BTVS redux

[shadowkat]

Haven't written about this in a long time but something I was reading on livejournal late last night started rolling about in my brain. And I realized a few things this morning, which granted may seem obvious to the objective outsider, but not so obvious to me.



It was something said offhand in a recent fanfic discussion on livejournal - about how kinky it was to subvert the canonical Buffy/Spike relationship so that Spike was in control and Buffy was submissive. This threw me for a loop. How is this kinky, I thought? First off in about 99% of the romances and novels published in our entire history, the male is the one in control and the female is the submissive party - he's stronger than she is. We live in a patriarchial society, our presidents, leaders, rulers are men, with a few exceptions here and there. The accepted position for sex is the missionary pose - ie. the guy on top and the girl on the bottom. Also men are supposed to be the ones to initiate sex, it's considered kinky when they don't. And it is an accepted fact that a man can force a woman not the other way around. Men beat women into submission. The old cliche is the guy who will sleep with a girl then leave her the next morning, wondering if he'll ever call. In most S&M scenarios that have been written, the girl is the masochist or the submissive in the relationship. It's rarely the other way around. That's the traditional/conservative approach. It's certainly the way the romance writers write it and how you'll see it in erotica. It is rare to see the opposite. The kink is when we switch the two roles. Kinky is when the guy is being whipped by the girl and likes it.

What was interesting about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and one of the reasons I became obsessed with it in the later seasons, was how it tried to subvert this traditional view. Note I mention in later seasons, because to start out with, BTVS was pretty conventional in certain ways. The Buffy/Angel relationship certainly was. Nothing kinky or subversive about that. Angel was in control most of the time - he'd leave Buffy wanting more. He'd die, leaving Buffy to grieve his loss, if they had sex, which they did once, he was always on top, you never saw a woman riding old Angel. And he'd decide when to leave. Leaving her the next morning with not much more than a note. In fact all of Buffy's boyfriends, outside of Spike, were more or less written in the classic conventional mode. Riley - again always on top, in fact the reason Riley left Buffy was that he couldn't stay on top, when he became weaker than Buffy and their roles switched he lost interest and went off with the military. His relationship with the vamp whores shows that aspect of him - letting them take a bit, then pushing them roughly away, leaving them for his true girl friend. When the girl-friend calls him on it, he doesn't give her the chance to dump him, he dumps her instead and takes off with his military pals. Parker - again, the guy leaves the girl wanting more, he dumps her for his next conquest, seeing her as little more than a distraction.

But there's a subversion here, isn't there? Didn't the writers make Buffy stronger than the guys? Riley and Angel were the damsels not Buffy? Buffy had to save them, true. But it's not that subversive - since in traditional gothic romances and fairy tales - we often have a woman on a quest to save a man from the dark side of himself or from some woman who will entrap him. The misunderstood guy under the curse of the wicked witch. Everything from the Snow Queen to Rebecca explores this theme. Most gothic romances usually do. Actually I can't think of many that don't. So not very subversive or kinky.
Even Angel's curse isn't that kinky. It's a traditional device that keeps him and the heroine from ever being together. He makes love to her and experiences happiness in her arms, and whammo he's evil and leaves her miserable. (In other words he leaves satisfied, while she's wanting more and grieving his loss.) It's not until Angel left to do his own series that curse became somewhat interesting, up until that point it was more or less a plot device.

No, they didn't start getting a little kinky and subversive until they introduced Spike. At first Spike was written conventionally. Hot, seductive, a sexual predator. He was clearly in control - the lovely Drusilla who hung on his arm childlike. A doll that he supported. Spike was the brawn and the brains of this outfit. Dru could barely stand upright or speak in anything outside of rhymes and couplets. He was also the type who women fell over themselves to get close to. Bad girl Sheila went to him like a magnet. He seduced you, took his fill, then left you the next morning wanting more. And if the girl didn't succumb, he'd rape her. Even slayers feared Spike, since no woman could out-fight him. Always going home to his mother or the one woman in the world he'd protect. Very conventional character - to start.

