#and i identify with spike but i don’t like buffy for attraction reasons. so.

[vulpinesaint]

one thing about people who like spike is that very often they will ship him with buffy and care about him in that way. however i. do not do that

[dimples-of-discontent]

Don’t you think Jensen always denying that dean is bi is because it hits close to him? Like Dean’s behaviour around men and Jensen’s around Misha is kinda similar so?

Hello Nonnie,

Whew, oh boy! Ok, I got this ask in a few different forms so hopefully one answer can serve for them. 

The first thing I’m going to do is remind everyone that Jensen has never commented publicly on his sexuality at all and that, therefore, it’s none of our business. It never is, actually, unless someone brings it up themselves and indicates that they wish to discuss it. That’s just a rule for life. Private is private, even if you’re an actor. The second thing I’m going to do is assume that you know what kind of blog this is and that I backstroke through the garbage fire pretty regularly including speculating about Jensen and Misha. So, yes, I am guilty of engaging in this type of posting. 

But there’s rules! The main rule being that these things we say for our entertainment (curiosity, whatever) in fandom spaces are never in a billion years to be brought into the actors lives in any way. Do not ask them about it. Do not show them posts or fic about it. Do not tag them in Twitter posts about it, even if those are adorable posts collecting all the Cockles cheek kisses or whatever. Fandom spaces are ours; they’re imagined communities and we behave differently in them than we would in the real world. 

Plus–again this should be obvious–we’re just posting shit we infer from a very limited viewpoint. Jensen and Misha give us a lot to work with (hoobooy they do!) but we’re seeing them in the public eye, at cons mostly or on livestreams. We have no freaking clue what they are like alone…and that’s how it should be.

And now that I have attached that upfront (I know I do this all the time and that if you read a bunch of my posts you may be getting sick of it…apologies, but RPS is very tricky and I feel like I need to foreground some of the boundaries for newcomers) let me put a cut below which you will find my thoughts on this.

It’s no secret that Jensen has a very high degree of character bleed with Dean–he straight-up admits that. I wrote a long post that’s been going around about how Jensen views Dean very experientially, knowing what Dean knows and doing what he thinks Dean would do, and about how that makes it tough for him to distinguish what he thinks of Dean from what DEAN thinks of Dean. Dean is a part of Jensen, as he has said.

What’s slightly less obvious, though intuitive, is that Jensen is a part of Dean. The vulnerability that Dean has had from the beginning is, to my mind, all Jensen. A lesser actor, or a lesser sweetheart, in that role would have made Dean pretty unsympathetic with his sarcasm and his machismo and his dumb, smirking face. To me, this is the same thing that happened with James Marsters on “Buffy.” He was supposed to be a straight-up villain, in just a couple episodes, but audiences went nuts for him. He got more episodes but Whedon still wanted to keep him a villain…except that James couldn’t keep that vulnerability and uncertainty and humanity out of the character. So instead we got a love story and a big, ol’ redemption arc. (I realize that it also sounds like I’m describing what happened with Misha and, in a sense, I am.)

Now, Jensen is a better actor than James Marsters (even though I think James is an amazing actor…and I love that he dropped out of Juilliard), but I’m willing to bet that what James did with humanizing Spike was more deliberate than what Jensen did with Dean. I think Jensen feels things intuitively about Dean and that he just goes for it without additional self-reflection. That’s why when he’s called out on something that he hasn’t deliberately chosen to do–like many of the bi!Dean or Destiel moments–he’s confused and slightly defensive. He makes some deliberate choices, obviously, but especially at this point he’s going on mostly instinct and doesn’t HAVE to examine those choices.

That is, unless we ask him to. I think often his encounters with questions about playing Dean a certain way (bisexual, in love with Cas) DO ask him to reflect on himself and ask himself why he made particular choices. And that’s not easy to do, especially onstage and in front of a crowd!! It’s like we’re always going, “Ok, Jensen, so clearly your instinct is to [insert non-hetero thing here]…why IS that?”; no wonder he will freeze-panic and sometimes say something thoughtless and/or rude! (Personally, I would like us to stop asking, largely for this reason.)

