#he isn’t Buffy’s equal in their relationship the way Angel is

[petpluto]

I think it’s narratively interesting - if sad - how Angel leaves Buffy to give her a chance to have a full life, and she becomes progressively more isolated - even from her best friends and family - as the series goes on; whereas Angel, who has been isolated except for his relationship with Buffy for decades, gains a found family with multiple levels of emotional connection and growth after he leaves.

In all honesty, while I will always love Angel and Buffy and Angel’s relationship, it’s one of my aggravations with his reasoning for leaving. If he’d left because the relationship was hurting *him* (and I believe in some ways it was, at that point), I would think it was tragic and beautiful. But leaving for *her*, ignoring her wants and needs and removing one of the few people Buffy truly felt comfortable opening up to and being vulnerable with, ends with Buffy having fewer options in her emotional tool belt and feeling as if she is the part of their relationship that was the freak show.

Buffy felt comfortable opening up completely to Angel because Angel makes it clear to Buffy that he loves her, all of her, always, in ways her other long term emotional support pillars don’t always manage to articulate (even if they feel the same). She’s Xander’s hero, and Xander *can* and has been judgmental, so she’s not always comfortable being vulnerable in all aspects of her life with him. She and Willow are close, and Willow isn’t judgmental, but it does seem like Buffy feels the need to be alright for her, especially when she’s spiraling in season 6. She doesn’t want any emotions she has from Willow’s actions to hurt *Willow*, and she prioritizes protecting Willow over being honest with her. Dawn is her dependent. And Giles? She opens up to him and he leaves anyway.

And I think in a majority of these situations, Buffy would be better off being honest - or, in the case of Dawn, more if not entirely honest - with her loved ones. Xander can be judgmental, but he makes it clear in season 5’s Intervention that he can be empathetic and kind, and that his primary concern when it comes to Buffy is Buffy’s health and happiness. Willow is going through her own problems in season 6; but in general, she is also open and empathetic and kind, and her primary concern when it comes to Buffy is also her health and happiness. Buffy puts up these walls because she feels responsible for her friends’ emotional responses, and I do think part of that is her feelings of guilt stemming from her parents’ divorce ( her ‘father’s’ monologue in Nightmares is both horrific and a bit funny); and then Angelus’ murders; and then Angel’s and Riley’s (and then Giles’) exits from her life. Because the people she’s opened up to leave, she becomes convinced that she loses people when she shows them her imperfections and her flaws and her hurts.

Angel gains friends and family once he leaves Sunnydale. He doesn’t always open up to them, and he makes a lot of questionable decisions, but his world expands considerably post-break up. I love that for him. And it’s not on him or his issue to fix, either, but I do ache for Buffy that her circles get smaller and seem more brittle as the seasons go on.

[coraniaid]

People online (still) get very worked up about Xander’s Lie (which was, obviously, a terrible thing to do that the show never really properly addresses afterwards) and people get very worked up about Joyce telling Buffy not to come back home if she leaves the house (which was, obviously, a terrible thing to do that the show never properly addresses afterwards).  But I don’t think I’ve seen many people bring up the fact that Willow decides to try to “cure” Angel again unilaterally, despite the fact that Buffy has given her absolutely no hint she wants her to keep trying and instead actually suggested she was happier not to try again.  Which, I think, was also a pretty terrible thing to do that the show never really properly addresses afterwards.

I mean, this is the last conversation they have about it –  almost the very last thing they say to each other before Buffy leaves town for months:

Willow: I’m sorry I didn’t get to cure Angel.  Buffy: Don’t be.  It just wasn’t meant to be.  I know I’m never gonna get him back the way he was.  It just makes it easier. Willow: I guess…

And next scene, we cut to Willow in the hospital.  “I wanna try again.” she says.

Buffy certainly doesn’t say anything to suggest that she wants Willow to try the spell again (the spell that was originally a curse, but that I guess the show has now decided is a cure).  She actually says literally the opposite: that Willow shouldn’t be sorry the spell didn’t work, and that this makes things easier for Buffy.  It’s better this way, Buffy tells her.

And Willow tries the spell again anyway.

And what’s great about this – and what’s great about Xander’s Lie and Joyce finding out about Buffy being a Slayer and reacting terribly to it – is that it’s all somehow inevitable.  It all happens as the logical consequence of who these people are.  Not because they’re terrible people (although … okay, the Season 2 iteration of Xander often is), but as the natural extrapolation of how their relationship with Buffy has worked since the beginning of the show.

Xander’s been vocal about his hatred of vampires in general since The Harvest and he’s been jealous of Angel in particular for almost as long as that.  And there’s a very clear throughline in this season especially that Xander feels powerless (in ways that the next season will explore further) and so keeps trying to make his friends’ decisions for them (as called out in Phases, for example, where Xander isn’t happy about Willow dating Oz and tells Buffy “if it were up to me…” only for her to point out that it isn’t).  

And now, at the end of the season, Xander gets the chance to make a big decision on one of his friends behalf, and – because he hates vampires, and he hates Angel in particular, and he doesn’t think Buffy is being objective about Angel, and he can persuade himself that he’s really doing the right thing – of course he takes it.  Of course he makes the decision that Buffy should kill Angel for her.

And crucially, I don’t think the show is ever claiming that he’s right to do this: only that it’s part of what makes him himself that he would be tempted do this.  (The brief shot of Xander looking conflicted we get right after the Lie suggests that Xander too on some level realizes he has done something he shouldn’t have.)

Equally it’s been a fundamental part of Buffy’s relationship with her mother that they cannot find common ground to communicate since at least Season 1’s Witch.  I certainly don’t think we’re actually meant to view Joyce as a bad mother (except, maybe, when Marti Noxon is writing her) but of course the fact she doesn’t know anything about Buffy’s calling means that she’s missing out on a large part of her daughter’s life. She really doesn't know what Buffy's going through.  And, as such, she often ends up punishing her or criticizing her for things when she certainly shouldn’t be .  We know too that Buffy has wanted to tell her mom about being a Slayer, either subconsciously or explicitly, since almost the beginning of the show.  But she was persuaded – by Giles, by her friends, by her own fears of what would happen – that this would be a mistake.

(Wrongly, I think, but we’ll get to that in another post or maybe later in the rewatch.)

And so now, at the worst possible time, Buffy finally has to open up to her mother about being a Slayer.  She can’t maintain the lie anymore.  And because she’s already having one of the worst days of her life – because her friend is dead and her Watcher has been abducted and she’s been forced to accept (again) that she’s going to have to kill her boyfriend – and because she has to leave right now and there isn’t time to explain – her fears about how badly this could go all come true.  Of course Joyce will say the wrong thing.  Of course Buffy and her mother will once again fail to communicate.

Despite the fandom caricature, Joyce doesn’t immediately respond to Buffy coming out as a Slayer by kicking her out of the house.  She wants Buffy to explain what this all means, to sit down and talk her through things instead of immediately rushing off to risk her life ("I am your mother, and you will make time to explain yourself").  In other words, she wants Buffy to do exactly what Buffy herself has been tempted to do all season.  And yes, in the moment Buffy finds this frustrating and yes, she hasn’t got time to do any of this now with the fate of the world at stake.  Buffy isn't doing anything wrong by not explaining herself. But Joyce by definition can’t know all this, precisely because nobody has ever explained things to her.  And it’s only at the very last, when all her efforts to communicate have failed, when Buffy’s about to leave, that Joyce says something she can’t take back.

Again, crucially, I think we’re meant to understand here that Joyce is in the wrong – and that she knows she’s in the wrong, almost as soon as she says it.   (Yes, Dead Man’s Party downplays this idea, but a key factor to consider in any analysis of Buffy’s third season is that Dead Man’s Party is not a well-written episode.)

And Willow?  Well, Willow just wants to help.  That’s been a defining part of her character for a long time too, going all the way back to Welcome to the Hellmouth.  It’s how she relates to Xander (her introduction to the show is her agreeing to help Xander study for math class) and it’s how she initially tries to relate to Buffy too (“I could totally help you out!” she says, as soon as she realizes that Buffy might want to spend any time with her).   It’s why she’s been helping with research in the library for two seasons (“I do want to help,” she tells Buffy at the start of The Harvest, “I need to”).  It’s why she agreed to take over Jenny Calendar’s computer science classes.  It will continue to be a key part of her characterisation for the next five seasons.  It’s why she stays in Sunnydale after high school.  It’s how she defends her increasing abuse of magic to Tara in Season 6.  Willow wants to be helpful.  Willow wants to be noticed.  Willow wants to show that she can do something important.

Hence that moment in Becoming.  Willow’s sorry that she “didn’t get” to cure Angel.  That she didn’t get to prove her worth to somebody that she cares about; that she doesn’t get to show the world how clever and talented that she is.  Buffy tells her not to be sorry, but Willow doesn’t really listen to her friend’s answer.  Her sense of what she should do “to be helpful” is too strong for that.  So of course Willow curses him again.  What else could she do, and still be Willow?

And of course it doesn’t help.

[variousqueerthings]

Daniel LaRusso: A Queer Feminine Fairytale Analysis Part Two of Three

Part 1

Part 3

6. Sexual Awakenings part 1: Love, Obsession, & Size Differences

[Insert that post talking about the creators making sure that Daniel’s antagonists were much bigger than him so that the audience would sympathise, spawning 10000 size kink fics]

I’m sure this won’t awaken anything in Daniel

Corporate wants you to find the difference between these two pictures

The hallmark of feminine fairytales tends to be growing into womanhood, with all those symbolic sexual under/overtones, searching for a prince, encountering monsters (or evil stepmothers), on the surface tending to be quite passive/reactive, but actually being about young girls and women getting out of their environment and choosing to tussle with those deep, dark desires – monsters. They’ve got to function within the limitations of power that they have – escaping an abusive situation through marriage, chasing forbidden desires under the guise of duress, asking questions about sexuality through things like symbolic plucking (flowers) or consumption (fruit) or pricking (needles), etc.

Daniel isn’t striking out to find his fortune or win a girl or a kingdom Like A Man, he’s not a threat to Silver, who – like Jareth in Labyrinth – is in control for almost the whole of the narrative, he’s not actually able to do much more than react until he makes the decision to stop training, and even then he’s immediately ganged up on and assaulted, needing to be saved by Miyagi while he stands and watches, bloodied and bruised. 

Daniel’s journey in the third movie is to be forced into an impossible situation, seduced by Silver, and then prove that whatever violence Silver did to him isn’t enough to destroy him. It is incredibly similar to Sarah’s in Labyrinth, who by the end declares: “you have no power over me,” and that’s her winning moment. Not strength, not wits, not a direct fight, (although Daniel does fight Barnes and gets beat up again – only winning in in the end by taking him by surprise, unlike in TKK1 or TKK2 where you could argue that he proves himself to be a capable physical opponent to Johnny and Chozen), but by declaring that whatever power was held over her is now void.

Daniel’s narrative isn’t satisfying in the same way, because the dynamic of Silver and Daniel only accidentally emulates this - it’s not an intention on the side of the film-makers.

When Miyagi tells Daniel that he has strong roots, when he tells him not to lose to fear and Daniel wins over Barnes (in an almost fairytale-esque set of events), on paper he’s defeated whatever hold Terry Silver has over him. In the film itself though, Daniel never defeats Silver (which will likely be confirmed once he returns in Season Four). Daniel cannot simply say “you have no power over me,” and see Silver shattered into glass shards. 

The film is a contradiction: It wants to be a masculine sports film, but it exists in the same realm as Goblin Kings seducing young girls with the promise of: “Just fear me, love me, do as I say, and I will be your slave.” Unlike Sarah, Daniel doesn’t claim the power that’s been promised to him on his own terms. His subtextually sexual awakening is so corrupted that all he can do is pretend it never happened.

Still, Daniel proves in the film that his strength is not in his fists. It’s in his praying to the bonsai tree that’s healed despite a violent boy brutally tearing it in two.

These looks on Daniel and Silver though?

So why does Silver become obsessed with him? What’s up with all those red outfits (that he doesn’t wear in Cobra Kai)? What does the temptation reveal about Daniel? How does it recontextualise TKK1 and TKK2? Is Daniel bisexual? (yes).

Ah, beach-Daniel, in your red hoodie and your cut-off jorts. Iconic hot-girl summer vibes. 

If you didn’t want me over-analysing this, you shouldn’t have put him in so many red outfits and then have this man leering at him like he wants to eat him alive.

