has no chance at 'earning' love - I think she did working about approval. Whereas Angel especially, and Cordelia as well, and Wes, seem to care about approval, social standing, more than love, IMO. I think Willow wants to do good - but she has the hubris to believe she knows best at times, which is sometimes, as in something like Weight of the World, true. And she is emotional enough that when she suffers a loss, or risks losing one, her anger takes over - and she starts relying more heavily on her inner instincts.

Willow, I think, wants to have her affection and love for individual others returned. When she goes dark or as a vampire - she wants to have control so she can get the attention she wants. But it's very personal, I think. Even vamp Willow is much more interested in Angel, or Sandy, or Xander, or our universe's Willow, than a large group of people - taking over the Bronze was largely a means to an end, to recreate an environment in which she could have a puppy, and she drops that plan as soon as she meets our Willow. When dark, Willow primarily fights the Trio and then Buffy and Giles - which is very personal; as opposed to even Faith, fighting strangers much of the time. Willow does I think care very much abstractly about the fate of the world - saving it in Chosen, 'saving it' by destroying it in Grave - but she seems even then to be not interested in crowds or groupies. I think it's partly a difference between introversion and caring a great deal about a few individuals and forming one's worldview abstractly from there, and extraversion and caring about a larger number of people at once. I think Willow has the strengths and weaknesses of a sensitive introvert - sometimes villainous, but ultimately heroic, I.e. ultimately like all major BtVS characters who end their stories on BtVS, choosing good after a touch and go period.

IMO, Willow did love Oz and Tara (and Xander, and Buffy, and Giles), and wanted to do right by them. But it was a doomed and incomplete love because she could never really trust then to love her - and part of that is not fully trusting them to love her for her, and I think part of that is that I think she doesn't know who she really is, and is afraid it'd be impossible to love that person. But not all of it - some of it may be that she thinks there is just something about everyone that will make them reject her no matter what she does. I think she is starting to be able to believe that she is loved for herself with Buffy, Xander and Giles in season seven, and I think tries to be as upfront with Kennedy as possible. I think she was ultimately very accepting of them (Oz' werewolfism, Tara's possible demonhood) *except* where their love for her seemed threatened or shaky - and then all bets or off. Fatal flaw, I would say. Which does mean that ultimately their relationships were doomed to fail, because Willow is always overreacting to possible signs of rejection.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you state above. And you're correct, I think, that unlike Cordy and Angel and Wes, Willow's issue was not approval so much as love.

I think unlike Angel especially - Willow was exactly what her mother apparently wanted her to be. There were no rules she failed to follow, no academic achievements she fell short of. But approval never earned her love. And I think Willow wants love more than approval. I think she wants approval too to an extent - but I think part of that is that she strongly suspects that what little love she gets will disappear with disapproval. When she gets her mother's disapproval in Gingerbread, her mother tries to burn her at the stake. So I think she fears disapproval too. But if she really believes that she has no chance at 'earning' love - I think she did working about approval. Whereas Angel especially, and Cordelia as well, and Wes, seem to care about approval, social standing, more than love, IMO.


I think that's the main difference there. And it's why Willow can love, while I'm not sure the others ever quite do. Wes' love for Lilah or Fred felt self-serving and to a degree narcissitic - both stroked his ego.
Willow could care less about approval - she has had that in spades and it hasn't really gotten her anywhere. Actually she scoffs at it - with Giles in various episodes. It matters, but not THAT much. She seems to question it.
But love is something she doesn't quite trust - and is afraid will be yanked away from her. For a bit she thought approval equaled love. Realized nope - doesn't.

But it was a doomed and incomplete love because she could never really trust then to love her - and part of that is not fully trusting them to love her for her, and I think part of that is that I think she doesn't know who she really is, and is afraid it'd be impossible to love that person. But not all of it - some of it may be that she thinks there is just something about everyone that will make them reject her no matter what she does.

She's a bit surprised when they are interested in her. And as she states to Buffy in Wrecked (while I wasn't crazy about the episode there are three scenes that are quite good, one is the last one with Buffy and Willow) - without magic, Tara won't love me, you won't, I won't be anyone. I'll be that normal ordinary geeky girl that no one noticed in high school. It goes back to her dream in Restless - where the geeky girl without magic isn't loved. "They'll figure out who you are." And in Willow's dream everyone is wearing costumes, playing roles, but rip it off ...and I think you are correct Willow is afraid that she is the person people defined her as being in high school.

