The whine post

[shadowkat]

(After some thought, decided to make this thread public, let me know if this is
a problem.)



Not having the best day...my printer seems to be ka-put. I can't figure out how to stop it from just spooling. It doesn't grab paper, it doesn't print, it just spools or makes that whirling sound they make when paper supposedly is grabbed and printed. Also my computer just seems to get slower and slower, the dial-up disconnects more and more...methinks I should either overhaul the whole thing and get a new set up or maybe just try and get a new printer.
I sort of need the printer to do turbo tax. Since the government hasn't deigned to send me the tax forms this year. Dang government. They send them when I have nothing to file and don't when I finally do. Not that much, true, but still.

Party made me grouchy. Fighting a combo tension/sinus headache at the moment.
Also feel somewhat overwhelmed by all these things I need to get but don't really want: 1. cell phone (I hate phones, not many people call me anyways and the only reason I need one is well for situations like I had last week worrying about getting to work on time or that whole Xmas fiasco. Also cell phones? Tiny. How do people talk on such a tiny thing?) 2. New printer (why can't the old one just work? I think I killed it trying to print those S6 screenplays off the internet to read, actually. I can't get a new one - it has to be delivered and they always deliver on weekdays and there's no one home then. I can't stay home for a possible delivery - don't have that much vacation time.) 3. Computer is frigging slow lately - does this mean I need a new one? Don't want a new one - have to transfer all the old stuff to it, plus I have no clue what to get and they are bloody expensive. Can't afford a new one.)

Ugh. Just want to hurl things at the wall. The printer being one of them. Already sent email to Lexmark to see if they'll do anything. It's a Lexmark z65 Ink Jet printer.



Strolled through flist - people still are discussing the last two seasons of BTVS, specifically the B/S relationship, for unpopular seasons they are certainly discussed a lot, particularly by those who didn't like them. Same with the relationship. Amusing that. Personally, the B/R and B/A relationships bug me far more in retrospect and make me wonder about these writers and the fans who liked them -maybe because in both, Buffy is shown as tiny little girl and Riley/Angel are portrayed as the all-knowing father figure/mentors, oh and she is usually stronger than they are. This is not made better by the casting of a 90 pound, 5'2 18 year old to play Buffy and 26 year olds to play Riley and Angel - both as huge men around 6'3 and the tallest in the bTVS cast. They look like they are in their late 20s physically. Gellar looks 15 in comparison. Also Buffy is portrayed as ditzy valley girl while Angel and Riley are portrayed as actually fairly intellectual - reading Sartre no less and TA in a psychology course. There's an underlying feeling of pedophila/little girl should stay in her place, while big brighter man tells her what to do going on here that just squicks if you think about it too much and the fact that these relationships are treated as ideal is just creepy. The fact that Buffy is a slayer with an older, somewhat sexy, unmarried male Watcher doesn't help.

I'd think I was imagining things, but this uneasy feeling is heightened by well the Wes/Fred relationship - although at least in that relationship Wes and Fred were portrayed as close to the same age and with the same interests and more equal power levels - it's clear intelligence is emphasized over physical strength which may be why Wes/Fred oddly enough squicks me less now than B/A and B/R currently do. But once again we have a woman cast in the part who is tiny in physique and age wise younger than the male leads. She looks pre-adolescent and brings back memories of Audrey Hepburn romances where a 18-21 year old Audrey is paired with 30-50 something Humphrey Bogart, Gregory Peck and Gary Cooper. In B/A and B/R - the emphasis was on how much brighter and wiser the guys are, while Buffy was superstrong and the same strength level as them but not as bright or knowledgable. The fact they attempted to do the same thing again with Wood - makes it odder still. And more noticeable. Once again the older/wiser mentor/father to the little daughter figure. And when Wood doesn't get Buffy? He rides off into the sunset with Faith - as a nice replacement for the Mayor. The fact that that is the only heterosexual relationship that survives - really makes me wonder about the writers.

I think what I liked about B/S was that they were equal strength and she is portrayed as actually brighter than he is or at least at the same level. What is sad here - is when we finally have a relationship of equal strength and where the guy isn't wiser than the girl or portrayed as older/mentor figure - it goes evil. There's no father/daughter vibe going on here (even though technically speaking he's much older agewise - Marsters was 37 at the time, he plays it far younger) they feel more like siblings or equal age as written.
What's weird is the writers for some reason never put Buffy in a long-term romance with someone her age or equal - someone like Xander. The closest they came may have been Spike. In short? Did Buffy have a healthy relationship on that show? Nope. Which was the most unhealthy? Is a matter of opinion and perspective I think.