Surface-level it’s not hard to read into a Dude Story: Masculine power fantasies are about strength in a very direct way. Fighting, control, suaveness – and if you’re not the most traditionally masculine of guys, asserting dominance through being a good lover or intelligent or overcoming that unmanliness in some way through beating the bully or convincing the hot girl to go out with you, levelling up in coolness. Being A Man. It’s not too dissimilar from Daniel’s arc in the first movie, if you watch it without taking later events into account, although Daniel is never interested in proving himself as a man, and more in making Miyagi proud. Still, he does win and gain respect, and arguably “get the girl,” although Ali’s interest in him was never dependent on the fight.

7. Sexual Awakenings Part 2: Sexual Assault, Liberation, and Queerness

Feminine power fantasies are often about sex. Metaphorically. More accurately it’s “owning sexuality.” Even more accurately: “Freedom.” They also inhabit a fluid space in which empowerment through monstrous desires and non-consent can happen at the same time. And on top of that, many of these “fantasies” are actually being written by men, so whose fantasy is it really? A lot of them are based in oral traditions so presumably they were originally from the mouths of women, even if modern iterations (starting with Grimm’s collections) are filtered through cis men’s perspectives.

All of that being acknowledged: In Angela Carter’s “The Company Of Wolves,” Red Riding Hood unambiguously sleeps with the wolf. Belle discovers her freedom from expectations and unsuitable suitors (and in some versions, evil stepsisters) by falling in love with a Beast (the original novel was written by a woman, the 18th century Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve). Jareth informs Sarah of his obsessive devotion to her in Labyrinth. To lean into horror for a moment – Buffy is stalked and eventually has relationships with both Angel and Spike, Lucy in Coppola’s Dracula (which I have mixed feelings about) is raped by the werewolf and Mina is stalked by Dracula, The Creature Of The Black Lagoon kidnaps Kay (the lead’s girlfriend) – subverted in both The Shape Of Water in which Eliza forms a consensual relationship with the amphibious sea-god and in the short-lived horror series Swamp Thing, in which the connection is purposefully framed as seductive…

and in The Karate Kid Part Three Daniel LaRusso punches a board until his hands bleed because an attractive, older man tells him to and in this moment he gives in to what he (thinks he) wants.

Not all of those examples are equal. Some are consensual, some are hinted as abusive and/or stalkery, all of them have large age gaps, and a few are outright non-consensual.

But they’re all fantasies.

They’re all power-fantasies.

Except for Daniel, because he’s a man and the idea that being obsessed (lusted) over by an older man who keeps you in his thrall, specifically because you tickle his fancy for whatever reason, because you’re beautiful, breakable, different – could in any way be considered empowering is a difficult concept to wrap your head around. It doesn’t contain that “but I’m a good girl, I’d never go off the path and pluck flowers if a bad wolf told me to, honest,” societal context or the social context of rape culture. It’s closest comparison is closeted (perhaps even unknown until that point) queer identity.

There have recently been some comparisons of Daniel LaRusso to Bruce Bechdel in Funhome (and everyone who says that Ralph Macchio ought to play him in the upcoming movie: you’re right and I’m just not going to enjoy it as much without him). I’ve written a post about Sam being the heir to his legacy and trauma, specifically as a queercoded man. It’s not dissimilar to the plot of Funhome in a lot of ways.

The other interesting source that’s been going around in connection with Daniel is the essay “The Rape of James Bond,” which discusses the use of sexual assault as a plot device for women and not for men: “About one in every 33 men [in the US] is raped. … [your statistically average, real life man] … doesn’t have a horde of enemies explicitly dedicated to destroying him. He doesn’t routinely get abducted, and tied up. Facing a megalomaniac psychopath gloating over causing him pain […] is not the average man’s average day at the office.” That last bit is just a descriptor of Terry Silver, (although I take issue at the blasé use of psychopath).

The two part youtube essay  Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs posits that there is nothing more de-masculinising than the threat of sexual assault and therefore any narrative that features this “rightfully” must mock any man who has been a victim or who fears being a victim of sexual assault. It is feminising. There is nothing more humiliating – and therefore unheroic – than a man dealing with sexual assault.

So what do we feel when we see an attractive young man being put into a vulnerable position by an older man? A trope associated with female characters, a trope that is considered unpalatable for men (see reactions that happened when the hint of sexual assault was introduced in Skyfall).

Was it the fact that he was being threatened, or the fact that James’ next line is: “what makes you think this is my first time?”

Some thoughts added by @mimsyaf​ are around the idea of safety in how a lot of cis women might relate to this narrative through Daniel’s eyes. He’s not a woman, he has – societally – more power than a girl or woman would have, which makes this a different watch to, say, if Danielle were to go through the same narrative. Daniel doesn’t carry that baggage of rape culture, or of the male gaze that you might find in a similar scenario of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Christine in Phantom of the Opera (and once more the age differences between these characters and the men who love/lust over them are substantial), which makes the narrative “safer” to engage with.

I agree with that, although as a transmasc person I also come at it differently. I specifically like to headcanon Daniel as a trans guy and find his fraught interactions with masculinity through his own non-toxic lens relatable, as well as the way other boys and men react to it – also I think Terry Silver is hot. I know there are people who write Terry Silver with female OCs, which is also a form of empowerment.

On the flipside putting Daniel in this space runs a risk of fetishising him as a queer youth who is either Innocent and Pure, or a bisexual stereotype that deserves to be assaulted for not being a real man. After all, Real Straight Men don’t run the risk of sexual assault.

 Alas, the road to empowerment never did run smooth. 

The comparisons between the way Daniel is treated by the text and how female characters are often treated in texts are undoubtedly there. Through Ralph Macchio and TIG’s casting and the direction and acting, but also within the text itself. 

It might not be with the same purpose as Neo’s symbolically trans journey, but it puts the whole narrative that Daniel’s going through from TKK1 under a different light than if there had only been one movie that ended on a triumphant sports win and a girlfriend.

Johnny’s masculinity and the use of tears as liberation, now that’s a whole other analysis….

[nileqt87]

How I’d write a Buffy/Angel spinoff!

I still say the best spinoff they could possibly ever make would be all the Chosen Slayers getting deactivated, then Buffy and a Shanshu'd Angel (IMO, this plot really would only work with Angel, because it actually matches his story arc, not Spike's, to want a human life and fatherhood) have a daughter who grows up not knowing the truth about her parents (and half-brother!) until it's forced to come out.

I would particularly note that the first thing that happens to newly-called Slayers is their prophetic dreams. If ever there was a way to start breaking secrets to this new heroine that also serves as flashback exposition featuring the old shows, this seems custom-built for it. It’s exposition for the audience that never saw the old shows as well as an introduction to a key Slayer ability, but most importantly, it’s personal family revelations that go far deeper than historical flashbacks of unrelated persons or monsters that mean nothing personal. These would be scandalous secrets for a baby Slayer, given Buffy was the rule-breaking Slayer who is most famous for having romantic relationships with the very creatures she’s supposed to slay. Angelus would be the worst family secret of all! This story has all the makings of an existential crisis before acceptance. That would also be a good place to drop in Connor’s history. Buffy never actually got to react to that bombshell either, so that would be an interesting drama with her, as well. Buffy and Angel both tended to feature heavily in prophetic dreams, so it also just feels right to continue that.

If there's some reason why David Boreanaz (who, let's face it, is really not getting younger and SEAL Team can't go on forever) can't or is unwilling to appear, one could have an explanation that Wolfram & Hart has had him trapped in a holding dimension for years as punishment.

You could even build an arc around that with Buffy or the daughter trying to find him. Basically, a kind way of explaining Angel's absence if necessary and Buffy unfortunately having to mirror her single mother (which was a fear of hers), despite it being no fault of Angel's. It would be yet more cruelty for him to miss out on yet another child growing up, which would be a dramatic plot point itself. It could actually become a story where he does matter quite a lot, despite initial absence or mystery.

An even bigger shock than mom having Slayer superpowers and a world full of supernatural forces would be a reveal that dad is a 394+-year-old (depends on if you count hell--in a modern-day spinoff, Angel is rapidly approaching 400 years!) ex-vampire.

The most interesting and fitting story you could ever do with a maturing Buffy would be having her be a mother and trying to have a normal life.

This would also give Sarah Michelle Gellar a starring role that allows her to be age-appropriate, yet also having a younger generation that the original audience can still care about because she isn't completely divorced from the two previous shows in the way that an unrelated Slayer spinoff would be. It allows the core storylines of *both* shows to truly matter, far more than a Buffy Steele-Gunn offspring would.

---

Just a a few notes about my pitch for a continuation that works with the real ages of actors and their availability... I should also note that Xander (played by Nick, anyway--Kelly might work for a flashback) is a character who could never appear in live-action again, so maybe he could be used as another event that contributed to Buffy's retirement besides pregnancy.

If the Shanshu and conception were directly post-NFA, any offspring would be 16 years old right now. IMO, if there were any plans to give SMG a series with her in a major supporting role, this just means that the space for how long between NFA and the Shanshu or how long Bangel got to be with each other widens for however many years it would take to revive the franchise.

I strongly believe that the best option for the franchise would be a back-to-the-suburbs story exploring age-appropriate Buffy facing motherhood, rather than trying to turn Buffy into a war general surrounded by nothing but subordinates (horribly alienating future for her) with a lack of equals or a grounded setting à la the season 8 comics. If you want to introduce the Buffyverse to a new audience whom you can't expect to watch 24-year-old shows until they're interested enough by the revival, you're going to have to ground characters in a relatable reality.

As for how a new Slayer would be called after deactivation, I firmly believe the line is through Faith now anyway, so it would just take her dying for a minute à la Prophecy Girl for a new Slayer to be called. I would definitely want Faith in the show!

--- Facebook discussion

I feel like SMG's concern was less wanting to reprise the role entirely, but more concern that she'd be expected to play the same exact role in her 40s. This is giving her a role that fits a woman (and a mother in real life) who is in her 40s and is a major supporting role rather than he young lead whose story is being centered on.

As for the Angel situation, SMG might actually be more willing to return if she could beg DB to come back for perhaps an initially-limited role and the scenario is one I believe she'd actually support, as it fits with her preferences!

While it might seem that Buffy as a single mother retreads the original, Angel is obviously nothing like the Hank situation (not to mention Joyce and Hank being completely clueless), so the circumstances of the father would be quite different from Buffy's own situation, while also feeding into her own stated fears about her future.

This also brings up all the conversations in Bad Eggs, The Prom and the Chosen cookie dough analogy (children are mentioned again) to the forefront. Unlike with the other options, it was something that came up repeatedly. Admittedly, it was always by Angel due to his infertility and the human life he most desired; all of which ended up being an important part of *his* story.

However, a part of Bad Eggs that is woefully underrated is that Buffy was disappointed when Angel told her vampires can't have children. She immediately covers it up with a babble speech and then starts making excuses for why Slayers are unlikely to have that kind of future. Young Buffy did not disregard it because she didn't want children ever at all, but because the person whom she saw that future with was someone who couldn't have them.

Enter Nikki Wood, where Buffy learns that at least one Slayer was definitely a mother, which she was clearly surprised by.

That's another reason why I can see Buffy, if she got her hopes up with post-Shanshu Angel and conceived, would do anything to be a good mom by not being all about "the mission". She would never want her child to be raised without parents. And I think she'd be doubly sensitive to that, not just because of Nikki, but because of Hank leaving and Joyce dying.

Buffy also became surrogate mother to Dawn, who was made out of her (in a sense, she is her real mother), so Angel's situation with Connor actually had a direct mirror in Buffy's situation with Dawn.

But those conversations were also not just about wished-for children that couldn't be conceived, but also asking Buffy to think about what she wants for her future if she took out the belief that Slayers don't live long enough to have one.

This show would be the answer to what happens to a Slayer when she does live long enough to have the future she barely wanted to get her hopes up for before.

Buffy (ditto Angel) is the character for which this story actually has a ton of setup in the shows themselves. These characters talked about it! And the circumstances are really nothing like Joyce and Hank, even if the initial setup plays into both Buffy and Angel's worst nightmare scenarios about parenthood: being a single mother and not getting to raise the miracle child you thought you'd never have. That kind of bittersweet writing that shirks too-good-to-be-true wish-fulfillment is a cornerstone of what makes it a Buffyverse storyline. If the daughter's family lied to her about their history to keep her safe and protect her from knowing what goes bump in the night (making them the polar opposites of Hank and Joyce in regards to knowing all too well--especially Angel's experience of being the worst thing you could bump into at night, rather than utterly clueless), that would certainly be a conflict. Especially if she found out in a particularly shocking way (say, prophetic dreams). And if Angel (I'd like to imagine he has the company of ghost!Wesley and maybe Illyria and Spike) has been taken for punishment by Wolfram & Hart, it might really confuse her if she doesn't know that he didn't just leave or some other excuse Buffy covered it up with. Wolfram & Hart would also probably love the irony of Angel getting what he most desires (to be human and a father), only to punish him with it by wasting his remaining years separated from all that he loves.