She fights against that. Spike and Willow have that in common. Both reinvent themselves - vampire and witch - in part to counteract the definition their peers thrust at them. Neither accepts it. And both scoff and question authority - societial standing, peer acceptance and views, and patriachial authority. Note - both Spike and Willow question Giles at various points.
And the council, and Buffy. I think that may explain why I love and identify with both the way I do - because I sort of get that.

But they also are super-sensitive to the rejection and these views, so internalize the critical voices - and create a persona to handle them. For William - that persona is Spike, for Willow - it is Vamp Willow, Dark Willow, Geek Willow. To which they hide behind. The only problem with that is after a while, you are no longer certain who you are - the role you play, or what is hidden beneath the surface. In S7 - both characters manage to figure out who they are and come to terms with it - so that they can incorporate both sides - the persona that protected them and the persona beneath the surface. Spike is able to be both William the poet and Spike.
Willow is able to be Willow and magic/hacker Willow. Once they do, they are able to trust others and love fully.

In contrast, I'm not sure this ever quite happens for Angel, Cordy or even Wes - who still feel fractured by the end of the Angel series.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with all this. Willow and Spike have similar journeys in season seven, though Willow gets a little more material in the first few episodes and Spike gets a little more in the second half of the season. I think one can argue that the big things holding the two back in season seven ultimately have to do with the way a painful loss has defined them. Willow in "The Killer in Me" confronts the part of her that was keeping Tara alive inside her, and blames herself for her being gone -- either having killed her, or having betrayed her memory. And she has to move on. Spike has to do something similar with his mother. In a sense, they are both reacting to the first person who really gave them the love they wanted -- and to the way in which they became toxic when that love was threatened by death. I think that Willow did feel loved by Oz, Buffy, and Xander, but Tara helped fill some of the holes left by her mother's unloving parenting, and Tara's death left her hollowed out -- with Xander only barely finding her. Similar with Spike, and his mother's death, and eventually Buffy patching him up. The fact that the time scales are completely different -- Spike going through a long period of monstrosity, Willow being a brief, nearly world-ending flame-out -- isn't that important, partly because in a sense Spike has been stuck since his/ his mother's death until he went back and got his soul. What's important is finding it within them to fix it. It's very optimistic, but it's also frightening as well -- because BtVS says, yes, people can be redeemed, but the corollary is that some people who are loving, sensitive, and perhaps have a "good heart" under all else, can still become evil and monstrous. It's frightening because that implicates anyone -- that under the right circumstances, etc., etc. In some ways, AtS' nihilism is actually more "comforting" in a weird way -- because then one can, as Angel does, point at someone like Lindsey and simply say that he is broken, that there is something wrong with him, to give up on him and not view him as potentially similar to oneself.

I think with both Willow and Spike/William, there is an additional level, which is that neither "geek Willow" nor "nerdy poet William" were the full story of who they were "deep inside" either. William was reserved, bashful, and afraid of people -- he had real anger lurking beneath the surface. And also, I think, a bravery that he was not accessing. Similar for Willow. It's not that the evil persona is made up, because it ends up expressing things that they have mostly been denying. Spike basically goes full-tilt evil within a day or two of being turned by Dru. Willow tries to hold on to her goodness, and her non-threatening-ness, while still remaking herself as cool (and ultimately dangerous) -- until she eventually gives that up after Tara's death. They come to believe that their conscience wasn't real -- and maybe no conscience of any human is. With Spike, the soul loss really helps there, though it turns out that he does still like the world, and for a very small number of people very close to him he can still care. With Willow, I think that she recognizes that she doesn't really, in her heart of hearts, believe in these rules that have been imposed on her, by her parents, or Snyder, or Giles or even Buffy or Tara, and I think she begins to suspect she's a monster deep down. But I think what it really is is that she can sort of see the falseness and hypocrisy -- sometimes also seeing hypocrisy that isn't there, it's not that her perception isn't skewed, either -- and can't bring herself to care, deep down, about rules that don't seem to have any purpose, that don't seem to help people, or seem to help others more than her.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