What is more interesting is the continued need to discuss, to ruminate over something that ended over two years ago. Endlessly. Over the same ground, the same arguments. The same issues. No one really changes their minds. Okay not true - I changed mine about B/A. This compulsion reminds me a little of a discussion I had with someone at the party last night - he was discussing giving up smoking. How hard it was and why. He said - when he was hooked, all he could think about was having that cigarette. He'd be in the middle of a discussion with someone and half of what they were saying wouldn't be heard because he was just thinking about that cigarette. Dinner - same thing - he'd be thinking when can I get out and have my cigarette? I really want it now.
When he told me this - I realized it described in a nutshell my BTVS obsession.
What I'd done in 2001 was use the show to distract myself from painful situations. Whenever I got pulled into the evil boss' office - I'd tell myself to replay images from Smashed or Once More With Feeling in my head. So I'd smile at him, not think about what he was saying, not react. Not let it get to me. I think most addictions probably sprout from a coping mechanism - something you rely on to deal with something that you can't handle directly.
Be it stress or whatever. We seek out a salve to deal with the pain. Problem is - once the situation changes and the salve is no longer needed, it's hard sometimes to let it go or move on. We become addicted to the salve, even if it is a rough one and far from healing.

Comments

[ailleurs.livejournal.com]

I always wonder where the B/S relationship would have gone if it weren't for the tyranny of ratings, fans and whacked-out plot devices.

I also blame the natural chemistry between B/S (and even how SMG and JM played off one another) for the abuse they took from the writers (and fans). Once the writers realized that B/S was getting bigger than the B/A pairing, it's as though they felt they had no other choice but to scuttle the ship in the most flagrant fashion.

B/S was the pairing that had the most possibilities, but it was the pairing that was most abusively dashed. As you wrote, it was a pairing of equals as well as complements and it deserved a better send-off than Chosen and that terrible The Girl in Question. (Am I the only one to see that episode as a lame spoof of Spinal Tap? You had the gaudy PR chick, the disappearing head as a replacement for the dead drummers, and Spike and Angel's tooling around 'Rome' on a Vespa mirrored the band's inability to find their way on to the stage. The only thing missing was the fricking pint-sized Stonehenge formation.)

But oh dear, this is really making me miss the show.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Heh. I never thought Spinal Tap for GiQ but I will go along with anything that characterizes it as lame. ;)

I don't know 'kat, I always took the physical contrasts of Buffy with Angel or Riley as visual reinforcements of the show's central idea - that of the tiny helpless girl turning out to be the kickass hero. The faux-ditziness is part of it too - and lord knows the slightly spun woman is still very much a part of pop culture, find me a promo for a romantic comedy that doesn't include the heroine falling over or walking into something and I will buy you a cookie - that Buffy will play down her intelligence because that's what she sees as normal but inevitably she will be the one to come up with a plan, to save the day. Reason # 93 why Angel never worked for me - the tall, dark, brooding guy is surprise! a hero with a mysterious destiny. No subversion at all, and the attempts at goofy!Angel were never very consistent. Spike though seemed to me to be like Buffy, someone with the contrasts built in - snarky punk is also a romantic to his core. One thing that really intrigued me about AtS s5 (and ultimately disappointed me) was the bringing up of the shanshu, with the suggestion that the guy we'd been told all along might not be The Guy and how would everyone handle it. Ah well.

[revdorothyl.livejournal.com]

Your salve addiction metaphor seems to hit close to home with me --too close for total comfort, anyway!

Personally, I like to think that there are still insights to be gained or things to be learned from further analysis of BtVS and AtS. But that's not the same thing as rehashing the same exact arguments along the same exact lines with the same people -- any more than a real news show or healthy debate is the same thing as "Crossfire" and other punditry wank-fests.

Fandom certainly has many pundits of its own, people for whom the meaning and value of their existence seems to be tied up with their ability to bash other people's opinions and re-state their own loudly and often. And for the pundits among us, I think you're right that this is a coping strategy which once served a necessary function, but which has ceased to adapt or react to changing circumstances and has therefore become more like a prison than a refuge. When defense mechanisms (which we all need and use) cease to adapt and become petrified instead, they turn into neuroses.