[killianmesmalls]

On your comments about Jack: ye-es, in the sense that Jack is a character who definitely deserved better than he was treated by the characters. The way Dean especially treats him reflects very badly on Dean, no question. But, speaking as a viewer, I think the perspective needs to shift a little bit.

To me, Jack is Dawn from Buffy, or Scrappy Doo. He’s an (in my opinion) irritating kid who is introduced out of nowhere to be both super vulnerable and super OP, and the jeopardy is centered around him in a way that has nothing to do with his actual character or relationships. He’s mostly around to be cute and to solve or create problems — he never has any firm character arcs or goals of his own, nor any deeper purpose in the meta narrative. In this way, he’s a miss for SPN, which focuses heavily on conflicts as metaphors for real life.

Mary fits so much better in that framework, and introducing her as a developed, flawed person works really well with the narrative. It is easy for us to care about Mary, both as the dead perfect mother on the pedestal and as the flawed, human woman who could not live up to her sons’ expectations. That connection is built into the core of SPN, and was developed over years, even before she was a character. When she was added, she was given depth and nuance organically, and treated as a flawed, complex character rather than as a plot device or a contrivance. She was given a voice and independence, and became a powerful metaphor for developing new understandings of our parents in adulthood, as well as an interesting and well-rounded character. You care that she’s dead, not just because Sam and Dean are sad, but for the loss of her development and the potential she offered. So, in that sense, I think a lot of people were frustrated that she died essentially fridged for a second time, and especially in service of the arc of a weaker character.

And like, you’re right, no one can figure out if Jack is a toddler or a teenager. He’s both and he’s neither, because he’s never anything consistently and his character arc is always “whatever the plot needs it to be.” Every episode is different. Is he Dean’s sunny opportunity to be a parent and make up for his dad’s shitty parenting? Yes! Is he also Dean’s worst failure and a reminder that he has done many horrible things, including to “innocent” children? Yes! Is he Cas’s child? Yes! Is he Dean’s child? Yes! But also, no! Is he Sam’s child? Yes! Is he a lonely teenager who does terrible things? Yes! Is he a totally innocent little lamb who doesn’t get why what he is doing is wrong? Yes! Is he the most powerful being in the universe? Yes! Does he need everyone to take care of him? Yes! Is he just along for the ride? Yes! Is he responsible for his actions? Kinda??? Sometimes??? What is he???

Mary as a character is narratively cohesive and fleshed-out. Jack is a mishmash of confusing whatever’s that all add up to a frustrating plot device with no consistent traits to latch on to. Everything that fans like about him (cute outfits, gender play, well-developed parental bonds with the characters) is fanon. So, yes, the narrative prioritizes Mary. Many fans prioritize Mary, at least enough that Dean’s most heinous acts barely register. To the narrative (not to Cas, which is a totally different situation), Jack is only barely more of a character than Emma Winchester, who Sam killed without uproar seasons earlier. He’s been around longer, but he’s equally not really real.

I debated on responding to this because, to tell the truth, I think we fundamentally disagree on a number of subjects and, as they say, true insanity is arguing with anyone on the internet. However, you spent a lot of time on the above and I feel it's only fair to say my thoughts, even if I don't believe it will sway you any more than what you said changed my opinions.

I'm assuming this was in response to this post regarding how Jack's accidental killing of Mary was treated so severely by the brothers, particularly Dean, because it was Mary and, had it been a random character like the security guard in 13x06, it would have been treated far differently. However, then the argument becomes less about the reaction of the Winchester brothers to this incident and more the value of Jack or Mary to the audience.

I believe we need to first admit that both characters are inherently archetypes—Mary as the Madonna character initially then, later, as a metaphor for how imperfect and truly human our parents are compared to the idol we have as children, and Jack as the overpowered child who is a Jesus allegory by the end. Both have a function within the story to serve the Winchester brothers, through whose lens and with whose biases we are meant to view the show's events. We also need to admit that the writers didn't think more than a season ahead for either character, especially since it wasn't initially supposed to be Mary that came back at the end of season 11 but John, and they only wrote enough for Jack in season 13 to gauge whether or not the audience would want him to continue on or if he needed to be killed off by the end of the season. Now, I know we curate our own experiences online which leads to us being in our own fandom echo chambers, however it is important to note that the character was immediately successful enough with the general audience that, after his first episode or two, he was basically guaranteed a longer future on the show.

I have to admit, I’m not entirely sure why the perspective of how his character is processed by some audience members versus others has any bearing on the argument that he deserved to be treated better overall by the other characters especially when taking their own previous actions in mind. I’m not going to tell you that your opinion is wrong regarding your feelings for Jack. It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, it harms no one to have it and express it. My feelings on Jack are clearly very different from your own, but this is really just two different people who processed a fictional person in different ways. I personally believe he has a purpose in the Winchesters’ story, including Castiel’s, as he reflects certain aspects of all of them, gives them a way to explore their own histories through a different perspective, and changes the overall dynamic of Team Free Will from “soldiers in arms” to a family (Misha’s words). In the beginning he allows Sam to work through his past as the “freak” and powerful, dangerous boy wonder destined to bring hell on earth. With Dean, his presence lets Dean work through his issues with John and asks whether he will let history repeat itself or if he’ll work to break the cycle. Regarding Cas, in my opinion he helps the angel reach his “final form” of a father, member of a family, lover and protector of humanity, rebellious son, and the true show of free will. 

From strictly the story, he has several arcs that work within themes explored in Supernatural, such as the argument of nature versus nurture, the question of what we’re willing to give up in order to protect something or someone else and how ends justify the means, and the struggle between feeling helpless and powerless versus the corruptive nature of having too much power and the dangerous lack of a moral compass. His goals are mentioned and on display throughout his stint on the show, ones that are truly relatable to some viewers: the strong desire to belong—the need for family and what you’ll do to find and keep it. 

With Mary, we first need to establish whether the two versions of her were a writing flaw due to the constant change in who was dictating her story and her relationship to the boys, which goes against the idea that her characterization was cohesive and fleshed-out but, rather, put together when needed for convenience, or if they both exist because, as stated above, we are seeing the show primarily through the biased lens of the Winchester brothers and come to face facts about the true Mary as they do. Like I said in my previous post, I don’t dislike Mary and I don’t blame her for her death (either one). However, I do have a hard time seeing her as a more nuanced, fleshed-out character than Jack. True, a lot of her problems are more adult in nature considering she has to struggle with losing her sons’ formative years and meeting them as whole adults she knows almost nothing about, all because of a choice she made before they were born. 

However, her personal struggles being more “mature” in nature (as they center primarily on parental battles) doesn’t necessarily mean her story has layers and Jack’s does not. They are entirely different but sometimes interconnected in a way that adds to both of their arcs, like Mary taking Jack on as an adoptive son which gives her the moments of parenting she lost with Sam and Dean, and Jack having Mary as a parental figure who understands and supports him gives him that sense of belonging he had just been struggling with to the point of running away while he is also given the chance to show “even monsters can do good”. 

I’d also argue that Jack being many ages at once isn’t poor writing so much as a metaphor for how, even if you’re forced to grow up fast, that doesn’t mean you’re a fully equipped adult. I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but I believe Jack simultaneously taking a lot of responsibility and constantly trying to prove to others he’s useful while having childish moments is relatable to some who were forced to play an adult role at a young age. He proves a number of times that he doesn’t need everyone to take care of him, but he also has limited life experience and, as such, will make some mistakes while he’s also being a valuable member of the group. Jack constantly exists on a fine line in multiple respects. Some may see that as a writing flaw but it is who the character was conceived to be: the balance between nature or nurture, between good and evil, between savior and devil. 

Now, I was also frustrated Mary was “fridged” for a second time. It really provided no other purpose than to give the brothers more man pain to further the plot along. However, this can exist while also acknowledging that the way it happened and the subsequent fallout for Jack was also unnecessary and a sign of blatant hypocrisy from Dean, primarily, and Sam. 

And, yes, Jack can be different things at once because, I mean, can’t we all? If Mary can be both the perfect mother and the flawed, independent, distant parent, can’t Jack be the sweet kid who helps his father-figures process their own feelings on fatherhood while also being a lost young-adult forcing them to face their failures? Both characters contain multitudes because, I mean, we all do. 

I can provide articles or posts on Jack’s characterization and popularity along with Mary’s if needed, but for now I think this is a long enough ramble on my thoughts and feelings. I’m happy to discuss more, my messenger is always open for (polite) discussion. Until then, I’m going to leave it at we maybe agree to disagree. 

[cangelgifs]

xlivvielockex:

-“I did bring her to ‘Angel,’ because I felt she so kind of contrasted with him. And it would be fun to see them together.” ~ David Greenwalt on Cordelia  -“It would be like getting together with your first wife, it would be a nightmare.” ~ David Greenwalt on Buffy and Angel  -“He was, like, ‘People move on. You have to move forward all the time’ ” ~ David Greenwalt talking about Joss? opinion on Cordelia and Angel  “I don’t care what people think about it because I know we’re doing the right thing,” ~ David Greenwalt on C/Aness  -“When Joss was first pitching the Angel/Cordelia story, I said, ‘No, we can’t do that to Buffy!’ But then I realised - Cordelia has become a superhero. She’s the only person in the show who is Angel’s equal. It’s not that first-love, Buffy-and-Angel thing. It’s a second marriage, it’s a more mature thing.” ~ David Greenwalt  -“Angel and Cordelia have a mature love between two old souls” ~ Jane Espenson  -“All Cordy’s been doing is drooling on Angel’s shoulder” ~ David Greenwalt  -“The Cordelia and Angel relationship just appeared out of the scripts” ~ David Greenwalt  -“It’s kind of a continuation of last year. Last year Angel found himself with a son - and found himself with a really crappy son. He also found himself falling in love.” [With Cordy, of course] ~ Joss Whedon on Season 4, Fall issue of Cinescape  -“Angel. Cordy. Porn music. That’s all I’m saying, and I’ve said too much. Keep watching. You’ll love it.” ~ Steve DeKnight  -“Angel and Buffy have both moved on. Angel realizes this season that he had moved on from Buffy *before* she died. It’s only natural. It was a first love, and that’s where it will remain.” ~ David Greenwalt, November 13 2001  -“Because with Angel being dark and brooding…we need a big, bright smile.” ~ David Greenwalt on Cordelia and Angel  -“Is it me, or is something dirty happening out of frame? - There is a subtext going on, and I suspect it’s less than pure” ~Season 3 dvd commentary by Joss Whedon on episode 3x13, Waiting in the Wings  -“This was, you know, this was an intense day. You know, because there was a lot with the smoochies and with the undressing, and you know, David really went out of his way to make Charisma as comfortable as possible because this isn’t something she’d actually done a lot of on my shows. And the two of them were, you know, they handled the whole thing very delicately. We had this beautiful little four walled set, and we kept people out of it and let them do their thing. And they were, well kinda electrifying. ” ~ Joss Whedon, Season 3 DVD commentary on Waiting In The Wings  -“Where I really broke into the show, where I really began to understand what it was going to be about, was the scene where they’re possessed by the sprit of the old lovers and cannot help themselves, but must get all smoochie. And partially because I thought it was wicked sexy, but also because it was a chance for them to express emotions that they were not in a position to tell each other about yet. So that sequence, which was cut up into many sequences, really represents the heart of the show. It was the thing around which I knew I could build the story.” ~ Joss Whedon, Season 3 DVD commentary on Waiting In The Wings  -“The two of them, you know, played both the heat in this and the comedy in the later scenes in here extraordinarily.” ~ Joss Whedon, Season 3 DVD commentary on Waiting In The Wings  -“Yes, there was steamy hot sex in the scene before, but clearly not enough for me, so I had to bring them back into it.” ~ Joss Whedon, Season 3 DVD commentary on Waiting In The Wings  -“Is it me, or is something dirty happening out of frame, I dunno. You know, first I had that girl floating, during that song in the musical, then I have this. I think, I think there’s a subtext going on that’s in my work. I haven’t figured out what it is, but I suspect it’s less than pure.” ~ Joss Whedon, Season 3 DVD commentary on Waiting In The Wings  -“I believe this scene, apart from being sexual, is very sexy. I love the two of them in it.” ~ Joss Whedon, Season 3 DVD commentary on Waiting In The Wings  -“A lot of people were like well ‘How come Angel went crazy with the visions?’ and I had to tell them. It’s not because he had the visions, it’s because he didn’t have Cordelia. She’s the thing that brings him closer to human.’” ~Mere Smith, Season 3 DVD commentary on Birthday