As you say, I think that's part of Willow's dream. Not only does Willow see herself wearing costumes -- she sees *everyone* wearing costumes, but much more comfortably. Riley the cowboy and Harmony the milkmaid, and Giles the stern/frightening/silly director (not exactly a role, but involved with the play), and Buffy the flapper, are all playing somewhat flattened, stereotypical parts that seem kind of silly. But they commit to their roles and don't feel silly playing them, and nor do they seem to be in danger of being attacked for their real selves, whatever they are. To Willow's subconscious, everyone is role playing, but everyone else has mastered it. It's the way someone who feels that there is something "off" an inauthentic about the world sees people -- but somehow, everyone else is able to carry on very comfortably in it. I think Willow, consciously, mostly represses this -- but then, it also comes out, at times of stress or anger -- like in "Something Blue," where she sarcastically mocks her friends largely for their pretenses (that Xander pretends he can have a normal, not-demonic relationship, that Giles pretends to see, etc.), or more extremely at the end of season six where she indicates she basically tells Buffy she sees her optimism as a lie, and indicates that Giles is just a fraud. On a certain level, deep down, she doubts the sincerity of others, and herself, and I think she doubts the world's value, at least until she just gives in to the darkness inside -- and stops short of ending the world. Once she gets past that for real -- not out of *fear* of being bad, but finding that there is a love for herself, her friends, and the world, underneath the despair and belief that it's all meaningless -- she is ready to start building herself back up and loving others again.

I sort of relate to Willow in this regard because I think I have a complicated relationship to "authority" or "society" -- I think I do on some level still internalize expectations, and worry that I'm supposed to feel different things than I feel. I also feel frustrated at what seems to be hypocrisies, or inconsistencies, or just some things that I don't feel I really understand. But it comes and goes. I feel like I'm doing better now than I used to be in this regard -- I feel a little more secure, more "season seven-y." Spike, as you say, also questions authority, Giles' and Buffy's -- but I think that he flaunts convention more consistently and more overtly. Willow seems to be on the edge, constantly dancing back and forth between overtly defying convention and following convention even though she doesn't fully believe in it, and covertly defying convention while trying not to get noticed, which is...not always about deception, though it is sometimes.

I do agree that it seems different with Angel, Cordy and Wes. Wesley and Angel are older, and that has some impact; they are more set in their ways than Willow, and less flexible than Spike. Wesley is actually very flexible in terms of his personality, but yes there is something a little twisted about him. I'm not sure. With Cordy, I think that she might have done better if she were not with Angel so much. And certainly, she lost basically all control over her life when Jasmine started slowly taking her over. It's a shame that Cordelia seems, in "You're Welcome," to have split Jasmine off from the other Powers That Be, and to be..."content" to do the Powers' bidding, and to devote her last day to making Angel's life better, by making Angel feel more important.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

I think Willow starts off mostly believing that her parental/peer group rejection is her own fault. In The Pack when Xander starts acting weird, she immediately starts asking, is it me? Did I do something? But Buffy starts her thinking she doesn't *have* to be a wallflower. And Willow takes Buffy's strength and transforms it into aggressiveness. Buffy is capable of being just. Willow learns only two modes - passive and aggressive, anger turned on herself and anger turned outward. Buffy trying to bring Willow to assertive frequently pushes/inspires Willow all the way to aggressive. When Willow finds Oz with Veruca, she nearly walks into traffic, thinks it's about Willow. Then Buffy tells her not to hurt herself, to put the blame where it belongs - and Willow almost curses Oz and Veruca before backing down. Buffy accidentally flipped Willow from hurting herself, to hurting Oz - and then she stops short because she can't go through with it, at which point Veruca enters and mocks her mercy as weakness before attempting to kill her, at which point Oz has to save her, and then Buffy has to save Willow from Oz. Willow as we know from Something Blue, views her failure as one of being too weak to go through with the revenge spell - which I think is partly that Veruca (and Faith and Cordelia and Angelus and hyena Xander before her) basically outright said that Willow's meekness makes her deserve to be hurt. I think she internalizes their judgments of her and is angry that her restraining herself is not properly recognized as good rather than weakness.

As she grows in confidence she thinks she escapes this by 'becoming' a new and powerful person. She thinks this is what Tara wants her for and it's not inconceivable why she would think that. Basically the first thing Tara says to her is that Willow has a lot of power, like Tara's beloved mother. They bond over magic and Willow would never have met Tara without it. And so when Tara starts objecting to and even fearing Willow's magic use, she freaks out - because she must somehow both do magic and not at the same time!? She also, I think, views herself as responsible for Glory's attack on Tara - she says she's sorry when she reaches Tara, the reason Willow wasn't there with her is because of their fight about magic, AND Willow couldn't think of the right spell to clear the crowd so she could get to Glory in time. Again, I think the reason Willow freaks out so much is that she is torn between contradictory beliefs - knowing that they fought because Tara is scared at how powerful Willow is and that's why she was alone; Willow not being powerful enough is why she couldn't stop Glory in time. Willow goes after Glory on a possibly suicidal mission even when Tara is still around - because, I think, Willow can't deal with feeling responsible, and needs an external target.