Then they subverted it - each time Spike tried to fight Buffy, she won, she out-fought him, out-maneuvered him, out-quipped him. He'd met a woman who was not only his equal but possibly his better. The man who was used to loving and leaving them wanting more - got kicked in the balls. And then there was Dru who did the same thing to him, left him, so he grabbed control back and did the truce with Buffy. Got her back. For a while the writers and the audience believed that was how the story would go - the conventional route, Spike and Dru - Spike in control of Dru and Dru fighting him. But Juliet Landau couldn't do Lover's Walk and Juliet Landau wasn't available to reprise the character in Season 4, only Marsters was. So...the writers did something unconventional, kinky even. Buffy got to be on top and Spike got to be on the bottom. The guy who was used to controlling women since becoming a vampire, who was on top, who was the seducer - got seduced, fell for his enemy, got manipulated into helping the cause. Instead of Spike leaving Buffy wanting more, Buffy left Spike wanting more. Instead of Spike controlling their relationship, Buffy did. Instead of the guy dumping the girl, the girl dumped the guy. Instead of the guy leaving the girl in the dank-womblike cavern and walking up into the sunlight, the girl left the guy in the dank-like cavern. Instead of the guy beating the girl into submission, the girl beat the guy into submission. Instead of the guy initiating sex - the girl did. Instead of the guy leaping on the girl and riding her, the girl launched herself at him and rid him. Smashed was the first time a woman initiated violent sex on network TV. A woman rode on top. In most shows, we see the girl's skin, her heaving chest, and naked limbs - here it was all Spike. The invisibility fantasy is usually the male's - usually the guy becomes invisible and goes and has his way with the girl, rapes her even (see Hollow Man, or any number of other comedies and dramas playing with the idea). Here Buffy becomes invisible and goes and takes advantage of Spike - being naughty with the boy from the wrong side of the tracks. Leaving him feeling used. Rumor has it that the writers played with the idea of taking this a step further and have Buffy try to rape Spike, humilate him, but they couldn't make it work and realized it may be too subversive for the viewer to buy it. Also it was unlikely the audience would believe Spike needed the soul after this happened. (They were right. I have however, seen people play with the idea in fanfic. Herself did in Spike and the Ambiguities, as did two other writers in Hard Candy. They all did stop short though, didn't go all the way - allowed it to still have that conventional twinge. Spike would get control in the next chapter.)

Complete role reversial and it enthralled me. I'd never seen anyone do this.
What fascinated me even more was people's reactions to it. There were folks out there who despised it, thought it was horrid, wanted to go back to the Angel/Buffy or Buffy/Riley relationships. Others wanted Spike to go back to being evil, to being the guy in control. While still others wanted more of Buffy keeping Spike on the leash. What was going in the show was a unique gender role reversial and what was going on in the minds of the audience was a struggle with how to deal with that reversial, which happened on screen sexually, emotionally, and physically.

Seeing Red - the episode in which Spike loses all control and attempts to rape Buffy threw people - wait, they thought, isn't this a role reversial? Why go back to convention? I thought Buffy was the one physically in charge here? Well, she still is - if you watch the scene carefully - Spike doesn't get anything, except humilated and shown a reflection of himself that literally sends him careening off the edge of sanity. Because only an insane vampire would seek a soul. Buffy wins in Seeing Red. She not only is the physical victor pushing him off her, but also the emotional one - telling him why they can't be together, why it doesn't work - because there is no trust, their relationship is all about fighting for control, who gets to be on top and the reason he is so obsessed is time and again, she wins. She's better than he is. Her victory is that he goes to get a soul, which he does not so much out of love for her, although that is definitely part of it, but to show her up, to prove that he is as good as she is. Instead of the woman trying to prove herself to the man, showing the man she has balls, that she can drive the company, that she is as good if not better than he is, we have the man doing it. The man showing her that he can get and have a soul. In some religious societies - people believed woman were beneath men, because only men had souls. Here we have the reversal.

What fascinates me about many of the fanfics I've read regarding the relationship, is how many writers have attempted to switch it back to the status quo. Often putting Spike in control of the relationship. They can't handle him in the submissive role - yet that in a nutshell was what made the show and the character so fascinating. He didn't want to be the pawn of women, he didn't see himself as their pawn, yet that in effect was what he always became. Drusilla turns him into a demon, Drusilla then dumps him after 120 years, then Professor Walsh neuters him, Harmony leaves him (note it is Harmony who up and leaves Spike and kicks Spike out, not the other way around), then Buffy beats him up and makes him her follower. She's the one who outthinks him. When he gets his soul - the First takes the form of Buffy and Dru to whip him into shape, not Angelus or the Master. Using a song his sick mother used to sing to control him. From Drusilla to the First Evil, with Buffy in between, what was most interesting about the Spike character was how controlled and beaten into submission he was by the women in his life. That is the subversion, the kink, the weird twist in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And what makes the show in my humble opinion stand out from all the other tv shows I've seen. What is equally interesting is how that subversion continues to haunt and irritate the fanbase that adored the show and the relationship.