What interests me about my own fascination with B/S isn't the opportunity to harangue others or try to convert them to my way of thinking, but rather the chance to learn more about myself by trying to figure out why that relationship fascinates me and even feeds my soul at times (especially as it's developed in fanfics, where Buffy and Spike can take a different, less abusive path at certain crossroads).

So, I'm thinking that as long as there's creativity and a desire to grow, then a fascination with BtVS (even if it focuses on the last two seasons) is less an addictive salve and more of an actual therapeutic tool.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't know 'kat, I always took the physical contrasts of Buffy with Angel or Riley as visual reinforcements of the show's central idea - that of the tiny helpless girl turning out to be the kickass hero. The faux-ditziness is part of it too - and lord knows the slightly spun woman is still very much a part of pop culture, find me a promo for a romantic comedy that doesn't include the heroine falling over or walking into something and I will buy you a cookie - that Buffy will play down her intelligence because that's what she sees as normal but inevitably she will be the one to come up with a plan, to save the day. Reason # 93 why Angel never worked for me - the tall, dark, brooding guy is surprise! a hero with a mysterious destiny. No subversion at all, and the attempts at goofy!Angel were never very consistent.

When I first saw the relationships, I didn't have any problems with them and I thought that was the intent, and it might well have been. But now, in retrospect - it bugs me for some of the reasons you mention the conventionality - but also because that is the convention. The big dark brooding hero with a mysterious dark past - who is brighter. The girl pretends to be ditzy and has to be clutzy...because that's what we expect. And he's older than she is and wiser. The fact that is a convention and considered healthy - is beginning to bug me. The reinforcement of that motif. It could just be a phase I'm going through.

Spike though seemed to me to be like Buffy, someone with the contrasts built in - snarky punk is also a romantic to his core. One thing that really intrigued me about AtS s5 (and ultimately disappointed me) was the bringing up of the shanshu, with the suggestion that the guy we'd been told all along might not be The Guy and how would everyone handle it. Ah well.

Would agree. Disappointed me as well. I got the feeling that the writers kept backing away from things in S5. They'd touch on something, then back away from it. The shanshue was one of those things.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

What interests me about my own fascination with B/S isn't the opportunity to harangue others or try to convert them to my way of thinking, but rather the chance to learn more about myself by trying to figure out why that relationship fascinates me and even feeds my soul at times (especially as it's developed in fanfics, where Buffy and Spike can take a different, less abusive path at certain crossroads).

Been trying to figure that out for myself - what was it about that relationship that continues to fascinate me? It's not the abusive aspects or the S&M aspect. I think it was the way it was played - I felt they were equals - both could deliver a sarcastic remark that demolished someone, both could deliver a nasty kick - whenever they fought it was literally to a standstill or stalemate - verbally or physically. Both were equally insecure. Both had the sick mother and the guilt associated with her death.
In Spike - I felt Buffy had met her match and vice versa. So their banter and eventual partnership felt like something between two people who got each other on a level no one else did.

Whether ruminating on a tv show for me is salve or therapeutic tool?
I remain uncertain. I would like to think the latter.

[revdorothyl.livejournal.com]

Well, if it helps at all, I definitely see you as someone in the therapeutic tool camp. After all, you're creative enough and self-critical enough to worry about BtVS turning into a mere crutch or addiction, and to take that worry and use it as a spur to critical thinking and essay-writing.

In my book, that's a healthy, adaptive, and flexible use of your passion. Which is the antithesis of addiction.

Just my opinion, of course. I can be wrong. Occasionally. I suppose. Theoretically . . .

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

But now, in retrospect - it bugs me for some of the reasons you mention the conventionality - but also because that is the convention. The big dark brooding hero with a mysterious dark past - who is brighter. The girl pretends to be ditzy and has to be clutzy...because that's what we expect. And he's older than she is and wiser. The fact that is a convention and considered healthy - is beginning to bug me. The reinforcement of that motif. It could just be a phase I'm going through.

Hmm, so do you think this is a problem of it being impossible to examine a convention without reinforcing it? Because I thought when it came to subversion of cliche ME did a good job on BtVS (not at all on AtS). Of course the murky treatment of B/A in Chosen screwed up a lot of how the relationship had been treated in the past (curse you s7!).

