#to be clear this isn't anti Buffy

[thequeenofsastiel]

Buffy- Hanging out with Spike is not cool, Dawn! Okay? It's dangerous, and icky.

Also Buffy- Dawn could be in danger. Must go to Spike for help.

[spangelmybeloved]

Very tired of the "Buffy didn't have good sex until she was with Spike" take I've heard over and over and over and over again and seen in countless fics and...

Firstly I do want to make myself clear, this is NOT an anti-Spuffy post.

Ok now that that's out of the way...

Pretty sure it's canon that Angel is a very experienced lover. He was with lots and lots of girls when he was human, which I mean, yeah, isn't a guarantee he was good but... this brings me to my next point... Do any of you all think Darla would have kept him around if he wasn't up to her standards? I think not. That woman wasn't going to let him slack. I just know she taught him well...

What about Riley you ask? Well, just from the looks of it I'm pretty sure they were having a good time in WTWTA...and all those other times... if he wasn't any good, I doubt Buffy would have stayed with him.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk

[herinsectreflection]

I Guess Her Generation Isn't Cool With Witchcraft (Gingerbread)

On the 24th May 1988 the Conservative government of Great Britain, led by Margaret Thatcher, passed a law known officially as the United Kingdom Local Government Act 1988. This Act had many effects, but by far its most famous and influential section was the part that has come to be known as Section 28. Section 28 outlawed any school or local authority in the United Kingdom from “promoting homosexuality”, “publishing any material with the intention of promoting homosexuality”, or “promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. Given that the act (intentionally) made no effort to define “promotion”, the effect was clear and predesigned: from 1988 until its full repeal in 2003, queerness was illegal in British schools.

This justification for this discrimination was the same one that is always trotted out - the protection of children from predatory influences. Homophobic attitudes were rising in the wake of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, whipped up by an entrenched conservative government and a vulturine news industry. The likes of The Sun, Daily Mail, and The Telegraph ran regular scare pieces about the homosexual lifestyle and its apparent attempts to indoctrinate children. The most benign depictions of queer acceptance were accused of being pornographic, of being propagandic, of “glorifying homosexual intercourse”. One book - Jenny Lives With Eric And Martin - was described by The Sun as “vile” and Today as “gay porn”[1], and was deemed controversial enough to kickstart the movement that resulted in Section 28. It depicts a girl with a gay father, engaging in such salacious events as going to the laundrette, and planning a birthday party.

The accusations leveled at these books were lies, and easily revealed as lies to anyone concerned enough to engage in actual research, but their purpose was not to be true. Their purpose was to combine latent homophobia in the general population with the instinctive human desire to protect the young. Together, these elements create a powerful boogeyman. This boogeyman was then paraded out during the general election of 1987, in which the Labour Party was attacked for their (claimed) promotion of such offensive materials. This was an imagined threat cooked up by bigots and seized upon by political actors most interested in protecting their capital. It worked. The Conservatives won the election with 42% of the vote, and remained in power until 1997. 

It is into this cultural landscape that Buffy airs the eleventh episode of Season Three, Gingerbread. The plot revolves around the deaths of two young children, and how those deaths spark a wave of anti-witch paranoia among the townsfolk of Sunnydale; a paranoia that escalates into censorship, persecution, and eventually a literal witch-burning. The dead children are eventually revealed to be an evil demon exerting some kind of mind control on the population, which is standard practice for Buffy hijinks. The important aspects are the real-world parallels that this storyline is intending to highlight.

Read More

[jayciethings]

This is a wildly unpopular take and I will tag it anti Spuffy to avoid upsetting people, but that's actually how Bangel is written, and Spuffy, aside from an imperfect attempt in S7, is the opposite.

I don't think Bangel is the perfect, unassailable relationship or anything, but Buffy always knows who she is around Angel, and can just relax and be herself around him. She is able to be vulnerable around him in a way she isn't with anyone else. We see that again and again. Crying in his arms after pushing all her friends away in When She Was Bad; lying down on his bed when she's being hunted in What's My Line (she goes to his apartment cos he is her safe space); lying in his arms at her mother's graveside and letting herself feel and be weak when she's had to be strong for everyone else and not broken down with Riley. We also have Angel seeing her true heart when she was a superficial-coated Valley Girl and falling in love with her; loving her in her sweats and baffled by her desire to be a soft noblewoman from his era; not even giving her the strength to keep fighting in Gingerbread but pointing out the strength he sees in her is always inside her; standing to one side in S7 to joyfully watch her fight.

These two know each other to their bones and can just *be* around one another. Perfect peace. "My spirit quiets." (Which is incidentally why Angel has his moment of perfect happiness and loses his soul lying in Buffy's arms, rather than during sex.)