So, I suppose my answer to your question is “yes, exactly.” I think Jensen is an intelligent, meticulous, and thoughtful actor. I also think, subconsciously, he channels a ton of himself into Dean and that his being defensive of certain aspects of Dean (e.g. his sexuality) is indeed also his being defensive about those aspects of himself. Look at how much more easily the other cast members are able to analyze their characters, including comments about their sexuality. Just this weekend (at Jaxcon) Rich pretty much confirmed that he sees Gabriel as non-straight (pansexual?). Jared has said that he sees Sam as straight but that it’s ok by him if other people don’t. Ditto Misha about Cas (though he usually gets asked about his being Ace). And, yes, that is Jensen’s party line on the Dean question too. “You have your version and I have mine.” But his reactions to it are, to me, notably different from the rest of the cast.

I haven’t mentioned Misha yet but, well, if there’s any time we see Jensen acting non-straight it’s around Misha (in character or not). I’m not fully on the train for “Destiel is Cockles’s fault” because “Destiel” is a complex phenomenon 10 years in the making. But I’m not ever going to deny that their chemistry was a huge part of it taking root and growing. And it’s impossible–absolutely fucking impossible–not to notice the overlap between the trajectories. The first time Jensen met Misha was the first time Dean met Cas; they were both freaked out by this kind of alien being as much because he inspired “weird” feelings in them as because he was so “weird.” Jensen had Misha’s handprint applied in makeup before he met him just like Dean was branded by Cas. They had kind of an enemies-to-friends-to-lovers thing. They experienced some kind of betrayal and breakup and then a tentative reunion. They’re basically married now. 

So, yeah, when Jensen is asked about Dean’s sexuality I do think he experiences it as a question about his own sexuality. And when he’s asked about Cas I do think he experiences it as a question about Misha. And, as others have said, either he’s been subtly playing Dean’s attraction to guys (including Cas) the whole time or he’s kind of lost control of himself and enabled his own attraction to men, and particularly Misha, to creep in unintentionally. (Note that I don’t think that makes him a “bad actor”; like I said, I think he acts Dean very intuitively at this point so his decisions may be unexamined but are not “bad” choices.) 

This is already long, so I’m not going to comment here on what I think of Jensen’s sexuality. Well, actually, you’ve stayed with me so long that I feel I owe it to you. The short version… I do think that Jensen isn’t straight. I think he’s a guy who thinks of himself as straight even though he sometimes hooks up with dudes. The fact that that is inherently not straight doesn’t bother him. He doesn’t think it’s a big deal (though he used to, and that panic can still get activated). He doesn’t care about the labels and he finds the idea of seeing himself in the LGBTQA acronym ridiculous. 

He and Misha may argue about this. It is, after all, a form of enormous privilege as an incredibly attractive, cis-het, white dude to just choose not to join a marginalized group. I do think that’s one reason he and especially Danneel support a lot of LGBTQA causes. (I don’t think she and Misha are straight either and I think they probably don’t self-identify that way.)

Maybe in another post I’ll go more fully into the long version of sexuality speculation. It’s such a delicate thing to do and I want to do it as respectfully as possible and I just don’t have the energy at the moment. I have written about this before, though, if you’re looking for more; I have a tag for “jensen is not straight” and (I think) “jensen is bi” although I dropped that b/c it was too definitive. There’s also one for “sexuality speculation” and “misha is not straight” and “misha is bi” (same reason for the tag change…too definitive.) 

Remember the rules, though, and keep everything respectful and confined to our own lanes.

[stalwartsandall]

Still Pretty Podcast - Chosen

So, I watched Still Pretty's Chosen video and, in true nitpicky form, I'm not going to discuss any of the host's interesting and articulate insights... I'm just gonna latch onto the bits I disagree with and gnaw at them like a rabid dog. And so, a counterpoint in two whingy parts...