But I agree that it is an annoying cliche - interestingly it sometimes seems like something that is more readily apparent in romanctic comedies, almost as though it is felt that a female character has to be pathetic in order to not threaten female audiences. Of course much of my crankiness on this subject stems from my passionately held belief that Hollywood was unable to realize that the first Bridget Jones book was actually a parody and have used its success as a way to continue dumbing down the genre. Oops tangent!

[arethusa2.livejournal.com]

Buffy's relationship with Spike was an adult relationship, unlike her romance with Angel. As you say, both were messed up, but at least with Spike she was an equal. I think a lot of people hate that, they want an authoritarian figure to help, guide, even control them--both men and women. We see this in religion, politics, male/female relationships, in almost everything. Buffy's attraction to Spike was always strongly physical-hate and then lust and then some degree of intimacy--but it was also a means for Buffy to explore her boundaries, sexually as well as emotionally, and to figure out where she was comfortable in a continuum of behavior. Buffy needed to do this--she was terrified of her "true" nature, her demonic heritage. (As we are all afraid of finding out what we are capable of. Nobody wants to admit what all people are capable of, so they create an amorphous entity and call it evil, distancing it from us, even giving it a body and name--Satan.) If we don't have boundaries we create them. This is right, that is wrong. Good girls don't enjoy violence, switch between dominant and submissive, decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

Buffy's story is the year-by-year sloughing off of centuries of self-imposed restrictions, boundaries, definitions. She learns to define her boundaries based on her own needs and unique personality. She outgrows Angel and his patriarchal attitude, and she also outgrows unsouled Spike, with his rejection of any rules and boundaries at all.

And we struggle against our society-imposed boundaries that says intelligent, worldly people do not love vampire stories and superheroes, don't fantasize about homosexual relationships and other sexual activities such as S&M, don't love to listen to and tell stories in the dark. We decide for ourselves what we'll think about, what we'll enjoy and obsess over, and to some people that kind of freedom is terrifying.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think you may have nailed my fascination with the B/S relationship and frustration/disgust (in latter years) with B/A and to an extent B/R relationships.

Prior to 2000/2001 - I actually preferred the B/A and B/R relationships and had no problems with authoritarian figures, in a way I sought it. Until - I got brutally disillusioned and discovered male authoritian figures are, if you'll forgive my lingo, full of shit. And in most cases just a tad misogynistic. They see women as lesser creatures and if the women show themselves to be more intelligent and stronger than they are - they attempt to destroy her.

I'd watched BTVS prior to S5-7, but it wasn't until those seasons that I began to get obsessed with it - that it meant something. Why? Because of what you stated above I think.
BTVS showed in the last three seasons that you did not have to have a male authority figure that as one evolved, one moves past that need. All they do is hold you back. And if you aren't careful the need for that - can lead you into some dark places.

Question - did the ME writers get this across in their writing or did it get muddled? Uncertain.

I do think that your description explains and justifies Angel's presence in the last two episodes and the reason why Buffy had to kiss him then send him on his way. If you look at the chronology of events - it supports your thesis:
1. Buffy faces Caleb, he knocks her down, up pops Angel, who stands back - stating he'll just watch her kick his ass, she knocks down Caleb (the epitomy of the male authority figure at its worst), she kisses Angel.
2. Spike sees her kiss Angel, the first evil in Buffy's guise calls Buffy a bitch, but Spike doesn't seem to hear or see the first and takes off.
3. Caleb pops up again - he and Angel fight, he knocks Angel out, and while Angel is unconscious, briefly, Buffy uses the scythe and splits him into, starting at the gonads - the part of him that is the most different from her and announces his gender.
4. Angel pops up sees it, gives her the amulet - but she rejects Angel's help, she does not let him stay, and she does not ask for guidance from him - he is left out completely. Not even given a role and sent tail between his legs back to LA. Instead she offers the amulet Angel brought to Spike, who listens to her, does not try to guide or control her. She doesn't force it on him, nor does she force him to stay with her. He chooses to and they go to the final battle as equals.
5. When Spike dies, it's his soul that saves the day and the soul that is left burning through - the vampire flesh gone (metaphor for the male authority).