ATS Showrunners/Writers on Cordelia/Angel

[chasingfictions]

Angel is really out here thinking he’s the ONE thing in Buffy’s life that’s making it crazy. She’s literally the vampire slayer, living on the mouth of hell, with her equally supernatural besties. Like pal you are making Buffy crazy but that isn’t why. The critical thinking is zero. Like Angel really took the “vampires have have reflection” thing in all possible meaning

this is!! a solid point anon

ok like im listening to season 2 of buffering the vampire slayer rn and their song for "what's my line" repeats its refrain on the quote: "you're the only freaky thing in my freaky life that still makes sense" which im honestly very obsessed with?? like, im not the biggest bangel person as im sure anyone could tell, but i am unironically into their s2 Properly Dating era (which is such a thin sliver of the season tbh) bc i think it leans into the weird of them? like buffy kissing vamp face angel at the ice rink is so gorgeous and gets me every fucking time. bangel embracing that their relationship is so compelling to each of them precisely because of how strange and gothic and grotesque and freaky it is???? that's the shit

and then s3, they've both been through so much trauma and they were never great at communicating before and now really aren't, and have like ??? both independently decided that the way to be safe is to do this play farce at normality, and not in the campy tongue-in-cheek way of s2 that moves with and allows for the macabre of their lives, but in this way that tries to be normal in spite of their macabre lives. and it's just tragic. i think angel's wedding nightmare shows that, the one where buffy burns in the sun. he's constructed this false reality where he's the thing keeping buffy back from a normal life, and imo it's bc it's easier to follow that logic than to admit the truth that they just no longer fit into each other's inner or outer worlds.

it's all culminating in the fact that angel breaks up with buffy by calling their relationship a "freak show" (which she'll later throw back at spike in wrecked, showing how much she's internalized it)

[asagimeta]

The time has come again to remind everyone that good queer representation does not necessarily equal morally good queer characters

I’ve heard that apparently there’s a renaissance of anti-Hannibal going on lately? And that + the rise in popularity of media like Helluva Boss and Killing Eve, and the addition of more openly queer charectors in existing media- from comic book based media to long-running shows like American Horror Story- I feel like this needs to be said again- not necessarily by me but I posted about it way back when Hannibal originally aired it’s finale so I figure, what the hell

Good representation =/= morally good characters

You can have both, absolutely, but you can also have them separate, and you can have all combinations of the reverse too

Ofcourse, to be clear right in the beginning, what counts as “good” representation vs “bad” reputation is going to vary from person to person, everything from life experiences to media exposure to personal opinions will dictate where you land on the sliding scale of “good” or “bad”, someone who’s consumed quite alot of queer-focused media, for example, is going to have a very different opinion than someone who’s only seen one background gay in a TV show that one time, and someone who’s a really huge fan of horror is going to have a much different opinion than someone who’s only a fan of lighter-hearted fair

With that said, in my personal opinion, the measure of good vs bad representation relies less on the character and more on the presentation of said character- less, not entirely

To get what I mean, here’s the best example I can think of:

Castiel from Supernatural is, objectively, a good charactor- if nothing else he’s morally good by most standards, certainly by the time season 15 rolls around, but his canonically queer presentation is just.... horrible, horrible representation and I’ve only met literally one person myself who disagreed with that

Cas is presented as being a really tragic figure right from the start of his coming out- the one thing in the world that would make him truly happy for even a single moment is confessing that he’s in love with Dean, even if Dean rejects him, just saying it is enough, that is..... sad

If it had been framed differently, it actually could have been very good representation, in a “I don’t need you to validate me, I’m being honest about who I am for the first time in my life and that’s enough, I’m enough” way, but it wasn’t, it was framed as pining, as “Even if you don’t love me, my acknowledging openly that I love you is enough to make me happy”, and again that could have worked if framed differently but.... it’s followed up by the infamous “Gay angels go to Super Mega Turbo Hell” thing and like.... no....

Cas is a good character who is queer, he is not a good queer character, because his existence as a queer character lasted less than five minutes and was immediately followed by literally going to what’s worse than hell for expressing his queerness

There is no way I can express the amount of levels of Bad that is, to say nothing of how Dean treats the entire experience for like.... ever... from there on out

But now let’s look at Hannibal, who is objectively a pretty bad character morally- he’s stupendously written but yeah I mean look the dude eats people there’s just no getting around that

But I would argue that he’s excellent queer representation because of how he was presented

Hannibal’s sexuality is never defined, for starters, there’s never a “very special episode” moment where he has some long-winded coming out speech, in fact we don’t quite know how he identifies but because he’s written so artfully we don’t really need to, his exact sexuality doesn’t feel like it needs to be known because, frankly, not much personal information is known about Hannibal anyway, and sexuality feels like one of those arbitrary things that he wouldn’t really care about defining

And that’s the other thing- he’s far from sexless and yet he places no emphasis on sex, he isn’t hypersexualized but he also isn’t being kept as a Ken doll to preserve the message of gay purity (because I don’t know apparently there’s a Thing some people have about how gay people aren’t allowed to be sexual???) he’s just... a person

And that’s really what it comes down to that makes him great, he’s a person first and queer second... or third.... or fourth or fifth.... it never defines who he is, it’s just part of who he is, and regardless of your opinion on Hannibal specifically, I think that is something most queer people strive for in representation

It’s great to have stories that are focused on queerness but it’s equally exhausting to only be able to have characters who’s lives revolve around their sexualities, it’s nice to go into media and go “Oh that character that I already like for these reasons is also queer, that’s so cool!”

Hannibal also skillfully side-steps stereotypes, despite falling into the category of being “polite, thin, and neat”, despite loving fine wine and fine art and fine culture, he never feels like a flamboyant theater kid with a decoration-diploma, wich is how alot of queer characters in this category can feel

His story is about alot of things and his relationship with Will is at the center of much of it, but that relationship didn’t become explicitly queer until the show was almost over- not because it was sudden or poorly written but because it was a slow build up, wich is also refreshing, as alot of times it feels like queer characters are made as explicitly queer as they’re allowed to be as quickly as they’re able to be on screen so that the show can grab those important Representation Brownie Points from episode one and either introduce a Manwhore or a Uhaul Lesbian right away and just kind of leave them in that trope until “someone comes along and changes that” or whatever, I don’t even know what straight writers do half the time, but Hannibal- as a show and a charactor- doesn’t do that, he’s just allowed to exist and tell his story, and THAT is good representation

With the heavy-handed example over with though, I want to tackle the biggest part of this entire “debate” that makes me interested in it:

Queer people are allowed to be bad people

Queer people are allowed to be lazy and unattractive and non-political and angry and jealous and yes, “bad” and evil too

Wile I DEFINITELY prefer to have morally good characters- especially after literally a century of rarely getting more than The Evil Homosexual stereotype and all it’s kin- I also don’t like the direction some people are taking this where queer people are only “allowed” to be 100% morally flawless and good and righteous at all times because it’s just so unrealistic, and because it does the exact same thing that the opposite stereotype does: Puts queer people in a box, makes us a decoration for the straight cast so that the creators get Representation Brownie Points and can’t get yelled at on Twitter, and treats us like we’re some other species (and not in the cool way like werewolves but more like... well, decorations, as I’ve said before)

And if you’re worried about the way straight-cis people perceive us due to seeing evil queer characters, you should be equally worried about how they perceive us seeing nothing but morally flawless ones

I could get into An Entire Thing about the history of Straights trying to turn queer people into what they want us to be and present an inaccurate depiction of us to their brethren for their own benefit but I’ll make it relatively simple

The old way of keeping The Queers away from their Innocent Straight Children was to turn us into villains so that we would be ashamed of who we really are and hide ourselves and pretend to be The Good Christian Folk nextdoor and not get overly political or loud or different

The new way of keeping The Queers away from their Innocent Straight Children is to turn us into sexless Ken & Barbie stereotypes so we can be ashamed of who we really are and pretend to be The Good Christian Folk nextdoor and not get overly political or loud or different

By sterilizing queerness into something they find more “acceptable”, they’re doing the same thing they used to, but now through a lens of “Aren’t you happy you get what you want? You can get married now! You can hold hands in public! Just make sure not to do any of that other crazy stuff you people get up to and you can stay at the Civil Rights Table :)”, we’re still not “allowed” to be sexual human beings, it’s just framed in a way that makes us feel like the people shunning us are on our side wile those same people are still in the corner going “Just don’t kiss in public ok?”

And I could go On about this for some time but let’s get back to the point-

Queer people are three-dimensional people and we should be allowed to be so, we should be allowed to have characterization outside of The Gay Love Interest and The Gay BFF and The Gay Butler and so on, outside of the stereotypes being imposed on us

That’s one of the main reasons I love Yuri On Ice so much, and love Batwoman so much.... and one of the main reasons I love Hannibal and Harley Quinn and Helluva Boss and Killing Eve so much, all of these things star queer characters and queer relationships to different degrees (Batwoman, for example, makes a MUCH larger point and political stance about queerness than, say, Hannibal) and they’re all about something other than queerness too, the charecters are three-dimensional and they’re not built around their sexualities or side peices for straight people

And none of them are PUNISHED for their sexualities either

Going back to Castiel earlier, stereotypes are hardly the worst of our worries when Burry Your Gays, Gayngst Induced Suicide, and Gay Guy Dies First are still alive and well- among others

From Frank N’ Furter in Rocky Horror Picture Show to Tara in Buffy The Vampire Slayer to, oh look, it’s Supernatural again with not just Cas, but also Charlie, and even arguably Dean (but that’s a much longer story for a much different time) and many many more... sometimes just having any gay charecter live through a franchise is enough on it’s own- setting the bar awfully low there but it’s still hard for a shamefully large amount of franchises to step over

In some cases like Tara, it can be pretty decently argued that the death has little- if anything- to do with queerness, but in examples like Cas and Frank, it’s pretty blatantly obvious, especially when the other queer characters in their respective franchises didn’t exactly fair well either....

Matt Baume put it best when he said that until recently, you had to choose if you wanted your only source of representation to be dead or evil, and most people chose evil

Now-a-days that’s clearly not the case as much but there’s still a heavy enough flavor of it there- and villains are just part of gay culture, dating all the way back to prohibition, queer people identified as outlaws because we literally were, so pirates and cowboys and other anti-heros and villains became a staple of the culture that’s still very much alive to this day, thus leading to another point: Identification

Straight people can identify with pretty much whoever they want- from superheros to princesses to any and every kind of villain

Tony Soprano is a horrible, horrible person but is notorious for being beloved among straight white males because he’s a projection of who they want to be- powerfull (and wealthy)

Stolas from Helluva Boss actually presents a pretty similar power fantasy, he’s part of a family who lives outside the larger part of the law, he can kill (nearly) anyone he pleases, he’s physically and socially powerfull, he’s wealthy, he has a nuclear family, he gets to screw around with whoever he wants with the only one taking issue being his wife, the only real difference is that Stolas is queer (and much more fashionable... and pleasant)

Queer people should be allowed to have those power fantasies as much as straight people are

Speaking as a bisexual female myself, I absolutely ADORE Villanelle from Killing Eve, I really don’t care that she’s a bitch or has killed an uncountable amount of people, it’s fun to project on her, and seeing a very flawed woman fall in love and be vulnerable and open herself up to a relationship and get that relationship with another woman is AMAZING to me, that doesn’t make the relationship it’s self healthy or good, but it’s still fun to watch and plays further into that identification

I love Korra and Asami from Legend Of Korra, they’re a sweet, wholesome relationship between two sweet, wholesome characters and I adore them... but I’m allowed to adore Eve and Villanelle too, even if the relationship is toxic and the characters have baggage and Villanelle is literally a serial killer

Ofcourse enjoying something doesn’t make it “good”, I enjoy alot of trash B rated (and C rated) horror movies too, it doesn’t mean I think they deserve Oscars (if that’s really the measuring stick we’re going to use), but I think when it comes to representation, it’s important to distinguish the difference between good queer character and a moral queer character, they just... aren’t the same

Light Yagami from Death Note, Bill from Kill Bill, and Joker from Batman are all just... horrible, horrible people, there’s no doubting that, they are morally terrible... but my god are they fantastic charecters- they’re interesting, they’re three dimensional (even if only occasionally in the Joker’s case), they’re well written and complex, there’s a reason why they’re iconic and why they’re still talked about decades after their introduction into the world, they are GREAT characters who are morally bad, and characters like Hannibal and Villlanelle are in that boat too, they just so happen to be queer- and there’s what it all boils down to

People being queer, not queer people

Some of the most beloved examples above like Yuri On Ice and Legend Of Korra are praised for being about people who are queer, people who have stories focused on other things and are just allowed to exist without their sexualities defining them, and the same should be said and appreciated for villains who are queer too

In an age where so much queer-focused media is about tragedy (the period lesbian dramas and Gayngst teen media for example), and so much of it is focused on the same exact aspects of queer life (coming out, dating around, getting or being married, but mostly coming out), it’s great to have characters who just so happen to be queer without those things being the center of their storylines- and without them being canon fodder or the Gay BFF, or being a terrible stereotype from the 90s that just won’t die...