Whereas Spike outright says "you came back wrong". And, yes, that is when he is soulless. And, yes, he does stick up for her a lot in S7 and she lies in his arms that one night. But you never get that feeling like her soul is truly at rest with him. He's important to her for sure. But she doesn't have that ability to just "be" around him. Which I think is portrayed by them not falling asleep that night together. And notice how much she seeks Angel out. Whereas with Spike, aside from their destructive sex pattern in S6 when she's trying to feel anything during her depression, it seems like it's always him seeking her out.

(As a side note, I think s7 Spuffy is so unequal and it's very clear that Spike is trying and giving much more than Buffy. I don't really understand why Spike fans would want him with her considering that. And, for me, despite a lot of discourse on Spike having a huge character arc of redemption and change in the series, S7 underlines that he's the same person he was when human and when soulless: so committed to one woman that he has lost any sense of individuality and made his entire existence about them. Spike is still "love's bitch" at the end of S7, and that's not a good thing. It's good he gets to be away from her in Angel the series. (I could write a whole other long vent on Spike being love's bitch and that not at all changing with Buffy and why they're not healthy even in S7 but that is another post.)

There's a reason why the moment Angel and Buffy are around each other the years just roll back. Why they can't help but slip straight into the same patterns no matter how much the other has been through in the interim. There's a reason why despite the big verbal speech of support soulled Spike gives Buffy in S7 she's kissing Angel within seconds of seeing him again. That's not lust on their faces - it's unadulterated joy.

I know you. I see you. I've always seen you. That's Bangel, not Spuffy.

Opposite of "came back wrong" is "stayed exactly the same." Oh you want so badly to pretend that you have changed. You changed your face, you changed your name, you started leaning into a whole new role, but I know you. I know you. I know who you used to be, and I can see that person shining through you still. You can fool the world you can fool your friends you can fool yourself but you will not fool me.

[sokkastyles]

Do you think ATLA would have followed the same plot/ships had it been conceptualized today rather than the mid-2000s?

I already talked a bit about how I think the ships would be different if the show were made today, or been handled with a bit more care and more attention given to its female audience (rather than mocking them).

I also think the show is a bit of a product of its time related to some of its other more controversial aspects. This was an American show made in a post-9/11 world - and I am old enough to have been in high school when the towers fell, I watched the second tower collapse on live television during religion class - and you can see that in some of its themes, particularly the anti-extremism narratives with Jet and Hama as well as the whole Dai Li thing. When Zuko talks about how his government lied to him, which a lot of people seem to interpret as a plausible deniability cop out, this is how a lot of young people felt during the Bush administration. Nowadays the show's political stance comes off a bit centrist. Other people more equipped than me have also addressed some of the issues with the way the show uses the cultures it took inspiration from, and even saying that America is the Fire Nation doesn't really solve that issue because it's still seeing nonwhite people as symbolic for whiteness and centering whiteness in the narrative, even to serve as a warning to the American audience. Other people have also pointed out how the characters in the show talk like kids from California in the early 2000s. TV tropes used to call this "Buffy Speak" and there was actually debate about changing the name to "Avatar Speak." Particularly Sokka as a character embodies that. You know Seth Cohen from the OC? That's Sokka. I'm not saying his character is entirely westernized because of course it isn't, but there are things about the show that make it unique to the time and place in which it was made, even keeping in mind the amount of effort that was put into research and cultural sensitivity. I think if the show was made today, the Water Tribes would be South Asian, not Inuit, although I know a lot of people value the Inuit rep in the show and I don't begrudge them that.

Idk, it's hard to say, but every piece of art is reflective of when and where it was made, in ways both intended and unintended. The show also gets criticism for upholding the monarchy but that's a product of the fantasy genre in general, and if the finale of Game of Thrones taught us anything, it's that trying to be "progressive" within that framework can backfire horribly, especially when you've already got an all-powerful authoritarian character as your main hero.

AtLA also suffers the fate of all episodic shows in some ways, and that's a product of its format. This wasn't a "whole season released at one time on netflix" kind of show. A lot of the plot was made up by the writers as they were writing, because that's how shows were written in the cable TV era. That's why you got all that infamous stuff about arguments in the writers room, or wildly differently characterization from episode to episode because the episodes were written by multiple writers. Or the writers flubbing the end of Aang's arc because they had an idea of where they wanted to get but not as much of a clear idea of how to get there. These aren't necessarily condemnations, but they are what they are.

[bookofmirth]

Could you explain what self insert actually means? Because the fandom throws that word around like it's nothing.

Yk- the same as they do with the word 'forshadowing'

mmm I will try, but I think the issue is that people use that phrase to mean different things, and there isn't really a set definition? I don't *think* its usage has been formalized enough to have a clear description that everyone could agree on, but from what I get:

People accuse sjm of self-insert as a sort of fantasy fulfillment. It's when a writer relies too much on themselves as a character, rather than writing a character who is a distinct entity with separate motivations, history, personality, etc. So in this case, if people say that Aelin is a self-insert (I have the anti sjm tags blocked so I have no idea if people say this), then that means that Aelin is Sarah but in a fantasy setting.