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Been thinking about what you've written for a while now and to a certain extent, I agree. Seeing Red is a weird episode for me, because I can see it from about three or four different perspectives and have argued each pretty sucessfully - which means that the episode was either more brilliant than I'm willing to admit or a mess. At the moment I'm leaning towards mess. It's also a dicey one to discuss online because people tend to reacte to it emotionally. Impossible not to since it pushes so many buttons.

The subversion in Seeing Red was not so much that Spike goes for the soul, which come to think of it didn't happen until Grave,(seen that many times before actually, so nothing new there), but that Buffy defeats him. He did not rape her, which is weird in of itself considering that the sequence is possibly the most violent sexual assault I've ever seen filmed on Television. Yet, the most Buffy got was a few bruises. She not only throws her male attacker across the room, she manages to convince him that he is not good enough for her. He never rapes her, he doesn't even tear off her clothes.

In most tv shows that depict sexual assaults - the girl gets raped. We don't see it, but that's the result. The only variation is what happens to the attacker - and trust me, I've seen everything imaginable on that score. The worst and most fascinating scenarios occur on Soap Operas. Soap operas love to redeem rapists and make them into love interests - Luke and Laura may have been the first but it was by no means the last. What's fascinating about this trope, is in each case the writer is a woman. I think the psychology behind it is no different than that of the little boy who makes friends with the monster in his closet. For some women the scariest thing is to be raped, some of us fear it more than death. And it is a constant threat in our lives and can happen at any time. So, how do you cope with that fear? Because honestly you can't go around fearing men or sex, can you? What some women do, not all, is find a way to make the act less than it is in their own heads, weaken the male monster. They fantasize that the woman's love and ability to forgive her rapist is enough to change him. If she can redeem her attacker turn him into a good guy, not a monster, he no longer holds power over her - she's won, which I think to an extent may have been what ME was playing with - that whole notion.

Except in this case, the male monster didn't rape her, didn't even come close. This was the first time I saw the girl throw him off. Actually if you watch Seeing Red closely - you'll notice that Buffy defeats the male attacker three times: 1st the vampire who attacks her in the grave yard, injuring her side, then Spike, who attacks her in her bathroom, bruising her, then Warren with his magic balls - which she crushes. Only to be shot in the end with a gun - a huge phallic symbol. That was the metaphor they were going for, which more or less works - if you take the episode completely out of context and watch it as a stand-a-alone.


TBC

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

It's somewhat strange. The only thing that truly bothered me in SR was the placement of the commercial break, which felt really jarring. I was bothered more by the aftermath, both in the end of S6 and later with how the storyline was handled in S7. Which I'd get to in a reply to your second part.

I will say that I do find your comments on female writers and Luke & Laura to be instructive, since it's certainly a perspective I need help to understand. It does help go to one of my first questions, which seems obvious to me but never seems to come up in these sorts of stories... "Why is she required to be in love with him?"

I will say that I was intrigued that ME would, albeit coyly, at least introduce the distinction between "loves him" and "is in love with him", though it seemed to be handled in a way that was about fence-straddling with the audience rather than addressing the concept of the distinction. And namely, the idea that it might be okay for Buffy not to be in love with him. That not loving Spike in the way Spike or Somesuch Viewer (substitute other characters or cases as appropriate) might want her to be, is not inhently proof that she is somehow defecient as a woman.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It does help go to one of my first questions, which seems obvious to me but never seems to come up in these sorts of stories... "Why is she required to be in love with him?"

Interesting question. I think the answer sort of goes back to the whole idea of "turning the other cheek" or "love your enemies". It's a prodominantly Christian concept - the whole love will heal or love overcomes hate. Christ dies on the Cross forgiving his enemies and taking them into heaven with him. The view is that love is more powerful than hate and redeems us all. If we love the person who attempts to destroy us - our love will in effect crack them, change them, alter them. Fairy tales - often talk about the princess breaking the curse with her love. She kisses the frog or the beast and he becomes a man.

The Buffy/Angel romance was the complete opposite of that motif.
Buffy kisses Angel and his demon face emerges (in Angel). In Innocence they make love and he becomes a monster, completely evil.
Her love cures his curse - except the curse is what makes him human, when he's healed he becomes an unredeemable monster.