And that by no means is to say you have to like these characters- not at all, there are PLENTY of objectively good/well-written queer characters who I don’t like for whatever reason- but to call them bad representation just because they’re bad people is sweeping ALOT under the rug

And I know I’ve harped alot on avoiding queer-centered storylines like coming out stories and relationship dramas, but those are fine, they have their place just like everything else, really, they just don’t need to have the only place- that does a disservice to so many other types of queer stories- for the heroes and the villains, because morality and goodness have nothing to do with one’s sexuality, just like one’s sexuality has nothing to do with morality and goodness

[prose-for-hire]

Cursed to love

Pairing: Angelus x reader

Request: "He will come for you and when he does, no prayer in the world will save you." 

Requested by: @sunflower-stan​

Warning: Implication of torture/harm against the reader that is not described. Biting. Unresolved ending. 

A/N: I really enjoy writing Angelus. I know he’s evil, but he’s good to write. I also have ideas for a second part to this, tell me if you would like me to write more Angelus at some point. Happy Halloween month! 🖤🦇

You had fallen in love with a vampire. And, as cliché should suggest there is a great amount of risk involved in a relationship of this kind. A human and a vampire. It was destined to end badly. But no matter the danger, the unimaginable threat everyone around you had warned you of, you couldn’t keep away.

You were unashamedly in love with him as he was for you. You would do anything for him. You trusted him with every fibre of your being and you were safe in the knowledge he felt the same for you. You meant everything to him, you were his reason for getting up and continuing to fight. To atone. 

Until one night, he changed. His happiness had been too much. Too pure. Angelus arrived and turned everything upside down. He had been so cruel, so calculating. Buffy had come and hold him off, your friend taking you away from him. To somewhere he couldn’t torment you. He swore he was going to show you who he really was. Show you the vampire you thought you loved as he screamed that whatever he felt had never been love.

He had planned everything immaculately. Leaving you Halloween-themed favours throughout the month. He wanted you to know that everything was leading to Halloween night. That there was no escaping your fate, nor the fates of anyone you cared for.

Portraits of you sleeping. A human heart. Warnings written in blood. A human head carved up like a pumpkin.

It was all leading up to now. Seeing the monster in person, the vampire you were cursed to love. You didn’t speak. Didn’t look him in the eye. You just stood there. Still. You couldn’t just turn off the love you had for him, hide the memories that harboured such warmth and affection. It hurt to even look at him.

You were chained to a wall in his mansion. He had spent every moment in your presence since he had found you. Asking you questions. Taunting, telling you every twisted thought in his head out loud. 

“Ah, what the cold shoulder? Did your dear watcher friend give you the ‘no matter how hard you try you won’t get through to him’ deal?” He asked smirking when he saw your face, “Isn’t he a pal, huh?” Angelus taunted. Giles had warned you. He was Buffy’s watcher but he had wanted to prepare you the best he could. Knowing your nature meant that you would try to save him. To get your Angel back.

It was true, what they had all warned. Tried to protect you from. Your friends had done a good job of keeping Angelus away from you for the entire month. You had insisted they go to the Halloween party and that you would stay home. However, you didn’t. You should have known better than to check a disturbance outside. But Halloween always made you paranoid. Maybe you should have agreed to Buffy staying over to keep you company.

Angelus grabbed you by your shoulders, slamming you against the wall as he moved in. Bringing you back into the present. His lips now so close to your ear that if he could breath, his breath would probably be tickling your ear, “Or, even better, did he pull you aside, whispering a warning. Something like ��He will come for you and when he does, no prayer in the world will save you’?” He smirked as he spoke and you could hear it. A shiver running up your spine. The fear rooting you to the spot. That was exactly what Giles had said. Almost verbatim.

This man with your lovers face had no resemblance to the one you truly loved. His stare was hard. The tone in his voice was cruel, only changing when he found something amusing. Something that no right-minded person would find amusing.

Spike and Drusilla had entered the room, watching where you were fastened tightly to the wall. Drusilla had clapped excitedly and went straight for you, wanting a turn at making you hurt. But Angelus was strangely territorial. Ordering them to get out, not wanting them to so much as look at you. It gave you hope, that maybe Angel’s protectiveness had bled through. But that thought dissipated as quickly as it came into your mind. He turned back to you, a dangerous smile on his face.

It was almost midnight now. The time he had been awaiting. You had been there for hours. He laughed when you jumped in fear. He laughed when you hissed in pain. And one thing that made his smile stay on his face, was that he had your undivided attention, because of the threat he posed to you. He had the control. And, in some twisted way, he was still vying for your affection. Which angered him greatly. He looked every so often, checking that you were impressed. Or, at least, understanding of the intricacies of his evil plan.

He got angry when he didn’t see the horror on your face, you had tried not to react anymore. Tried to be strong. You stared through him as he paced before you, teasing and taunting you. You tried to let it roll off you, not paying any attention. You stared at a crack in the wall opposite you as he spoke, hearing but not actively listening. 

You understood the situation. You heard that he had your friends trapped, stuck inside their own minds, in Drusilla’s thrall. She had left them there, unable to get out by themselves as expected. You had your last remaining threat of faith in them, hoping Buffy and the others would find a way to save themselves.

He gripped your chin and moved you to look at him. His eyes boring into yours. It was time. Time for him to start. His face shifted, showing his vampire face. The last time you had saw it you had peppered him in kisses, insisting he wasn’t a monster. But now he was. Not in physical appearance, that didn’t signal what was within. It was as if you could see into his soul, or the cavity where his soul should have been. This person wasn’t your boyfriend, he was a shell. A twisted, evil husk of a person. You would take this thought to the grave.

“Happy Halloween, lover” He hissed in your ear before jerking your head sideways and sinking his teeth into your neck. It stung but there was an edge to it, an unusual feeling. One that coursed through your body filling you with equal parts dread and relief. You fought, scratching at him, but eventually you gave in.

You lost consciousness, not knowing if you would ever wake. You only hoped that the others managed to escape and save his soul.

[malewifespike]

when I talk about buffy and spike and loving them together and loving their entire arc I feel like people think that means one ~~should~~ love them together or we’re “supposed” to want them together or that he was the objectively right match for her or even that he was healthy for her or in any way an objectively good person when it’s not any of those things actually like. he’s a murderer and a rapist (implied on many occasion that he’s raped in his past and attempted to rape Buffy on screen) and he’s the classic example of “my love for her turned me into a better man” a.k.a also Damon from vampire diaries and countless other “bad boy” male love interests. he’s not a good guy - I mean he tries, especially at the end of s7 and the fact that he saves the world or whatever.

but Buffy has saved the world 100 times and she’s still also a good person, along with Willow and Xander and whoever else. the reasons I love him and love them are numerous 1. him/their whole relationship represent the realities of complicated human relationships in terms of moral grays/desire vs. love, trauma and trauma processing, how we often don’t desire/love the people who are good for us on paper, how sometimes we fuck up and hurt other people when we’re hurting (Buffy using spike for sex after coming back from the dead and being numb/depressed), how that ISNT OKAY even though he’s a “bad guy” and “he wants to fuck her so what does it matter anyway he’s getting what he wants” - it isn’t okay because no matter how evil and depraved he is he loves her and obviously has hopes and expectations that go beyond what she can and wants to offer him and that isn’t who she is, and how in order to heal she needs to stop using him to cope (like a substance abuse metaphor almost), etc etc etc

Angel was so straightforward which fit the context of buffy’s teenage years and the vibe of the show in the early seasons in that the metaphors are straightforward, the allusions to common “teen” problems in the forms of supernatural evils and life/death situations (I.e representing the monumental impact of a 16yr old girl’s first sexual experience and the guy flips on her and how devastating it is + this first HS relationship ending painfully and creating the groundwork for how Buffy perceives love and relationships and whatnot. and that’s all well and good and important for buffys narrative and the narrative of the show but it just isn’t as interesting as Spike’s whole character his whole arc and their whole relationship from start to finish. and it’s not NEARLY as relatable to the 21 year old woman that I am as the concept of being so drawn to somebody toxic but as the story progresses it becomes harder to see them as simply “toxic” bc they’re a layered being is. there’s no ‘good to evil’ dramatic switch like Angel where it’s so clear when he’s good and soft vs a literal emotionless killing machine spike is just spike all the time and it’s complicated and interesting

Also reading my own post over again reminded me how similar Damon/Spike and Stefan/Angel are if u know tvd u know what I mean. like in TvD they have the whole humanity switch thing and Stefan is like night and day when is humanity is off v. on (regarding angel that’s whether he has a soul or not), whereas Damon seldom switches his humanity off (I can only remember the one short scene when he leaves Enzo in the burning building and also maybe with the whole siren thing which I hated), which would be Spike essentially being the same guy all the time whether he’s killing people or not (I suppose one could call the chip like the humanity switch but it also isn’t the same at all and I think in terms of allegorical representation it’s more akin to some type of representation of spike beginning to be “trapped” by his growing feelings for Buffy bc for that whole season he’s obsessed with her, convinced she’s equally obsessed with him, and he connects her+the chip even tho she had no idea where it come from at first either) ANYWAY the point is that Buffy is the blueprint and also that the consistent but slightly morally grayer and less pure is always the hotter and more interesting love interest.

[willowrosenboob]

Def Mood on the whole part about bangel's wedding being played for drama and angst but also, for me one of the main reasons is because even with all of their scenes together, their dynamic still felt underwhelming when you take out all the dramatic angst scenes? Like sure ok I will sit through seasons 1 2 and then 3 while I watch them but I always end up liking their conversation more in season 7 which is ironic, given that it feels kind of thrown in, but it's also just one where it felt like both were more or less on an equal footing to me. Buffy was older and a lot more experienced while being a slayer, she didn't take Angel's crap when he was jealous of Spike, but she was also honest about her feelings in general towards him. I guess part of the reason why I liked it is because it didn't feature Angel having more say in what happens to them, but Buffy does for once, since he was the one that broke them up in season 3 and then in "I Will Remember You", and while I don't think it was necessarily bad, since it did end up being a good choice for him to go his own way, it still felt a bit unbalanced to me bc again, Buffy had no real say in it. And I can never really be into the season 5 scene either (when Joyce dies) mainly because it just feels like Buffy is in mourning, and she's trying to cling onto the one thing she previously knew and felt something intensely for.