I do think that self-insert and, like, wish fulfillment, are different. Obviously sjm was inspired by LoTR, and maybe she wanted to be Eowyn ripping off her helmet, or maybe she wanted to be Buffy Summers kicking some ass in a cemetery, who knows. That's still not self-insert, because I think we can all agree that Feyre, Aelin, Bryce, and Nesta are very different characters. They have different personalities, different histories, different motivations, different goals, different reactions to conflict. Which one is supposed to be sjm, exactly?

The thing is though - auto-fiction exists. Write what you know. Of course people are going to write dialogue, jokes that they have heard or used, or refer to things they have seen and experienced. Auto-fiction blurs the line between fiction and autobiography, so it's not like people can't put parts of themselves in what they write. I suppose the difference here is that when we read ToG, we aren't expecting auto-fiction.

However!

imo unless people know Sarah personally, they know her personality, her quirks, her likes and dislikes, her goals, her favorite foods, her allergies, her blood type, her besties, what she does when she's angry, happy, confused, etc. - we can't say if she is self-inserting or not. None of us know her well enough to say that she is self-inserting. Like what would we even look for? A blonde woman? Because that's... not self-inserting. That's physical characteristics. She has been open about using things from her family's past, like her grandmother's internment in a concentration camp. That's not self-insert, that's being inspired and writing what you know.

I have no idea if this helped haha I guess I don't have a problem with a woman self-inserting - if that is what she has indeed done - when we've had dudes doing it and making themselves the heroes and the women the damsels in distress (or you know, the dead damsel in the fridge) for centuries.

[daffietjuh]

I don't know if you're still taking prompts and this isn't the kind of prompts you asked for, but I'd love a sequel to the "SOS-light" where Alex gets injured and texts Kyle a SOS-light because he's not actively dying, and Kyle DOES NOT agree that it wasn't a full SOS

Emma! Thank you! I love this! The original drabble can be found here. Warnings for: Slight stabbing, mentions of Alex’s horrible childhood and stitches?

—-

When Kyle received Alex’s “At cabin, SOS-light” text, he was kind of thinking maybe him and Guerin had been experimenting with handcuffs or something, maybe he’d run out of tequila, maybe Buffy had jumped into the mud somewhere and he needed back-up bathing her. 

What he wasn’t expecting, was the bloody handprint on the door, which was partially open.

‘Alex?’ He called out, immediately on guard, dread pooling in the pit of his stomach.

‘Yeah.’ Alex’s answer came from inside and so Kyle carefully pushed the door open further and headed inside. He found Alex on the couch with a bloody towel presses against his forearm.

‘Uh, when you said SOS-light, I wasn’t really expecting blood.’ Kyle said, rushing to Alex’s side. ‘What the fuck happened?’ Kyle asked. The wound seemed at least somewhat significant because the towel was ruined.

‘Uh, guy with a knife came into the cabin, he managed to cut my arm, I punched him, twice, I think I broke his nose, got the knife off him and then he bailed.’ Alex said, kind of shrugging it off, like he hadn’t just said a random dude came into his cabin with a knife and tried to stab him.

‘You got stabbed and you called an SOS-light?’ Kyle asked, stunned.

‘I got sliced, I’m fine, but it’s my right arm and I’m really shitty at doing stitches with my left.’ Alex looked at him like he didn’t get why he was freaking out so much. ‘I wasn’t actively dying, so it’s an SOS-light.’ He shrugged.

‘If it had been your left you’d have done your own stitches? What- why- how?’ Kyle held a hand up. ‘No, you know what, it doesn’t matter. First aid kit?’

‘Cabinet under the sink is the big one.’ Alex said and Kyle realized that meant Alex had more than one first aid kit.

‘I’m still not quite over the fact that you deem being stabbed- sliced, whatever, an SOS-light. I think we need to change the parameters for what qualifies as “light”.’ Kyle said as he grabbed the, admittedly, big-ass first aid kit. He could hear Alex sigh as he made his way back to him.

‘Like how?’

‘Like blood means it’s a proper SOS, if there are knifes, guns or any other weapons involved, it’s also a proper SOS.’ Kyle said, slowly, like he was explaining it to a child. Alex rolled his eyes so hard Kyle figured it had to hurt.

‘What if I cut my finger while cooking?’ Alex challenged. ‘That involves both a knife and blood.’ Kyle raised his eyebrow.

‘You, cooking? That’s hilarious.’ Kyle said and if Alex hadn’t been holding down a towel on his bleeding arm, he’d probably have punched him.