So, you're a writer and you've already down the love turns the man into a monster theme. What's left? The opposite. Love turns the monster into a man theme. But you want to show the horror of it, not the romance. Because something about that theme just doesn't sit right.

Spike/Buffy - I think was ME's twist on love turning a monster into a man. Seeing Red is the companion piece to Innocence. Spike attacks Buffy it sends him off to find his soul. What's important here is that Buffy does not fall in love with her rapist - that Spike ceased to exist in Buffy's mind when he got the soul, just as Angelus ceased to exist in Buffy's mind when he got the soul. This is true for Buffy only by the way, everyone around her questions it, including the two men. Why does she? Because she realizes that he knew he was wrong and wanted to become something better because of her - that's a lot of power for a woman to have. She changed him. It's the counter to Angel - who in her mind, her love turned into a monster. With Spike, her love turns him into a man - except his soul/love burns him up, he's not worthy of it, his physical form cannot contain it without burning up. He cannot be with her. He cannot be the hero, the best he can obtain is the tragic hero.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I can see this. Part of my particular thing with S7, goes to issues that deal with personal interaction, and varying definitions of love.

In S3, Angel comes back out of hell into Sunnydale, and we have a storyline where Buffy wants to help Angel overcome his monstrous state and help him because she loves him. And his love for her is shown as something that pulls him out of that state. So it's not simply how the love turns him into a monster, because it's also something that has influenced his growth in profound ways as well. Which Buffy does see.

(Over the course of the series we see Buffy's influence bring out the best and worst in many of the BtVS and AtS characters - though she doesn't always get to see it - but then, she's the signature character of this universe.)

It's interesting with S7 especially since they have a reprise of the FE, so I look at parallels where I might see them. Because this is a brand new experience for Spike, but in many ways its a reprise for Buffy.

I have a natural inclination to look and see if Buffy's decision to sponsor/guide/defend/redeem Spike is one that's independent of whether or not she is in love with him. ( In Love vs. Love) Because, of course, if we're in love with someone we would presumably go to most any length for them. Whereas, could we, would we, be willing or able to do this for someone we cared about and love (as Buffy cares for and loves a number of people) but were not in love with.

But then, we're looking at a character whose relationships are entangled with not just love, but with duty, obligation, and many other themes - so complicating the possible interpretations generally work for me. So it's not so much that it can't just be about romantic love, so much as it's about more than just romantic love. Granted, more direct effort paralleling Anya/Spike/Willow and Buffy's interactions with each of the three redemption seekers would have helped me with that line, but what can you do?

[(Anonymous)]

I think the difference between the Angel and Spike motifs is: Buffy's love for Angel forces him to deal with his own inner demons, while
Spike's love for Buffy forces him to deal with his.

One is the girl's love for the man, the other is the man's love for the girl. Which may be why the writers are reluctant to ever really allow Buffy to say outright that she is necessarily in love with Spike - it would run counter to that motif. It remains ambiguous throughout the series what Buffy feels for Spike - which was why I found the relationship far more interesting actually than the B/A one. I liked the ambiguity. For me it was more interesting if Buffy was not in love with Spike, that when he says no you don't he realizes that and is okay with it. Partly because it is the opposite of Becoming, when she kills Angel and says I love you and Angel knows she does when she kills him.

I may be one of the few people who was into Spike and the S/B relationship who preferred the ambiguity, who did not see them ever having sex again after Seeing Red, and saw the love relationship as being somewhat ambiguous - murky. Part of me wishes they'd made it even more so than they did, but since they were also trying to play with the metaphor of Buffy accepting and coming to terms with her own inner demon (Spike in many ways was the metaphor for that demon), that would have been impossible.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Again, me. Ugh.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Yikes. That's got to be frustrating.

The contrasts in how they show the two relationships are interesting. In a lot of ways, missing the curse, B/A looks very standard and doesn't seem to get much richness until later parts of S3 - largely because there's not much exploration of his character and what really motivates him until [i]Amends[/i]. It is sort of interesting, though, to me - because he looked like that spouse who stays at home defining themself in terms of a relationship, and starting to discover that it's not enough to find happiness/actualization. Which seemed a human dilemma rather than gender-specific one. In terms of the story about how this guy tries to pull himself out of the gutter, and frequently fails, that's where I saw growth in his storyline. Which we get on the other series.