I know you just made that post to highlight one reason and that's def valid, so I hope this doesn't come off as me correcting you bc I also agree.

don’t worry, I really appreciate that I get a lot of long opinionated asks. it’s a lot of fun to talk about btvs. it is my favourite show after all. and I’m always honoured when people wanna send their opinions to me 💖

as for what you said about bangel, I don’t really have a big problem with the wedding dream other than my own personal distaste towards most weddings, but I get finding them a bit boring together. in my first watch through I barely thought about them at all. and especially in season 3, their relationship can be downright confusing. I used to always forget when they were dating and when they weren’t, cause they were always flip flopping between two extremes.

honestly I’m really surprised you like the chosen scene. it always bothered me how the kiss came out of nowhere, and joss & co were obviously trying to throw both bangel and spuffy shippers a bone without fully committing to one or the other. but honestly I do love how mature buffy is in that scene. and seeing her be so confident in her identity in a way she’s never been before. I actually liked the forever scene a lot. I liked that buffy could take comfort in something familiar, even if just for a while. also it was the only post s3 angel cameo that I didn’t found completely out of character when I first watched btvs.

honestly I always felt like their relationship was very unequal. it’s certainly not equivalent to what a real life relationship between a teenager and a 20 something would look like, but I always felt like angel had more autonomy and choices in the relationship, and there’s lots of evidence that he still viewed her as a kid (remember when he straight up called her a brat? big ole yikes there). it’s not a coincidence that buffy broke it off with angel twice in s3 and spent a lot of time trying to avoid him, but it’s angel who actually gets the last say. and he did it in such a shitty way too. I think he was in the right to break up with her, since their relationship was clearly doomed, and he actually became his own person once he left sunnydale, but he used such self righteous reasoning, and he made buffy’s struggles all about him (like in s2 when Buffy said she wanted a normal life and angel was like “before me” 🤡🤡). it was good for angel, but it was not good for buffy. he told her he wanted her to have a normal relationship, and you know what she did? she immediately rushed into a relationship with a normal guy and got hurt. buffy was way more vulnerable in their relationship than angel was, and I just can’t find myself to care about angel as much as I care about buffy in their dynamic.

honestly I have so much to say about their power dynamic. it’s not even the age gap, it’s just that angel has so much baggage that he dumps on this teenage girl without caring about the emotional consequences for her. also all the ‘old man angel’ jokes on ats just make me sideeye their relationship even more. and this is probably an unpopular opinion, but I feel like angel traumatized buffy way more than spike did. before s6 spike was pretty much just a nuisance that was rarely taken seriously, and even in s6 buffy was already going through some tough shit. he really only made up a small part of her struggles. compared with the stuff with angelus that made buffy feel like loving her was dangerous and synonymous with death. over the years she felt so much shame for her decisions (that were not her fault at all), and her experience with angel overshadowed her relationships in a way that is not romantic at all (I hate how some people romanticize buffy struggling to tell her love interests she loves them, as if it’s because she’s still in love with angel and not because she’s scared that being vulnerable in that way again will only lead to suffering for both her and everyone around her). and obviously a lot of it isn’t his fault, but it unfolds in a way that makes me really fall on buffy’s side.

so yeah. I have Many Thoughts ™ about this, which is weird cause I honestly don’t dislike bangel half of the time. I think a lot of their scenes are cute, and I sometimes get wrapped up in the dramatic romance too. but they had some major problems, and I just really dislike the idea of them ending up together. they’re just such different people at the end of their respective shows, and maybe if they had a fresh start they could make it work, but buffy had so many of her insecurities tied up in her relationship to angel that I just don’t think they could ever get past that. even if buffy herself gets over it, there’s always gonna be that implication that their relationship only leads to pain, and I don’t want that for buffy. that’s why a lot of my preferred buffy ships involve more internal conflict. it leaves room for them to change and grow together, not forcing them to be apart, and having to deal with the wreckage by themselves

[coraniaid]

Most of the notes I made for myself while watching Passion were complaints or criticisms, but I do think it’s worth saying up front that I honestly love this episode.  For all its flaws I completely agree with the popular critical consensus on this one: I think it’s a genuinely great episode of television.  One of the best parts of the high school seasons and quite possibly the highest peak the show has managed to hit so far.

In a lot of ways it picks up where Innocence left off.  Both episodes lean heavily into the metaphorical reading of the newly soulless Angel as an older boyfriend who turned out to be a creep after Buffy slept with him (“Don’t tell me,” says Joyce early on.  “He's not the same guy you fell for.”).  Both episodes work very hard to show us that Angel is not redeemable – first with the Judge last season declaring him “clean” of humanity, now with Angel killing Jenny.  But Passion hits a little harder, I think, because there’s no counterpart to that rocket launcher scene.  The good guys don’t get to enjoy even a partial victory here.

Other thoughts:

I think this is a surprisingly good episode for Joyce, in a way we don’t typically really get until Season 3.  It hits the right balance between showing that Buffy and her mother struggle to communicate but that this doesn’t mean they don’t bother deeply care about each other.  Buffy’s concern for her mother is paramount throughout the first half of the episode (and Giles’ insistence that she can’t tell her mother about being a Slayer is more than slightly hypocritical, given that we’ve already been told that his parents always knew about him being a Watcher).  

Of course Joyce herself isn’t perfect – she doesn’t know the whole story, and yes Angel only tells her that he slept with Buffy because he knows Buffy well enough to anticipate Joyce’s reaction – but however bad The Talk goes it doesn’t feel like this really had as much of an impact as Angel would have been hoping for.  It doesn’t seem to have really damaged their relationship.  I believe Joyce when she says she loves Buffy “more than anything in the world” even if (she thinks) Buffy’s trying to shut her out.  And I think this particular conversation, and the way Buffy can only say “you’re not” when her mother suggests she’s “grossing her out” is the sort of thing Season 5 is calling back to when, three years from now, Buffy will tell Giles that “my mom is gone … and I loved her more than anything … and I don’t know if she knew.”

(I think the shot of Joyce hugging Willow when they get the call from Giles is a nice touch too.  That whole scene from Angel’s perspective is so good, isn’t it?  The whole framing device with his voiceover too.  It should probably be kind of cheesy, but it’s not.  Maybe it helps that I just think Angel is a really fun villain.)

Speaking of that scene: everything between Willow and Jenny is so sad knowing what’s coming up later.  I remember being slightly surprised, back in Season 1, that Willow didn’t seem to immediately warm to Jenny despite their mutual interest in computers (“how come she’s in the club?” she protested in Prophecy Girl).  But I think the show has done just enough by the halfway point of this episode to make it seem credible that of all the Scoobies Willow in particular would be hardest hit by her death.  (The juxtaposition of Willow being excited and eager to take over Jenny’s teaching responsibilities at the start of the episode and then how somber she looks when she is taking over for her at the end is particularly good.)

It rankles slightly, in the way I’ve complained about before, that the script still reduces Jenny to “Giles’ girlfriend” at times and that one of the reactions to her death – by somebody who knew Jenny! – is “poor Giles”.  Nobody even thinks to suggest that Angel might have killed Jenny for some reason other than hurting her boyfriend.  Equally Giles seems unnecessarily dismissive of Buffy’s concern about the fact that Angel has been sneaking into her room at night at the start of the episode.  But the scene with Jenny’s boyfriend attacking Angel in the factory (after the rather complacent advice of “you mustn’t let Angel get to you.  No matter how provocative his behavior may become”) and then Buffy coming to save him, giving up the chance to kill Angel herself to pull him out of the fire, is so good I’m almost persuaded to overlook it.

And the mere fact of Jenny Calendar’s death itself – despite the weird retcon about her past and the fact the show insists she betrayed the Scooby Gang while showing us she didn’t, despite the fact they bury her under a name she never used in the show, despite the fact that after this season ends Jenny’s name will only be spoken on screen twice, despite the fact it establishes the precedent that will later be used for any number of increasingly questionable ‘shocking’ deaths in the Buffyverse – despite everything, it’s still utterly heartbreaking.

Jenny isn’t the first recurring character the show’s killed off, but she’s the first recurring character of any significance (with apologies to Jesse and Principal Flutie).  Or, I suppose, technically she’s just the first recurring character of any significance who dies and doesn’t get better.  The first recurring character who won’t be coming back.  The first recurring character that Buffy and her friends show any sign of missing.  And the first recurring character that the audience will care about losing.

I just think this episode could have been even better if the writers themselves cared about Jenny Calendar at all.

[evelhak]

“Ancient” wlw ships

This is such a self-indulgent post but I need to get my thoughts out. Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about all the girls I shipped in fiction when I was a kid and didn’t realize I was shipping them.

I mean, they pretty much all had boyfriends or ended up marrying a man, and I was pretty much on board, in my eyes it was just some part of the story that needed to happen, because it always did. I think the common thing with these characters was that the female best friend was, at least more often than not, narratively more important than the guy, or just seemed to have a much greater emotional impact in the story.

Thinking about this has been so fun and eye-opening that I just feel like sharing a list of my biggest ancient wlw pairs that I only now, years later, realize were totally in love in my mind, I just didn’t have a concept for it yet. I’m sure that’s relatable for some people, but maybe there’s someone out there who was shipping these same characters??

This will include mild spoilers. And it’ll be long.

1. Cornelia & Elyon from W.i.t.c.h.

I COMPLETELY lived in these comics when I was 8-12 years old, and nothing in it was as compelling to me as Cornelia and Elyon. Guess I was already a sucker for best-friends-to-enemies-to-friends-again, even though I didn’t realize I also wanted them to become lovers. Best friends was all there was to me back then, that was the name I assigned to the highest form of love in my head. Which I still don’t see as invalid? I just didn’t realize I would’ve related to the romance aspect between best friends a hell of a lot more than I did to any of the relationships the W.i.t.c.h. girls had with their boyfriends. Cornelia and Caled was almost as bad as Buffy and Angel! Cornelia and Peter was just boring af. All the other W.i.t.c.h. girls’ boyfriends were all equally boring to me except for Will and Matt, but that was because their struggle to admit their feelings for each other was written in a funny way, not because their relationship had any actual depth.

But Elyon and Cornelia would’ve been perfect! I mean if your best friend has the ability to understand you so well, that with her magical intuition, she can draw you a picture of a guy you’re going to fall for, a guy she has never met... why would you even want to be with that guy anymore? Why wouldn’t you just be with her instead?? What Cornelia and Caleb had was limerence (I actually applaud the comics for eventually treating it as such and showing how it was harmful to both of the characters!) but what Cornelia and Elyon had was true love that transcends dimensions. Cornelia never gave up on Elyon, not even for a moment, after she became the W.i.t.c.h. girls’ enemy, and when she was in trouble, Cornelia had a hunch from another dimension, and she didn’t hesitate to come to her rescue. (The fact that during the same mission she also manages to fall for the dude Elyon drew for her in the past seems more like an accident, to be honest. The real deal was patching things up with Elyon, it was both more emotionally impactful AND more plot-relevant!)

It was also really sad to read the comics sometimes, because Elyon was absolutely my favourite character, and she wasn’t around much after the first arc, being a queen in another dimension. But every time there was a flashback to when Elyon was still living on Earth and being cute with Cornelia I was like MOOOOORE.

2. Sora and Layla from Kaleido Star

If you haven’t watched this anime you’ve missed. SO. MUCH. This is probably my favourite anime ever. And it features another type of ship I LOVE. Which is partners in some sort of activity, usually sports. When it’s written well it’s just so impactful and intense. These girls are routinely risking their lives in their passion for acrobatics, so they need to have absolute trust in each other. And oh boy is the relationship between them written well. I love it when two characters initially don’t get the way the other thinks or sees the world, but as they grow closer, it’s the other’s way of thinking that really unlocks something huge for them.

Also what’s so compelling about Sora and Layla is that there really isn’t anything like them in any other anime, that I’ve come across, at least. These partnerships are always between two guys in a sports anime, the partnership is at the heart of the story and the emotional stakes are so high it’s no wonder most people don’t want to ship these guys with their intended female love interests. Kaleido Star takes this even further because the guy who is in love with Sora is literally a joke, or the fact that he’s in love with Sora is a running gag, and nothing more. All the focus is on Sora and Layla as partners, and how they change each other's lives for the better.

Also the way Sora pines for Layla when she’s away or not paying enough attention to her is SO... I mean you don’t even have to think it’s romantic for it to absolutely melt you. Although it feels pretty heavily romantically coded, and it doesn’t even feel like queer baiting, because it’s just SO real and honest. And how Layla can’t stop thinking about how Sora is changing her as a person. There’s no question about the fact that the relationship between these women is the true meat of the show.

3. Anne and Diana from Anne of Green Gables

I read these books over and over again as a kid, and the Netflix show renewed my love for these two. They are kind of ridiculous, but SO cute. Looking back, it seems obvious that they had a crush on each other, they were just SO giddy all the time they were alone. Sure, you can excuse all their romantic gestures (like changing locks of hair, and vowing to never leave each other with joined hands and grand words) with saying Anne just romanticizes everything, but it never really felt like just that to me.

I’ll never forget how devastated Anne was about Diana getting married, and I don’t remember the wording but initially she wished she could keep Diana to herself for their whole lives. And every time they talked about marriage it was something they were both gonna do not as individuals, but rather the emphasis seemed to be on the shared experience, and how their children would be best friends and all that. It was all about them together. Like their romantic fantasies were nothing without the other somehow in the picture.

I don’t hate Anne and Gilbert but I don’t love them either. Gilbert has always been just sort of “meh”. He’s okay, but also the kind of love interest that can never compel me much.

4. Chocolat and Vanilla from Sugar Sugar Rune

Seriously, this would have been SO GOOD if it was canon.

Think about it, best friends, chosen to compete against each other for the throne. These witches go to the human world to attract male attention and collect feelings from the men, turning the feelings into heart shaped crystals and whoever collects more will be the queen. I mean... the story was good as it is but if they had ended up together and been queens TOGETHER?? That would have been the best story. It could have had SUCH a compelling best-friends-to-competitors-to-enemies-to-friends-to-lovers storyline! There would have been room for so much character development.

And if my memory doesn’t betray me the story would not change much at all if they didn’t end up with the guys they do end up with! Especially Vanilla’s guy is like an afterthought and Chocolat’s guy is... well, a sum of my least favourite tropes, including the one that will remind everyone about Mortal Instruments a LITTLE too much, so he can get lost for all I care.