I think by s6, Willow basically believes that if she does not maintain full power at all times, disaster will strike - and also believes that her power makes her dirty and evil somehow, and she blows out eventually because she can't resolve the contradiction. If Willow had been using magic when Warren came by the house, would Willow have been able to stop the bullet in time to save her? I think Willow is not so much interested in approval as a) love, as I said earlier, and b) security - and when really, really angry, c) revenge. Security and love combine - because by s6 she doesn't really trust anyone either to keep them safe, or to treat her fairly, and it's only in nearly killing Dawn that Willow really recognizes that she is a bigger danger than, like, the world in general. I think in sore of being a person who thinks often, Willow respond to crises emotionally - and basically doesn't actually fully recover from the huge threats from Glory, Buffy's death, the resurrection, the difficulty running the gang in Buffy's absence, the demon bikers etc. until near the end of s6, at which point Tara's death reactivated her extreme emotional, rage-grief default to power - even though it was now too late to use that power to protect Tara. I think she only barely is ready to recover from this by Chosen - and I suspect she'll still be screwed up for many years to come, though hopefully she'll be able to stave off angry rage.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

I should say - Buffy is clearly not responsible for how Willow misinterpretsmisinterprets Buffy's advice or example. Similar for Xander, Giles, Oz, Tara etc.

I ran out of space so had to cut some nuances.

I think Willow and Spike especially are *extremely* sensitive to others' treatment, approval/disapproval, and love/dislike for them - but mostly they want to do what they think is right. They are emotion driven, intuitive - and the conclusions they come to about what will make them good or worthy of love are often way off. They are dangerous - because they internalize others' messages and codes while sometimes missing important features of them. But I think they are far less likely than Angel or Cordelia to blindly follow a higher power. They do listen to others - but I think, at least before s7, they fail to fully listen, only picking up part of what others say. They are sort of seeking approval, but would rather follow their own instincts - to figure out from others what general principles to follow and then internalize them and follow then through to their conclusion. I.e. Spike admires Angelus and then becomes a slayer-killer; Willow admires Buffy's power so builds a dark arsenal of power. On the good side, Spike admires Buffy and chooses to sacrifice himself as she might do; Willow admires Tara and tries to become a good witch. Whether good or evil - they are not so much seeking direct approval, as to figure out through observations what qualities are admirable, and then to reproduce these qualities in their own way. I think that's the difference between them and Angel - who needs something of the direct line to the Powers trekking him exactly what they want him to do, rather than trying to determine who he wants to be.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

I should say - I get the impression Xander may have been loved by his mother; Xander seems to fear being unable to love - whereas Willow and Anya fear being unlovable. The two are very related of course but there is a slightly different emphasis. Gunn seems like Xander, both in the manner of his feelings of worthlessness within the gang and inability (?) to love. Gunn's staking his sister is perhaps closes to Xander's staking Jesse - which in Xander's case is semi-accidental, but still reinforces his fear he'll be like his father.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think you are correct.

Gunn strikes me as being similar to Xander or another take on the Xander character. Both grew up in semi-violent environments - either with violent parents (Xander) or in a violent street gang (Gunn). Both had to kill someone they loved and trusted who had turned into a vampire.

Both fear becoming violent. Both fear not being taken seriously, considered just the geeky dork (Xander) or the street thug (Gunn). They are afraid that how others have defined them is who they are. They are also both afraid of becoming that which they slew - the monster. Xander fears becoming his father - note, unlike Angel he doesn't want his father's approval, if anything he'd prefer not to have it, what he is afraid of is becoming his father. He's the opposite of Angel.

Gunn's a darker take on Xander, just as Cordelia was a darker take on Willow.
Gunn does seek out external sources to prevent his fears. Xander never does.
Gunn doesn't trust himself to be good enough without enhancements,possibly due to Fred choosing Wes over him? Xander doesn't trust himself to be good enough for Anya, possibly due to his fear of his father and unresolved issues with Buffy choosing Angel over him?