But in terms of the issues between them that would appear interesting to me, and there are several, they're left off the page after that point. The curse puts them in relationship stasis (it's too painful to go there so the two of them just don't talk) so that, by the time they start to appear in places where they could approach each others' issues from a place of commonality, it's just not going to be delved into much. Put it this way - they're more interesting and complex now, than they were then.

But otherwise, we're dealing with characters addressing different stages of personal development. To me, Spike seemed to have been someone who never really learned to love himself in a heathly manner. And so he's terribly insecure and looking to redefine himself in ways that might attain external validation - and as such, that validation could never prove satisfactory even when he might find it. And that issue, Coupled with the Love as Possession baggage. So the growth was in two parts - coming to terms with accepting himself, including accepting his flaws enough to change them without feeling the need for total re-invention. And the second part being, accepting more nuanced views of love than total devotion model he'd previously held to.

And that's the growth space I'd look at with his future. His friendships were, where they existed, really poor relationships from both sides. Which a potential S6 might have rememedied as he grew more comfortable with expressing caring about people he wasn't totally devoted to. And accepting caring back from people who weren't totally devoted to him. Being okay with the idea that Buffy wasn't required to love him (independent of whether she actually does) would be a key step for that. Which I felt the "no you don't" was doing.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Quickly - since at work and must go back,

completely agree with this analysis. I think what is interesting about the character and why the character appealed to me, at least, was how incredibly insecure he was. William disliked himself and sought validation through others eyes, constantly using them as his mirror.
"The no you don't" was writer short-hand for Spike's ability to finally realize that he did not need her love to be worthwhile.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

But in terms of the issues between them that would appear interesting to me, and there are several, they're left off the page after that point. The curse puts them in relationship stasis (it's too painful to go there so the two of them just don't talk) so that, by the time they start to appear in places where they could approach each others' issues from a place of commonality, it's just not going to be delved into much. Put it this way - they're more interesting and complex now, than they were then.

Well put. That was my problem with B/A actually - the fact that the writers had essentially written the relationship into a corner and were unwilling to turn the corner or take the relationship beyond it.
In some respects, I Will Always Remember You does a bit of that - by exploring Angel's inability much like Riley, to let Buffy be the hero while he sits at home worrying over her. Halfway through S2 Angel, I came to the realization that the writers had given us all we were going to get of the Angel/Buffy relationship - we would never see a resolution, there would never be an in depth exploration of their relationship sans curse outside of IWARY. Plus, the two characters were far more interesting paired with different people or separate, together - whether on his show or on her's, one of the characters seemed to lose focus.

To me, Spike seemed to have been someone who never really learned to love himself in a heathly manner. And so he's terribly insecure and looking to redefine himself in ways that might attain external validation - and as such, that validation could never prove satisfactory even when he might find it. And that issue, Coupled with the Love as Possession baggage. So the growth was in two parts - coming to terms with accepting himself, including accepting his flaws enough to change them without feeling the need for total re-invention. And the second part being, accepting more nuanced views of love than total devotion model he'd previously held to.

Yes, that's how I see Spike as well. Someone who kept trying to be whatever others expected or wanted. The consummate actor. He was always performing to the audience. The song in Sleeper fits him well: "trading coats and ringing pavlov's bell". He reactes to what others do, often without thinking first. Letting his emotions, instinct, heart - rather than head rule him.

Which a potential S6 might have rememedied as he grew more comfortable with expressing caring about people he wasn't totally devoted to. And accepting caring back from people who weren't totally devoted to him. Being okay with the idea that Buffy wasn't required to love him (independent of whether she actually does) would be a key step for that. Which I felt the "no you don't" was doing.

I agree, except that I think it's more that he needs to realize that he is worthwhile even if no one does love him. You don't need to be loved to be worthwhile. How Buffy, Dru, or his Mother saw or feel about him shouldn't define him. In S5 Angel, I saw glimspes of him coming to terms with that.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

the two characters were far more interesting paired with different people or separate, together - whether on his show or on her's, one of the characters seemed to lose focus

Part of that was the nature of what happens when you have two series leads. A show is going to cast things in terms of the protagonist and nuance will not be there. Sanctuary is a good example - the perspective is Angel's and the show is Angel's, so she comes off looking a bit horrible. Taken in context with the events on her own show, I find her sympathetic, but one wouldn't get that viewing 5x5/Sanctuary in a vaccuum. And of course, as long as ME wasn't going to write out of the "Curse" corner, there wasn't much point revisiting. Really, as long as they weren't doing something about the curse, there wasn't a ton of point to me in doing any Angel romance. (Not to be confused with semi-casual/non-long-term flings.) Which, for me anyway, is why the obsession/affair with Darla worked and the fling with Nina worked, but the attempt to do a more standard romance with Angel and Cordy fell flat. (There are other factors, but pointlessness in the face of the curse was really high among them.)