Part One - Presumption of Masculine Entitlement

Here's the section I disagreed with most strongly, it's Lani's reaction to Buffy's scenes with Angel and Spike:

The possessiveness and entitlement each them feels to Buffy is beneath both of them. Angel and Buffy are not together. Spike and Buffy are not together. Buffy has promised neither of them her heart nor her fidelity. They are entitled to neither from her, nor are they entitled to explanations or excuses. The presumptive male entitlement to female minds and body is a problem in our culture, so I wanna walk through this carefully.

You know what, it's a nice, tidy, patriarchy-punishing interpretation of the text. Lani's reading paints Buffy (our hero, our icon) as a woman dealing admirably with the immature, presuming bullshit of a couple of dudes, both of whom seem to think they deserve a piece of her. And Buffy's defiant refusal to cede to masculine entitlement would be a wonderful message for the show, especially in the finale.

But it's just not the reading I get. I don't see masculine entitlement; I see three people in confusing romantic circumstances. And, if I've got to pick sides, if I'm forced to call out anyone's bad behaviour here, I'm going to call out Buffy's. Buffy is the one who ducks and obfuscates with both guys. Buffy is the one who is physically intimate with both of them and then engages in semantic gymnastics to avoid discussing that intimacy.

Let's start with Angel. Here's the full exchange:

BUFFY - If I lose, if this thing gets past Sunnydale, then it's days—maybe hours—before the rest of the world goes. I need a second front, and I need you to run it.

ANGEL - OK... that's one reason. What's the other?

BUFFY - There is no other.

ANGEL - Is it Spike? You're not telling me something. And his scent, I remember it pretty well.

BUFFY - You vampires. Did anybody ever tell you the whole smelling people thing's a little gross?

ANGEL - Is he your boyfriend?

BUFFY - Is that your business?

ANGEL - You in love with him? OK, maybe I'm outta line, but this is kind of a curve ball for me. I mean, we are talking about Spike here.

BUFFY - It's different. He's different. He has a soul now.

ANGEL - Oh. Well.

BUFFY - What?

ANGEL - That's great. (mumbling to himself) Everyone's got a soul now.

BUFFY - He'll make a difference.

ANGEL - (mumbling) You know, I started it. The whole having a soul. Before it was all the cool new thing.

BUFFY - Oh, my God. Are you 12?

ANGEL - I'm getting the brush off for Captain Peroxide. It doesn't necessarily bring out the champion in me.

BUFFY - You're not getting the brush off. Are you just gonna come here and go all Dawson on me every time I have a boyfriend?

ANGEL - Aha! (points) Boyfriend!

BUFFY - He's not. But...he is in my heart.

ANGEL - That'll end well.

Gather readers, for this will not happen often; I'm going to defend Angel. Sure he's petty and snippy, but he's not overly pushy or controlling. He asks questions and calls Buffy on her second front lie. He's jealous and a bit childish but, when Buffy tells him to leave, he grumbles good-naturedly and he leaves.

It's not entitlement to voice an opinion about Buffy's choice of boyfriend. When people we love make decisions we think are dangerous or ill-advised—like say dating a creature we know to be an amoral mass murderer—it's perfectly reasonable to question them.

Angel displays jealousy, he wants something he doesn't have, but that's not the same as being possessive. He doesn't imply that he has a right to Buffy's mind or body. The closest he gets to expressing entitlement to Buffy is this line: I'm getting the brush off for Captain Peroxide. And, to be fair to him, that's exactly what's happening. His offer of help is being rejected because Buffy's involved with Spike.

Lastly, it is not possessive nor entitled for Angel to want to know Buffy's relationship status because... he and Buffy just kissed. A kiss is obviously not a declaration of commitment nor a promise of fidelity but it sure as shit means Angel's within his rights to ask about Buffy's relationship status. She doesn't have to answer but he's allowed to ask without being labelled possessive.

Ok, let's move on, to Spike...

So, as Lani points out, Buffy and Spike are not together. They are not in a relationship. They haven't promised fidelity.