I cried many times while reading this, and it always had something to do with these two girls.

5. Yoko and Liao from Yoko Tsuno

Okay, these two might have a problematic age gap, I’m not sure, but I didn’t know of that possibility as a kid, they just looked the same age to me. I was a huge Yoko Tsuno fan as a pre-teen, and there were so many interesting female adventurers in this series but for some reason the dynamic between Yoko and Liao was my favourite, even though Liao only appeared in one album. I just really felt like I needed to see more of these characters interacting and where their relationship would develop.

There was something about them that seemed rather original to me then, and a nice change. The reader had already gotten used to Yoko as the hero, she was always saving the day everywhere, she was like The Doctor in a way and not only because she time-travelled. She is simply badass. In Liao’s story there’s a prophecy about a girl who speaks to a dragon and saves everyone, and Yoko thinks that girl is her because she’s from the future and knows the dragon is a machine, but it turns out to be Liao, and that was somehow really satisfying. Yoko treats Liao obnoxiously in the beginning, doesn’t give her much credit, but is deeply humbled after Liao needs to save her ass multiple times because she’s just too sure of herself. It was cool to see how Yoko really needed to grow in this story and realize her limitations, and how wrong she was to treat Liao the way she did and look down on her just because Liao was physically weak, had a temper, and came from a much earlier time period than Yoko.

By the end they are clearly very attached to each other (Liao weeping in Yoko’s arms and Yoko confessing how full of herself she was when they met) and respect each other, and I just really would’ve liked to see where they would go from there. I thought about them meeting again A LOT when I was a kid.

That’s my big five! :D I could go on but this is already long, I need to sleep, and these are the characters that I’ve been thinking about the most lately. If you read this far for some reason it would be cool to hear if you have any similar (or different) experiences.

[jupitermelichios]

(disclaimer for anyone who’s struggling with time rn: it’s not wednesday, i just forgot I was going to do this this week, and since it’s a snow day in lockdown time is doubly meaningless, so I figured why not do it today)

Fic: let me take you by the hand (and drag you through the streets of london) - BtVS x Hellblazer crossover

There’s a little welcome committee waiting on the sidewalk for them when Spike and Giles pull in outside the Magic Box in the stolen car; Anya, Xander and Dawn huddled outside like they’re waiting for alms.

“They’re doing something… weird,” Anya says, like that word has any meaning at all coming from her. “We ran away.”

“We made a strategic retreat,” Xander corrects. “Because magic is creepy and it smells gross.”

“How gross?” Giles asks immediately.

“It’ll air out,” Anya says dismissively. “I wouldn’t let them do anything that would impact sales.”

“Okay, well. Good.”

“Anyway, you’re one to talk. Is that cigarettes I smell?” Xander asks. “You boys been sneaking off to smoke behind the bleachers?”

“It was behind the bike shed, in my day,” Giles says, unruffled.

Everyone turns to look at him, so Spike shrugs. “They still thought it was medicinal in my day.”

“Wow. You’re so oooold,” Dawn says, wrinkling her nose.

“I’m dead, Bit. And I didn’t actually smoke when I was alive.” His mother couldn’t abide the smell, said it brought on her trouble. Darla had been the one to teach him - she’d smoked like a chimney all the years he’d known her. Cigarillos, cigarettes in a holder once they became the fashion, and even a pipe occasionally. She’d had a long-stemmed clay pipe, the one thing from her human life she’d kept, and on rainy evenings when it was just the four of them sitting around by the fire pretending to be a real family she’d lie on the settee in her chemise and drawers and smoke, while Dru or Angel brushed out her hair for her and Spike read aloud the most amusing obituaries and murders from the paper.

“Wait, you didn’t smoke. You.”

Spike shrugs. There’s a lot about his human life he prefers not to think about, but it’s not like his lifestyle was exactly unusual back then, at least not among respectable middle-class families. “I was pretty straight-edge. Didn’t smoke, didn’t drink to excess, never even considered trying opium or hashish. It didn’t last.”

“Clearly.”

They stand around in awkward silence for a bit. Spike rolls another cigarette, to give himself something to do, and then rolls one for Giles as well just to draw it out. Giles takes it without comment, letting Spike light it for him before taking a deep drag, holding the smoke in his lungs for long enough that he coughs a little when he finally exhales.

“Don’t get any ideas,” he says, pointing at Dawn with his fag. “Smoking isn’t cool.”

Dawn, bless her sarcastic little teenage heart, rolls her eyes. “I know. Anyway I get that lecture enough from Spike, I don’t need it from you as well.”

The others turn to stare at him. Spike shrugs. “I’m not getting any deader, but I’m not having her give herself lung cancer.”

“Well I for one am glad Dawn isn’t dying of cancer,” Anya says brightly, like the absolute lunatic she is.

“Me too,” a rough voice says behind them, and they turn to see John, Buffy, and the witches coming out of the shop. John gives Spike a smile that makes something long forgotten shiver through his chest. It’s been a while since anyone looked at him like he was their equal, no animosity or fear or even irritation in his expression. “Tara’s done a tidy bit of spellwork, the blood will keep as long as you need it to.”

“We’ll pick up some more on our way out of town,” Spike says. “It’s on our way.”

“I guess this is it then,” Willow says. She’s still pale, doesn’t sound quite her normal self, but that’s better than he would have expected given what she’s been through. “This is weird. I kind of thought we were going to be stuck with you forever.”

“I’m going to miss you so much,” Dawn says, flinging her arms around him in a tight hug.

Two hugs in one day.

“I’ll miss you too. But I’ve got your number, and I’ll call you, as soon as I’ve got a phone, okay?”

She nods against his chest, her hair making a soft noise against the leather of his coat, and then lets him go. “I’m okay.”

Tara wraps an arm around her shoulders and pulls her close at once. No one had asked her and Willow to be parents, but they’ve done a pretty good job, all things considered.

“Well, I’m not going to miss you,” Xander says. “In case you were wondering.”

“If I ever get this damn chip out you’re first on my list,” Spike tells him, and then, mostly just to be a dick, pulls Anya into a hug.

“X’ttrk,” he says, one of three words of Ashma’har he’s picked up over the years. It only means goodbye but Xander doesn’t know that and Spike can see it’s absolutely killing him, which is all he wanted. “Keep being you.”

“I don’t see how I could be anyone else,” Anya says, and because she’s Anya she means exactly that. “You should… also continue to be you.”

“That’s the plan.”

He’s not going to risk hugging the witches, even though he would if it were only Tara here. He offers her a hand to shake instead, and she takes it solemnly. “Look after yourself.”

“You too.”

He doesn’t try to touch Willow - it wouldn’t be welcomed. He sticks the hand not holding his cigarette in the pocket of his coat, and says, “Look after them. All of them.”

“I do my best.”

He doesn’t get involved in relationship drama that doesn’t involve him if he can help it (getting weekly updates from Dawn on the Chad - Emma J - Emma C love triangle doesn’t count since he’s only hearing about it forth hand) but he’s seen some fucked up relationships in his time, and he’s not stupid. He knows there’s something going on between the witches, and the fact that they’ve been all lovey dovey again the last couple of weeks isn’t enough to make him think they’ve actually fixed anything. “Look after Tara.”

Wide eyes, and Willow looks at John before she looks at Tara. Maybe he’s being a pessimist and it’s just that John cussed her out for it as well, but he doesn’t think so. Which is a damn shame, because they’re bloody cute together when everything’s working like it’s supposed to.

She juts her chin out pugnaciously and says, “I always do.”

So that’s not getting fixed any time soon.

Still, it’s not his problem. They’re adults, technically. It’s up to them to figure out what they’re fucking up.

Which just leaves Buffy, the one goodbye he’s been dreading. “Slayer...”

She cuts him off. “We’ve said everything that needs to be said. Don’t do anything to make me need to hunt you down.”

“No promises, pet. You know that.” For a moment they just stare at one another, but Spike forces himself to be the one to turn away first this time. He wishes that didn’t feel like a metaphor. “Alright, let’s roll.”

“You’re driving,” John says, sliding into the passenger seat. “On account of I never learned.”

Spike slings his bags into the back seat before he gets into the driver’s seat. The one that holds the blood feels cool to the touch, like it’s just been taken out of the fridge, and tingles like magic. “You never learned to drive?!”

John shrugs. “I’m a queer londoner. Plus my best mate’s a cabbie. He’ll generally take me where I need to go when I’m in town.”

“Yeah but this is America.”

“I hitch-hike.”

“Dangerous.”

“For them more than me.”

Spike snorts and twists the screwdriver they’re using for a key. The engine purrs to life under his hands. It’s going to be a bitch to keep it in fuel, but he already knows he’s going to like driving it. Good call, Ripper. “So what exactly are you contributing to this trip?”

“Charm.”

“Lucky me.”

Dawn waves as they pull away, and when he glances in the mirror at them, still standing there, he sees Anya is too.

He doesn’t look back again.

[impalementation]

so i just finished rhonda wilcox's essay on hush, and she comments that - much like angel the episode predicts what will happen to buffy and angel - hush predicts that riley will go on to rip buffy's heart out by becoming part of a patriarchal institution (wilcox does a lot of work establishing what the gentlemen represent and focuses on the moment in buffy's dream where riley turns into one of them). (1/2)

(2/2) so my question for you is do you see that any one episode cleanly predicts the path spike and buffy eventually go down together? and if there isn't, how does that deviation from the pattern affect the reading of the spuffy dynamic, if it does at all?

hmm, really interesting question. sorry it took me a while to answer! the thing about the spike/buffy dynamic is that we know a lot of it wasn’t planned out. i don’t have links to interviews at the tip of my fingers, but it’s something i’ve seen mentioned multiple times. that they didn’t know that spike would fall in love with buffy until starting season five, but that it was like they’d been writing to it all along. which means that we’d need to look to season five to find a thesis statement episode for the relationship. in which case, as obvious as it might sound, i think the episode we’re looking for is fool for love.

here’s why. i’ve talked about the spike/buffy storyline as being about both boundaries and the id before. but actually perhaps the more obvious thing to say their relationship is about, is power dynamics. and what power dynamics mean for love. and fool for love is all over that.

first, what fool for love does is it establishes spike as someone who wants two different things. he wants power and confidence, and he wants to be loved. when he becomes a vampire, he is able to find that power and confidence through violence. instead of caring about the opinions of his peers, he puts railroad spikes through their heads (or is implied to, anyway). his relationship to love and women is also all wrapped up in violence. heartbreak leads directly to him becoming a vampire, and therefore a soulless killer. drusilla turns him (a violent act), delights in his violence, and sexually responds to him killing the chinese slayer. more importantly, i don’t think you can or should get away from the imagery of slayer-killing as well, the violent conquest of powerful women. i see people claim that if slayers were men, then spike would be just as obsessed with killing them, that he just loves violence for the sake of violence. but whether or not that claim is accurate, i think it misses the fact that this is buffy, in which so much of the horror is various, more or less supernatural, versions of violent misogyny. so while i agree that spike is a person who takes glee in destruction of all kinds—his love of killing demons, “a little violence before bed time”, etc—and is not specifically obsessed with destroying women for being women the way, say, the trio (or ted, or pete, or etc) are…he does, nonetheless, relate to women in ways that we are meant to see as bitter and resentful or otherwise messed-up. his treatment of harmony, his frustration at dru leaving him, and of course everything in crush. that’s sort of the contradiction of him. he genuinely loves women, and makes himself abject to them and to the act of loving, but he also genuinely has a messed-up relationship to all of that. in other words, whether or not spike at all cares about killing slayers because they’re women, it still matters, in terms of symbolism, that he is a man killing women. his relationship to killing slayers is undeniably sexually coded, too. everything from his innuendo and sexually loaded gazing in school hard, to him asking nikki if “this is good for [her]”, to him asking buffy if she’ll “like it as much as [nikki] did.”

with that in mind, i would say that the problem the show is trying to have spike resolve, and the reason that he’s the id of the later seasons, is that he has this sincere desire to love and be loved, as well as to generally be confident and appreciated, but the only tool he has—especially when it comes to slayers—is violence. ie, acts of domination and power. or at least, violence is the only tool that’s ever rewarded him. he was a doting caretaker to drusilla, yes, but he only got drusilla in the first place by becoming a murderous creature. and later lost her by “going soft.” killing a slayer made drusilla sleep with him, while helping a slayer made her leave him. so in total, you have this character with all of these very human yearnings, but who has them repeatedly frustrated, and so tries to fulfill them through monstrous, vampiric behavior—through acts of power. his instinct when he is in love is to be a doting, romantic lover, but his instinct with slayers is to kill them. so by loving buffy he is made to confront the contradictions in his attitudes towards women, love, and power.