What muddies this a bit - is they leave the door open for a future relationship with Angel, which does not work actually, because if she's moved past the ideal, the male authority/guide romance - then they should never get back together. Spike? I'm not certain about - I think he should have probably stayed dead at the end - his soul surving, the body gone - if you want to stay clear.

But your arguement does explain both my obsession with B/S, my disgust with B/A, B/R, and why I prefer the latter seasons. It also explains why ME associated Angel with so many Daddy images. It's telling that Buffy gets sexually involved with Angel - when her father completely drops out of the series. That she skates with Angel - as she used to do with Daddy. And that Angel leaves the series after she defeats the Mayor - a huge snake - the ultimate in authority figures. Also has to deal with him again - when she is fighting another male authority - Adam. Yet both Angel and Riley disappear when she fights Glory and we have instead Ben and Spike - weakened male figures - weakened by women no less. Angel only shows up in the series again - when the
the male authority figure reappears in Caleb.

This also works - if you take it over to ATS - Angel's biggest issue is Daddy issues. His patriarchial views and views about a male authority or male approval is what holds him back and does him in time and again.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

arethusa below actually may have hit the nail on the head on this one.

I think they may have subverted the convention in B/A by
emphasizing how Angel in some ways was fulfilling that male authority figure role. The guy who saves you, protects you, guides you - comforts you. The sheild.
But if you flip it - you get Angelus, the control freak, who wants to break you off of all your friends, parents, everyone - who kills them and then controls you turning you into his little doll -ie. Drusilla. An apt description of how many women find themselves trapped in abusive relationships - they marry the romantic, dark, brooding guy - who protects and comforts and guides them, and he turns out to be, surprise surprise, a control freak who tears down their self-esteem and attempts to control their life - a type of vampire.
To give ME credit they did attempt to get that across with Angel, going so far to show how Buffy fell into Angel's arms around the same time her father disappeared almost completely from her life. That the things she does with Angel are the things (outside of the kissing and sex) she would have done with her father - the ice skating, the discussion about schools.

But did they succeed? There are quite a few people out there who still see the Buffy/Angel relationship as healthy and ideal. Was it muddied a little?

Buffy/Riley is a little less obvious - the subversion.
But I think it may still be there - in that Riley, unable to be the guiding force in her life, her protector, her hero, the leader - takes off. He can't handle either being her equal or her underling. He has to be boss. That said, it's unclear whether he is the boss when he returns with Sam in tow? So that may be
somewhat muddy as well.

But I agree that it is an annoying cliche - interestingly it sometimes seems like something that is more readily apparent in romanctic comedies, almost as though it is felt that a female character has to be pathetic in order to not threaten female audiences. Of course much of my crankiness on this subject stems from my passionately held belief that Hollywood was unable to realize that the first Bridget Jones book was actually a parody and have used its success as a way to continue dumbing down the genre. Oops tangent!

This in a nutshell may be why I haven't been able to sit through a romantic comedy without cringing since 2001.
And I agree - the best part of the book was the parody.
That got lost in the film version.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Very well said!

[arethusa2.livejournal.com]

As enjoyable as the early years are, the later years are the ones I can relate to, because of the struggle she undergoes to become an independent person. We are so very much conditioned to accept authority, much more so than men. That bleeds into romantic relationships, to the point that we think it is not enough to be ourselves, we have to have a man too. But being in relationships and marriages is so difficult, especially for women with older boyfriends. (I started dating my husband when I was 21 and he was 34--a world of difference.) I think you've said before that Buffy's relationship with Angel set her emotional development backwards, which is very true. It takes her a long time--5 or so years--to work out her issues of independence and control.

The lovely thing about her relationship with Spike, despite the unhealthiness of her interaction with unsouled Spike, is that he was able to show her he trusted her, her moral core, courage, intelligence, and loving heart, to make the right decisions. Angel was always second guessing her and making decisions for her, which is not unusual in such a lop-sided relationship. So yes, Angel had to come back, so she could say, thanks, but I'm perfectly capable of guiding my own life, and I love you but this isn't about you, it's about me and what I have to do. I think ME muddied the waters a little to keep the B/A fans coming back, but from what I've seen they would have kept that door open in their minds anyway! People see what they want to see, so when ME had Buffy grow beyond Angel, Riley, Spike, her father, Giles, a priest, *and* the Council, they still thought it was all about love, not emotional maturation. Even though the very last word on the subject, The Girl in Question, firmly stated that Buffy had grown beyond the girl who she had been when she was with them.