But they are in the midst of something. It's ill-defined and non-binding but it's not platonic friendship. The previous night they shared a bed. They held each other and gazed into each other's eyes. Buffy has platonic friendships with Giles and Xander; she would not have asked either one of them to take her to bed and hold her in that way.

And Buffy acknowledges that it was not simple comfort and friendship. When Spike offers to gloss over the incident, offers to strip it of meaning and significance, Buffy chases after him and stops him. She demands that he declare himself and then she tells him she was there with him that night. And she ends their conversation by suggesting that, after the battle with the First, they might discuss/identify/pursue their relationship.

And then she walks out and kisses another man.

Does she cheat on Spike? - no. Is it messy and complicated? - yes. Is Spike's momentary annoyance and jealousy an example of unreasonable entitlement? - hell no!

What's interesting is reversing the sexes of the protagonists and reviewing the chain of events:

A man is depressed, defeated, alone and afraid.

A woman (a friend, an ex, a co-worker, an ally) seeks to comfort him. She tells him she's asking for nothing in return but wants him to know the depth of her admiration for him and how wholly and unwaveringly she loves him. The man cries, is touched and grateful.

He asks the woman to share his bed. No sex, he just wants her to hold him, to comfort him, to give him strength. She does. They lie in bed; holding, stroking, gazing.

The following night they see each other again and they're uncomfortable and unsure where they stand. The woman gives the man a clear out, tells him that emotions were running high and they can dismiss the night in bed together as simply comfort.

The man says no, says he wants the truth, not mixed messages. He demands that they don't ignore the significance of the night.

The woman reluctantly lays it all out: she's in love with him and feeling utterly vulnerable, terrified that she'll be hurt.

Man says: don't be afraid; the night was meaningful for me too.

Woman says: really, what does that mean, can we define what we have?

Man says: do we have to... there's so much going on right now, maybe later. The woman says ok.

The man leaves and, within hours, passionately kisses his ex.

Then he returns to the woman and tries to downplay the kiss as 'a hello'. He dismisses the woman's jealousy as 'crap' and makes a joke about how hot it would be if the two women wrestled in oil for him.

Then he asks if they can share a bed again.

The woman is jealous and demands that she not to be whacked back and forth like a rubber ball.

Does anyone think: Ugh! How entitled is that woman! What right has she got to question the man?

Part Two - A Flat Note

This one isn't so much a gripe as a 'wow, it's amazing how divergent interpretations can be!' This is Lani's comment on Spike's sacrifice on the Hellmouth:

My only regret, that he tells Buffy she doesn't love him, when clearly she does. Spike has grown a lot over season seven and some people hate it—I know, they want their bad boy back—but to deny him this moment of growth, where he can accept love that is given and return it through his sacrifice, is a flat note.

I actually had to listen to that a couple of times because it ran so contrary to my interpretation of the scene that I initially couldn't comprehend Lani's meaning.

The thing is... I don't think it's clear that Buffy loves Spike. In fact I think it's wildly unclear. Buffy's behaviour towards Spike has always been been hugely contradictory and changeable. Her actions in the immediate lead up to the battle in the Hellmouth are especially difficult to interpret. Most tellingly, her 'I love you' is nowhere near full-throated and is ambiguous as hell.

So, I didn't read Spike's gentle 'No, you don't' as lack of character growth. In fact, to me, it felt like the exact opposite. Spike is the character who spent seasons five and six demanding that Buffy admit her attraction to him and love for him. I think it's a sign of his growth that he can (a) recognise and calmly accept her lack of love and (b) continue to love her and be willing to sacrifice himself regardless.

I am an ardent Spuffy shipper. I wanted the finale to include declarations of undying love. I wanted them to fall into each others arms and make eleventy-billion Spuffy babies.

