![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatManaged 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.]
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-10-11 09:06 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 12:54 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 01:19 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 02:33 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-12 02:02 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-13 01:24 am (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2014-10-13 03:08 am (UTC)Buffy is planning a major battle in a WAR. It's important to see this as first and foremost as a war story, not a romance. She's lost people. The previous episode - several slayers were injured and killed by a bomb. And she's been told to use every resource available.
Angel pops out of the blue. With a potential means to turn the tide.
She can't risk him too - because if they take her out, she needs him to take up the fight elsewhere.
Spike is her lieutenant. She needs him in this battle. And she stays with him til the very end. The entire cavern collasping around her as she barely escapes it. She clearly planned on sticking it out with him or pulling him out. He stops her. How can't you see that? They are holding hands. She tells him he has done enough, let's go, take off the amulet. He refuses. She tries to stay, he tells her to leave.
Also before the battle - she warns her troops they may not survive, it's their choice if they want to fight against seemingly impossible odds.
Many die. Not just Spike.
So, no, I disagree with the interpretation that Buffy was willing to risk Spike because she didn't love him. Seriously she risked Dawn, Faith, Xander, Anya, Willow, and numerous slayers who were under her protection. Didn't they matter? She attempts to send Dawn away with Xander, but Dawn nicks that in the bud. And Buffy realizes she can't make their choices for them. This is their WAR too - they have as much reason to want to fight the First Evil as she does.
I honestly think she was getting rid of Angel. He didn't belong in this fight - it wasn't his fight any more. He no longer belonged by her side.
The other interpretation only makes sense if you ignore everything that happened that season, all the General Buffy talks, and the fact that she's fighting a WAR and steeling herself to lose everything.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-13 03:53 am (UTC)Most of what you say here I completely agree with. But I find the idea of a second front being useful...implausible. Much as Angel is an effective fighter (both tactically and physically)he had about 7 people as far as Buffy knew. Not a real fighting force against a world wide deluge of Turok-han. I think Angel would have been a more powerful force in the actual fight, and I think Buffy didn't want to risk him.
Let me qualify this - I think Buffy and Angel was a teen romance, not a mature one. But I think Buffy has to believe deep down that she and Angel have a future because she sees that as the only way to heal. I think she believes she's in love with him but if she tried to live with him it would be kind of a disaster.
As for Spike, I think she and Spike had a mature love, but I also think that what Spike saw was Buffy taking gratitude, compassion, and a whole bunch of other feelings and combined them into love. That wasn't Spike's kind of love. But it was in the middle of a battle, as you say. Buffy left at Spike's behest. and I don't think it was until after the escape and things were sorted that Buffy even realized what she lose. I think once he was gone Buffy was pretty destroyed for at least a while.
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.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 10:16 pm (UTC)But that exchange will always make me feel nauseated.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 10:37 pm (UTC)I don't know everything. It's very
powerful and probably very dangerous.
Has a purifying power... or a
cleansing power - or possibly
scrubbing bubbles, the translation
is... anyway it bestows strength,
worn by the right person.
BUFFY
And the right person is...
ANGEL
Someone ensouled, but stronger than
human. A champion. As in me.
BUFFY
Or me.
ANGEL
No. I don't know nearly enough about
this to risk you wearing it.
****snip****
BUFFY
No, you're not gonna be in this fight.
ANGEL
Why the hell not?
BUFFY
'Cause I can't risk you
There are all sorts of possible reasons but I have to believe them when they both say they can't risk each other.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-15 11:20 pm (UTC)Whedon's commentary on that section is hilarious.
At any rate - it's hard to take seriously, when it's followed by the cookie dough speech, which is later made fun of to hilarious effect in the Girl in Question. (Most shippers hate that episode, I adore it.) Or withing the context of the entire episode.
I think Buffy loved them both. And seriously, she risked her sister who she died for. There was no way on earth she could have given that speech to Spike. Angel - sort of deserved it and would consider it - because he got her to back of using the same speech.
No - it's best, I've found not to focus on the one tree (or one passage), but on the forest (the whole text), when analyzing text. Less misunderstandings occur. I do it naturally - due to dyslexia.
I always try to look at the whole thing to figure out the context.
When I don't look at the whole picture or story or post, I often screw up.