I don't know about other religions, but Christians are taught to show love through submission to another's authority--God, Jesus (who often seems to be presented as a different entity than God), parents, religious leaders. This isn't subtle either--our relationship with God is seen as a contract, where obedience is traded for, basically, safety. I know a lot of people don't see this as a bad thing, but it makes it extremely easy to manipulate people, by playing the God card. Just say God wants it, and people stop questioning. Sexism--God wants women to submit to their husbands. Politics--God wants people to vote for Bush, who is born-again, instead of one of those godless liberals. (Heh, which is my case is actually true, but for most it is not.) I know a lot of people dislike the idea of Caleb, but the last thing Buffy kills is the woman-hating aspect of religion, the glorification of submission, which is the most invisible and pervasive. (With the glorification of submission comes the glorification of suffering and sacrifice, but that's a rant for another day!)

[arethusa2.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree. I think that may be why I enjoyed Girl in Question more than others did, because it was the writers way of thumbing their nose a bit at the romantic ideal. It also firmly stated that people move on. Spike and Angel both needed to move on, as Buffy had. But being vampires - the ultimate metaphor for arrested development - stuck in a young, undead, ageless body that cannot procreate or change, they remain stagnant, running in place, while she is always shown dancing ahead of them. (IT might have been a little clearer metaphorically speaking if her boyfriend wasn't the Immortal, but we can't have everything.)

Regarding religions - from what I know of Judaism, which Christianity springs from, and Muslim - those religions also teach obediance to a male authority figure. The old testament is certainly based on this.
The New, a little less so - except, we still have a very strong "father" in the text. It's interesting that most of the religions that arose out of the Middle East and North Africa tend to be "patriarchial" in nature. Even the ancient religions - such as Egypt and Mespotamia - have a strong male authority. Makes sense if you think about where these people lived and how - they lived in a dry hot climate, a desert, with a hot boiling sun - and endless sky. Is it so surprising that their God is a male one?

If you look at the religions that arose in water climates, that weren't as arid - the god is female. She is just as harsh as the male god, but differently.
The sick mother motif - that you see in S5 BTVS in some aspects reflects that. As does Jasmine in ATS S4.
She gives birth on the one hand and devours her young on the other - mother earth, where the trees cover the sky and the earth is ruled by water and tides.

Both religions have one thing in common - the need to look to an outside authority figure for guidance, an authority figure who will discipline harshly if you disobey. One is matriarchial, one patriarchial. What I think Whedon was attempting to say in ATS, BTVS, and Firefly is both systems have their flaws and we need to move past the need for either - the need to go to parents for guidance. Truth is - we always do, in some way or another. Whether they be our actual parents or represented by some substitue - ie. a husband, an older teacher/friend/therapist, a priest, a rabbi...

I have yet to find a religion that does not have at it's center an authority figure or teacher or mentor that it's followers seek for guidance and worship in some manner. Would love to find one.

Romantic love vs individual growth

[(Anonymous)]

Terrific posts! Which, of course, confirms that all these story issues are about so much more than ship wars.

"People see what they want to see, so when ME had Buffy grow beyond Angel, Riley, Spike, her father, Giles, a priest, *and* the Council, they still thought it was all about love, not emotional maturation."

Great point. Which goes back to your earlier point about how we're socialized (esp. women) to seek authority figures in every aspect of life (esp. romantic love). Part of growing up female means being conditioned to think that romantic love is the be-all and end-all of your womanly existence, which tells us that we have value only when someone male deems us worthy of love. That romantic love often turns out to be either a dead end or just one small part of how we become who we are, is well, ignored for the most part in western culture. How many texts give us female protagonists who aren't primarily defined by their travails or success in romantic love? Precious few.

So, it's not surprising that most fans look right past the point of all of Buffy's romantic relationships (that they're just part of her emotional growth) and fixate on who should ride off into the sunset with her, because they still see getting the guy as the point of her struggles. Shippers esp. don't have any interest in seeing Buffy as an independent figure. And perversely, by making the guy her reward as it were, it's the guy in this equation whose value becomes dependent on being anointed The Chosen One's chosen one.

Well, it's late and I'm beginning to babble, but thanks again for all the interesting thoughts!

punkinpuss