But—based on the episode that came before—what Whedon gave us was better. It was fitting. It was true to Buffy. It was true to Spike. It was a surprise that felt entirely natural and unforced. It managed to neatly and simultaneously fulfil two seemingly contradictory statements: Cassie's 'She'll tell you' prediction in Help and Spike's 'I know you'll never love me' prediction in The Gift. Mostly though, it's an example of Spike (Love's Eternal Bitch) kindly and gently accepting his fate. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of the masculine entitlement Lani was bemoaning at the top of the episode. It's melancholy and pretty at the same time. It's many things but it's definitely not a lack of character growth.

BTW - I’m consolidating content on Tumblr at the mo; apologies to anyone getting this (and few subsequent posts) a second time.

[ljones41]

"The Meaning Behind the First Evil"

Season Seven of "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" has been a favorite of mine for years. But it has been rather unpopular with many fans of the series and television critics. And I suspect that this unpopularity may have centered around the character and main villain of Season Seven – the First Evil:

  "THE MEANING BEHIND THE FIRST EVIL" If there is one nemesis that has baffled fans of "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" during its seven seasons run, it would have to be the First Evil. This entity first made its appearance in the Season Three episode, (3.10) "Amends" and became Buffy Summer’s main nemesis in Season Seven, the last season of the series. In a nutshell, the First Evil was an incorporeal entity that manifested from all of the evil in existence. It could assume the form of any person who has died, including vampires and dead persons who have been resurrected. Because of this, it had appeared in various forms over the course of the series as a method of manipulating others. For this reason, the First had appeared as Buffy Summers to the Slayer and her allies. But it also assumed the forms of Jenny Calendar, Warren Mears, Spike, and Jonathan Levinson on multiple occasions, and a variety of other forms less frequently. It was also able to merge with a corporeal individual, as it had done with a serial killer named Caleb and provide the latter with immense strength. The First Evil’s only real weakness was that it was non-corporeal and could not inflict any real physical damage. However, it was an expert at psychological manipulation, and could act through its servants such as the Bringers, Turok-Han, Caleb or whomever it could manage to control. As I had stated earlier, the First Evil made its debut on "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" in the Season Three episode, (3.10) "Amends". It tried to drive Angel into killing Buffy by appearing to him as Jenny Calendar and other people he had murdered as a soulless vampire. The First Evil told Angel that it was responsible for his return from "Hell" and that he could end his sufferings by turning evil again. Whether or not this was true is unknown. In any event, it did not mind when Angel chose to kill himself, via a sunrise instead. Fortunately, Buffy's confrontation with the First Evil allowed her to stop Angel from committing suicide. Using Buffy’s second resurrection in the Season Six premiere - (6.01) "Bargaining, Part I" as an excuse, the First Evil returned in full force in Season Seven in an attempt to eliminate the Slayer line permanently. Using servants such as the defrocked serial killer Caleb and the Harbingers of Death (or Bringers), the First Evil not only brought about the deaths of many Potential Slayers and Watchers, it also destroyed the Watcher’s Council (no loss there) and nearly came close to killing Buffy, Faith, the Scoobies and Spike. It used both Andrew Wells and Spike to raise the Turok-Han (a race of ancient powerful vampires stronger and fiercer than the regular vampires). It manipulated Spike by using an old English folk song - "Early One Morning" - into killing again, hoping his actions would attract Buffy’ attentions. According to sources from the "All Things Philosophical on ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ and ‘Angel the Series’" and "Buffyverse Wiki" sites, the First Evil wanted to seize the opportunity to upset the balance between good and evil whenever the Slayer line was disrupted. It tried to manipulate Angel into committing suicide in "Amends" about a year-and-a-half after Buffy’s brief death and resuscitation in (1.12) "Prophecy Girl". And about a year following Buffy’s resurrection in "Bargaining", it made its move to manipulate Spike and destroy the Slayer line and upset the moral balance permanently. Many fans did not like the First Evil as Buffy’s main antagonist in Season Seven. From what I could gather from many message