I think it's more that he needs to realize that he is worthwhile even if no one does love him. You don't need to be loved to be worthwhile.

Yeah, but I'd quibble - because you do need love. But it's the love that comes from within - genuine, healthy self-esteem based upon self-understanding, rather than externally derived love and love based upon projected personas - which Spike had tried to rely upon. The first half, is the day he goes into a bar and can admit that he really does want to read poetry. The second half comes at some point in the future, when (as inevitably occurs) his poetry is heckled but instead of being crushed or angry (as he would have been before) he is secure enough in himself to roll with it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No, I agree you do need love. But I'm not sure if we are talking about love here so much as how one handles rejection. You can feel loved, yet still handle rejection poorly. I think William, for example, felt loved by his mother, but her love did not provide him with the confidence necessary to handle his peers rejection.

It's interesting but it never really occurred to me until today how much Whedon played with the theme of rejection in the series, literally showing all the different ways people handle it. You could write a lengthy essay detailing it, and I don't have the space or time or desire to do it here.

I do think, some characters handling of rejection can be paralleled based on where their fears arose from. Or insecurities.
Spike, Willow and Anya - all had negative experiences with their peers and obtaining acceptance from the loved one. Rejection turned them into monsters. Spike = a vampire, Anya = a vengeance demon, Willow = a witch.

Spike and Faith - can also be paralleled - because both deal with Rejection either by rejecting the person they believe will hurt them first, or kicking the living shit out of them. That's peer rejection.

Then in contrast, we have the one's with parental issues. Angelus who eats his whole family and village - because of rejection by his father. Darla who takes her rage out on the men who abused her in life and the children denied her. Buffy - who seeks out dark older men to handle the rejection of the father who left her, either trying to replace him or punish him.

The most mature characters might be Charles Gunn, Giles, and OZ who seem to handle rejection with a stoic shrug. (That is until Oz becomes a wolf, Giles becomes Ripper, or Gunn gambles everything for a larger brain capacity.)

On the other hand - love does help with rejection. Angel handles rejection better when he has support. They keep him from pulling into his shell. (Of the characters - I think I identify with Angel's way of handling it the most. The retreat.) Spike - in your poetry example - is able to handle it here, partly because he has found friends, people who see him as a good fighter - Angel, Charles Gunn, Fred (now dead), Lorne...even Buffy. It's not the same as before. Also this round, he picks a crowd he knows he can't physically hurt, and he also understands. But what helps him the most - is unlike William, his poetry is not all he has, it does not define him, there's other things. And he's had other successes.

I think the key to being able to let rejection roll off your back is building up confidence. Having a few successes. And getting some external validation. But ...also, enjoying what you are doing, getting pleasure out of it, so that while you want to share that enjoyment with others, not being able to, doesn't feel like
a rejection. (Sort of like watching BTVS and writing about it even if none of your friends watch it or are interested in it.)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Yeah - rejection, for Whedon, is clearly a major theme. Expanding on your comments, what interests me, is not just how characters handle being rejected - but also how they handle rejecting others. Buffy rejecting Owen and Xander in S1, for example, as compared to how Buffy rejects Spike in S5 and S6. Or how Buffy passively rejects her friends in the beginning of S2, and later in S6 - in these cases, as proxies for rejecting the box she feels her life has trapped her in.

And yeah, with Angel-the-rejected, the show really does highlight the value of loving support. Angel, without support, has an extensive pattern of careening (figuratively and literally) into gutters. But as AtS2 showed, it's a two-way street. You have to find people who can and will support you, but you also have to give inputs in order to build and sustain those supportive relationships or they won't hold up under strain. He doesn't feel like he can trust them fully (which may or may not be true) but what matters more is that he doesn't make the leap of faith and pre-emptively rejects them such that they aren't there to support him when he hits his nadir. But, he has built up just enough trust, even so, that they are there to help him when he's already begun to pull himself back up.