one of the fundamental questions of buffy is “how do you act when you feel like you have no control?” and in fool for love, both buffy and spike are feeling out of control. buffy feels out of control of her mortality, and later out of control of her mother’s mortality. meanwhile spike feels out of control of his deviant feelings for a good person that he cannot have. both characters have a tendency to assert control through violence, which is one of the reasons that spike is such a good id for buffy. buffy is used to protecting herself and the people she loves by physically fighting things, and struggles every time that’s not an option (but also struggles with what she thinks it says about her, that she is so intimate with violence). so in fool for love she goes to spike hoping that he’ll give her some sort of violence-related answer to her problem. she wants to know how he killed the other slayers, so that she can physically protect herself. moreover, she repeatedly manhandles him to get that information. meanwhile spike tries to seductively intimidate her, playing up his physical dangerousness, and ends up offering her a violence-related answer that she realizes she doesn’t actually want: him killing her. except that answer is as much about him as her. spike doesn’t really want to kill buffy, he wants to kiss her (or to be fair, let’s say he at least wants both), but when it comes to interacting with slayers, all he has is that language and mindset of violent conquest. so spike tries to assert control over buffy (“you know you want to dance”) and buffy responds by asserting control right back (“you’re beneath me”). she wins the contest of wills, and establishes herself as the person with more power in their dynamic. for all spike’s posturing all evening, buffy ultimately stands over him, dismissively tossing cash at him.

but the episode does not finish on that note. instead, it finishes with buffy feeling powerless yet again in the face of her mother’s sickness. spike goes to buffy, standing over her with a gun, intending to reclaim his power in the way he knows best: killing a slayer. but ends up as powerless in the face of his emotions as ever. instead of ending on an unbalanced power dynamic, the episode ends with buffy and spike on the same level, equally bowed by the weight of the feelings that they can’t control. neither standing over the other. neither asserting power over the other.

all of which is, in my opinion, their entire arc in microcosm. their story is the story of two people who struggle to relate to each other in a way that isn’t fraught with issues of power, especially sexual, gendered power. and who eventually, with up and downs, succeed. over the course of season five, spike lets go of more and more of his control. in crush, he’s tempted to return to his vampiric ways—keep in mind that for spike vampirism is associated with empowerment—and tries to literally shackle up the women he loves. which ends badly. in intervention he tries to cheat by only controlling a fake version of buffy. but that ends badly too. it’s only when he gives up control in the gift and doesn’t try to get in buffy’s house, that buffy begins the process of equalization by letting him in. using fool for love as a model, you might say that spike spends the season learning over and over how to set down his gun, to let go of the idea of an upper hand, and respond with his more humane and caring half.

but their dynamic is still very uneven. spike letting go of his power is not the same as them being equal. and season six digs into why that’s a problem if two people are involved. if fool for love is the spike/buffy arc in microcosm, then i would say that the alley scene is their season six arc, and the porch scene is their season seven arc. in season six, both spike and buffy feel out of control the way they felt in fool for love, and try to regain that control by playing violent power games with each other. even if it’s not what they actually want. spike’s intimidation/seduction during the alley scene reminds me a lot of his attempts to keep buffy at his level during their sexual relationship, because he thinks he can’t have her otherwise. buffy having a death wish, buffy belonging in the dark, etc. the ambiguity about whether spike fully believes what he’s saying, and is trying—in his vampiric way—to be helpful, or whether he’s bullshitting, seems similar in both situations too. meanwhile buffy’s flustered violence towards him (slamming him against things, choking him), reminds me of her side of their sexual relationship. she feels freaked out about her mortality, just as she feels freaked out about her “deadness” in season six, and turns that into conflict with spike (note how in both instances spike is a figure of a death, and buffy is reckoning with death). the scene then ends, just as their season six relationship does, with spike pushing buffy because he thinks she feels something (“come on, i can feel it slayer”), and buffy decisively pushing him away. revealing to spike that he’s misread their interaction.

season seven then is about the mutual laying down of arms. if season six is about love as a power struggle, then season seven is about love in the absence of power struggles. the implication is that letting go of power struggles and uneven dynamics is necessary for genuine and healthy love to develop. i’m very interested in the choreography of buffy and spike’s scene in touched. spike starts out above her, standing while she sits on the bed. then he kneels so he’s below her. then they end up on the same level on the bed together. much as they ended up on the same level on the porch in fool for love. they are not trying to take power from each other. spike gives his power. and so she stops looking down on him, stops trying to keep him at a hierarchal distance, and invites him to her level.

(there’s a parallel there with smashed, too. both scenes take place in an abandoned house, but instead of crashing to the basement and missing any sort of bed, they are in an upper-level bedroom together. and the next day she returns home—ie, returns to herself—empowered, rather than bruised and ashamed. in other words, their interaction was an affirmation of self rather than a destruction of self. in a relationship that is a power struggle, people will end up dragging each other down to the basement, in a race to the bottom. whereas in a relationship that is not, people elevate each other.)

honestly, for all that i understand why people don’t like it, i do think it’s a pretty potent storyline for a season that claims it’s “about power,” but turns out to be about sharing power. the bait-and-switch of thinking that power is about violence and control, when it’s actually about generosity, is basically the whole spike and buffy dynamic. both spike and buffy often think that violence is the only way to solve their problems, but yearn for things that don’t involve violence in the slightest. so for them to finish the season and the show peaceably sleeping in each other’s arms, on the same level? it strikes me as a very coherent resolution of their arc as a whole.

so, there’s your answer. fool for love. i also think it’s telling that in fool for love spike noticeably supplants riley in importance, and occupies buffy’s attention. which predicts the fact that he will ultimately replace riley as a sexual/romantic interest.

[plethoraurora]

“lie to me” and morality in btvs

today on help! i wrote an essay in the discord chat. since i happen to do that a lot i figured i’d dump them onto my blog for posterity, and so i don’t have to dig through archives/search to find them if i wanna express those points again.

so without further ado, please have a very stream-of-consciousness response to a conversation the buffyverse discord had about “lie to me” and its relevance to the series, specifically in terms of overarching themes and morality. this is entirely unedited and solely the result of my absolutely unhinged brain being allowed to run free:

prelude

re: the convo we were having about "lie to me": not to mention, the implications of buffy's conversation with giles in regard to the idea of moral ambiguity. which really hasn't been a conversation piece at all up to this point: it has been exactly that -- we know the enemies, we know the good guys, and that line is cleanly drawn. this totally foreshadows SO many things that will unfold through the rest of the series

pt. 1

obviously, angel losing his soul and reverting to angelus which is nearing in, at that point -- the ambiguity of one's personhood, the idea of the soul as the physical guiding force for morality, and the lack of it. what separates angel from angelus -- what separates the actions he committed as angelus from his ensouled state? what makes up his personhood?

pt. 2

then there's faith, who comes up next, chronologically -- she's buffy's foil in so many ways i don't even know where to begin -- but especially in her views of morality and what's "right" -- you can see that in her understanding of buffy's morality (ex. "because it's wrong"), and her actions throughout season 3 -- from her recklessness from the time she's introduced through her betrayal and incarceration/redemption, she walks a very thin, undefined line, between the inherent "good" of the nature of being a slayer, and "bad" of her own nature/nurture, and personal view of herself.

through her stint as buffy, we see that she feels the need to view herself as "bad", to demonize her actions, in direct contrast to buffy's "goodness" -- she sees them as complete opposites, polar extremes of a spectrum of morality -- when they're both closer to the middle. and that's something that will be explored when faith returns to sunnydale in s7, changed immensely by her self-imposed penance in prison, as well as buffy's own actions after her resurrection -- completely changed in her own demeanor through the effects of her feeling a disconnect from humanity and pursuing a self-harming relationship with spike -- who's been seen as "bad" this entire time.

the dynamic between faith and buffy is also explored in the context of the conflict regarding who the potentials want to lead them, and choosing faith -- while faith's changed her tune to do more good, buffy's gone from more the more optimistic of the two, to almost on par with faith's pessimism -- she sees the harsh reality of the past seven years clearly, and while her morals haven't changed -- how she sees them has -- buffy's always seen herself as inherent good, and faith as bad -- just as faith sees them -- when they meet again in s7, they both recognize they're neither.

pt. 3

and then we have willow -- who i think is the clearest example of this dichotomy -- just look at the change in her demeanor from season 1 to season 7. like buffy, she starts out optimistic to a fault -- they'll always win. and when they don't -- it affects her. willow isn't on the same moral high ground that early season buffy puts herself on -- but she is highly logical. she's book smart, studious, applies herself, and is generally just insanely intelligent. but as she starts to get into magic -- that logistics-focused approach starts to crumble -- because magic isn't logical, is it? she can easily apply logics to the functions of magical objects and ingredients, but the how and why is much more spiritual, connected to emotions -- which is exactly what we get when she pursues higher levels of magic upon meeting tara.

her morals aren't as clearly defined on the spectrum as buffy or faith's, or as questioned as angel or spike's, and her change is much more gradual than incited by one event (e.g. buffy's death/resurrection, angel losing his soul, spike getting his soul, etc.). i find her more similar to faith in this way -- though like faith and buffy, they're less traveling the same path than meeting each other in the middle.

it would be easy to argue tara's death as the inciting event in what seems like a change in willow's morality -- but i think of it as inherently connected to her disposition and how she sees the world, which is a gradual change. i think, then, that losing tara is more of an expression of this change -- a display of massive proportions of just how much she's changed since the first season. and we love willow. she's portrayed as an insanely sympathetic character -- she's shy, awkward, and loved by all the other characters she's an invaluable member of the team, both with her book smarts and later, her magic.

i actually think willow's morals are the most stagnant out of nearly every character -- perhaps besides giles. i think she's very similar to giles in that regard -- we see a similar arc with them, and at the same time. they have a strong understanding that what's moral isn't always right, and what's right isn't always moral. strong examples being when giles kills ben, and when he comes back, prepared to stop willow even if it costs either or both of their lives.

what changes is the way she expresses them -- again, inherently connected to her understanding of the world, going from purely logic based to more focused on feelings and connection to the world/other people. we see this expressed both in her demeanor, the focus on her magic, and most importantly, her appearance -- in seasons 4 and 5, she seems to take on a lot of tara's style choices, all invoking very hippie-ish vibes: long skirts, earthy tones and patterns -- which i think shows a lot about how tara influences her both personally (in terms of figuring out her sexuality) and magically; as she takes on more of a quote unquote stereotypical witch persona, pretty reminiscent of lots of early 2000s weird/magical girl tropes.

sidebar

i think a lot about the weird girl trope in regards to her, too. especially in the way that other similarly themed characters of the era were treated, in the way of sexual autonomy and femininity, and desirability. she definitely falls into the basics of the trope -- unsexualized costume, with a more seemingly "modest" demeanor and appearance. most importantly, some way of defying the norm. which willow does ten-fold: she doesn't fall to social heirarchy/popularity like buffy and cordelia do, initially; she's actually very low on the social pedestal. she doesn't follow fashion trends, she wears what she wants, doesnt fall to peer pressure to do otherwise. and most importantly, her sexuality, which could be considered the ultimate derivation from the norm in terms of how her character archetype was presented as well as the climate of the time.

two things i find really interesting in terms of her diverting the trope, however, is 1) the fact that unlike most girls that fall under the "weird girl" designation, she doesn't profess to not care what people think -- and we see directly the opposite, getting into her head in "helpless". and 2) she isn't seen as undesirable by romantic/sexual interests -- infact, she's got two pretty strong love interests. normally the women under this trope aren't given love interests, or if they are, they're equally matched to them in terms of demeanor. this couldn't be more false for willow's love interests.

i think the order oz and tara are portrayed in regards to willow's arc is also really important there -- oz, when they first get together, is seemingly a much stronger mentally and emotionally person than her; more bold and concretely himself -- but this is all a facade, as he isn't nearly sure of his identity as he navigates what being a werewolf is.

likewise, when willow and tara first enter their relationship, tara seems to be the less headstrong and in control of the two -- completely reversed in late s5/early s6 when willow isn't in control of her magic.

anyways. just an interesting sidebar.

pt. 3 cont

the fundamental function of willow's brain is logic: but logic can't justify tara's death. she can't find warren's motivation; can't process it as an accident. she doesn't believe that getting revenge is the moral thing to do. but she does believe it's right -- to find balance, a life for a life -- the way she'd learned to balance equivalent exchanges in her magic.