boards, forums and blogs; they seemed confused about the First Evil’s intentions or what it represented. Nor did they seemed impressed that it was the one Big Bad that Buffy could not destroy in a physical manner. Some fans even accused "BUFFY" creator Joss Whedon of writing himself into a corner with the creation of the First Evil. Personally, I disagree. I do not feel that Whedon had written himself into a corner by bringing the First Evil back in Season Seven. It is easier to identify a nemesis that is solid enough for someone – namely Buffy - to physically kill or fight. Nemesis like the Master, Angelus, Mayor Wilkins, Adam, Glory, Warren Mears or even Willow Rosenberg. But the First Evil was a different matter. It symbolized a continuation of the theme from Season Six - namely "You are your own worst enemy".In other words, I believe that the First Evil symbolized the spirit of Evil that existed in everyone - from Buffy to some minor demon minion or some housewife. I must be one of the few fans who actually enjoyed Season Seven. But even I had one or two issues about that particular season that did not sit right with me. One of those issues was the appearance of a supernatural being called Beljoxa's Eye in (7.11) "Showtime". Rupert Giles and Anya Jenkins visited the being to learn everything they could about the First Evil. Instead of fulfilling their wishes, the Beljoxa’s Eye told them that that the First Evil cannot be destroyed and that it made it presence known due to a disruption in the Slayer's line, which was in fact, caused by the Slayer. Both Giles and Anya concluded that Buffy’s second resurrection brought about the return of the First Evil. This did not make sense to me. One, I found it hard to believe that the First Evil existed because of Buffy’s resurrection. It had already existed before the events of "Bargaining". In fact, I believe that it had already existed before "Amends". Why? As I had stated earlier, I believe the First Evil was . . . or is the spirit of evil itself. It was all of the negative thoughts, emotions and impulses that reside within all living beings. And the late Joyce Summers hinted this during Buffy’s dream in (7.12) "Bring On the Night": BUFFY: Something evil is coming. JOYCE: Buffy, evil isn't coming, it's already here. Evil is always here. Don't you know? It's everywhere. BUFFY: And I have to stop it. JOYCE: How are you gonna do that? BUFFY: I-I don't know yet, but— JOYCE: Buffy, no matter what your friends expect of you, evil is a part of us. All of us. It's natural. And no one can stop that. No one can stop nature, not even . . . Joyce would eventually be proven right in (7.22) "Chosen", the series finale. When Buffy, Spike, Faith, the Scoobies, Robin Wood, Dawn and the Potentials battled the First Evil’s army of Turok-Han vampires inside the Hellmouth; all they did – especially Spike – was ruin the First Evil's plans to upset the balance of good and evil in the mortal world. In my personal opinion, that imbalance already existed before Buffy’s first death in "Prophecy Girl". It never made any sense to me that a balance between good and evil had been maintained by the presence of one Slayer against a slew of vampires, demons and other forms supernatural evil for centuries. I suspect that the First Evil saw the presence of more than one Slayer and a vampire with a soul as a threat to that imbalance. Like many others, the First Evil believed that only one Slayer should exist. And as I had earlier stated, I found this belief rather ridiculous and I am glad that Buffy proved that it did not have to be so at the end of the series. Would the Watcher’s Council or the African shamans who had first created the Slayer line approve of the idea of more than one Slayer in existence? I rather doubt it. I suspect that they may have feared the idea of dealing with more than one Slayer . . . or even more than two. I suspect that controlling the Slayer or wielding her as a weapon mattered more to the shamans and the Watcher’s Council than the idea of more than one warrior against the forces of Evil. And I would not be surprised if the First Evil – or their own inner darkness – prevented them from considering this possibility. And I believe that is what the First Evil represented in Buffy’s story – the inner evil or negativity that she, her sisters and friends all harbored within themselves . . . and which they had to learn to acknowledge. Buffy’s conversation with the vampire sired by Spike – Holden Webster – forced her to face and acknowledge her own negative traits. By (7.15) "Get It Done", she also realized that her two most powerful allies – Willow and Spike – needed to face their own personal demons as well: BUFFY: The First isn't impressed. It already knows us. It knows what we can do, and it's laughing. You want to surprise the enemy? Surprise yourselves. Force yourself to do what can't be done, or else we are not an army - we're just a bunch of girls waiting to be picked off and buried. (Spike stands and walks toward the door) Where are you going? SPIKE: Out. Since I'm neither a girl, nor waiting. All this speechifying doesn't really apply to me, does it? (walks away) BUFFY: (calls after him) Fine. Take a cell phone. That way, if I need someone to get weepy or whaled on, I can call you. SPIKE: (turns to Buffy) If you've got something to say - BUFFY: Just said it. You keep holding back, you might as well walk out that door. SPIKE: Holding back? You're blind. I've been here, right in it - fighting, scrapping... BUFFY: Since you got your soul back? SPIKE: Well, as a matter of fact, I haven't quite been relishing the kill the way I used to. BUFFY: You were a better fighter then. SPIKE: I did this for you. The soul, the changes - it's what you wanted. BUFFY: What I want is the Spike that's dangerous. The Spike that tried to kill me when we met. SPIKE (angrily): Oh, you don't know how close you are to bringing him out. BUFFY: I'm nowhere near him. The above conversation was one of the most interesting I have ever come across during the series’ seven seasons run. A vampire Slayer – someone considered the epitome of "goodness and light" – encouraging a former killer to face that darkness that made him such an effective killer. She even gave a similar speech to Willow, who as "Darth Willow" nearly came close to destroying the world in the Season Six finale, (6.22) "Grave". Many fans had thought Buffy may have lost her mind. I understood what Buffy was trying to say. During Season Seven, Spike and Willow had spent most of it wallowing in guilt over certain acts they had committed in Season Six. I could probably say the same about Buffy. Like Spike and Willow, she learned to face her past treatment of the blond vampire in the episode, (7.08) "Conversations with Dead People". But duties and the re-emergence of the First Evil made her realize that she had no time to wallow in her guilt. Her rants against Spike and Willow in "Get It Done" expressed her own impatience with their guilt and tendencies to hold themselves back in fear of releasing the inner evil that made them fearsome. She forced both the vampire and the red-haired witch to realize that they can only be fully effective by learning to face their personal demons . . . and controlling it. By facing the many aspects of their nature, Spike and Willow could learn to develop as individuals. The First Evil’s activities forced Buffy to develop in another path. She had to start learning how to evolve beyond her inferiority/superiority complex and learn to connect with others . . . when the situation demanded. Thanks to her former Watcher, Rupert Giles, she tried to use this aloofness to become an authority figure to the many Potential Slayers that had arrived on her doorstep. She also had to learn not to allow her insecurities and fear (traits that originated from the negativity within) of being alone to give others like her former Watcher Rupert Giles and even her friends a chance to dictate her actions and behavior. Like Spike and Willow, she had to learn to become her own person. She had to stop being afraid to connect with others and at the same time, allowing them to dictate her behavior. In the end, I found Season Seven to be very complex and mature on a level that may have eluded certain viewers. Before the season first began, Whedon and Mutant Enemy had announced that the series would take viewers back to how it used to be during the earlier seasons. And perhaps that was what they had been looking forward to . . . simply recapturing the past. Season Seven did just that . . . but with a twist. The season reminded viewers that no one can recapture the past. Not really. In a way, Spike and Willow tried to recapture their former selves – the mild-mannered Victorian gentleman and the shy computer geek. And Buffy, at Giles’ orders, tried to enforce her authority upon the Potential Slayers as the Watchers’ Council had done to her in the past. Even the fans got into the act. They wanted Whedon to take this season back to what "BUFFY" used to be, failing to realize that would never happen. Buffy and the Scoobies could never go back to being what they used to be. Too much had changed for them over the years. They had changed. And so had the series. Not only did Buffy and the Scoobies' conflict with the First Evil - namely their own inner demons - made them realize they could not recapture their past. They may have learned something else. Battling the First Evil was like battling a part of themselves. And in battling themselves, they ended up battling their worst enemy. By allowing the characters to do so, Whedon continued the theme that had been prevalent throughout the series’ run . . . namely growing up.