‘I cook.’ Alex said defensively.

‘Sure, buddy.’ Alex narrowed his eyes.

‘Are you going to stitch me up, or what?’

Kyle sighed and opened the first aid kit.

‘Jeez Alex, this is really well stocked.’ Kyle said as he found an actual kit for stitches, anti-septic stuff all over the place and even several different splints.

‘Yeah, well, I learned what I need to take care of myself a long time ago.’ Alex said, his voice suddenly much darker, like he was remembering bad things. Kyle took a closer look at the kit. He looked up at Kyle and let out a humourless laugh. ‘I started keeping splints in there after the shed incident.’

It was moments like these that had Kyle wish he’d killed Jesse Manes when he had the chance, that he’d been willing to put aside his oath for a few seconds. He could have injected an air bubble into his bloodstream, it would have been so easy. The less emotionally compromised part of him knew he’d never have been able to live with himself, but would that not have been worth it? Could he have dealt with a little suffering if it meant he’d freed Alex from that monster?

He was torn from his thoughts by Alex clearing his throat.

‘Sorry.’ Kyle said and he quickly focussed on the task at hand. Alex was right, the cut wasn’t that deep, nor was it life-threatening. He was also right about it needing stitches. Kyle used one of the many options to clean his own hands, the instruments he’d be using and the wound as best as he could. Alex clenched his jaw, but didn’t make any sound. There was a numbing cream in the kit and Kyle used it to try and make sure the stitching wouldn’t be like torture (although Alex insisted he’d done it before).

Kyle was really glad his hands were steady as he stitched the wound on Alex’s arm. He kept his focus on the steady movement of the needle and the thread, not allowing his mind to drift to all the other times Alex had apparently done this himself.

When he’d finished, Alex studied the neat row of stitches for a second.

‘Nice.’ Seemed to be the verdict. Kyle sighed.

‘Thanks, I’m glad you think medical school taught me well.’ Kyle said with what he thought was an appropriate amount of attitude. ‘If it gets warm or starts feeling tight, call me.’

‘Yeah, yeah, infection, I know.’ Kyle sighed and watched his best friend for a few seconds as he fidgeted.

‘Alex, I was serious about this not being an SOS-light. You got attacked, got hurt, that’s a priority call. Your safety matters to me and to others now, you can’t just shrug this kind of stuff off. What if the knife had nicked an artery?’

‘It didn’t-‘

‘Yes, but what if it had?’ Kyle said with a little more force. He looked him dead in the eye when he continued ‘Alex, I would be heartbroken if you died.’ Alex seemed to process that for a second.

‘Oh.’

‘Yeah “oh”, idiot.’ Kyle said, trying to lighten the suddenly heavy mood. ‘If you’re ever bleeding, or get attacked again, it’s a proper SOS, okay?’

‘Yeah, alright.’

‘Okay, now we’re going to call Max and have him check if anyone checked into the hospital with a broken nose.’

[herinsectreflection]

I've been a little bit obssessed lately with the Bangel/Fuffy/Spuffy continuum, and what it indicates about the way the show is received. There is a distinct gap between how Buffy's main love interests are perceived in fandom .vs. canon. Buffy clearly has three major love interests across the show - Angel, Spike, and Riley. But the fans see it differently. There are three clear favoured characters to ship with Buffy - Angel, Spike, and Faith. Faith is the clear third here, but she is still well ahead of any other character, and certainly ahead of of Riley, who is nonexistent in shipping discussions. When comparison posts collating Buffy's love interest patterns appear, they so often include Faith, but do not include Riley.

I think this is quite revealing. And not because of the relative strengths of Fuffy or Briley - that's not actually important here. It's revealing for what it tells us about each character and their role in the show.

Riley is defined by his opposition to Buffy's other love interests. This is intentional - he is the "normal relationship" that Angel broke up with Buffy to allow her to have. She states explicitly that this was his intended role in her eyes. Much of her romantic arc in S4 is about moving past her relationship with Angel and accepting that not all her romances are going to be like that, for good (she won't be left alone in bed by him) and bad (she won't have the fire/passion that she craves). He is the anti-Angel, and where his scenes parallel Angel's, it is to show his difference from him.

And then moving into S5, his role shifts. The writers clearly realise that his character isn't working as expected, and that the Buffy/Riley romance is not gaining any traction with the audience. They move Spike into the role of love interest and start seriously building up Buffy/Spike. So therefore Riley becomes positioned as the anti-Spike. He is the guy who can't satisfy Buffy's desires - as opposed to Spike who as her shadow self implicitly can, and Spike will repeatedly tell them both this. He is the guy who Buffy doesn't open up to or cry around, while Spike is the guy that she does. He is the guy who cheats on Buffy and blames her emotional unavailability, while Spike is the guy who is cheated on and has his emotional unavailability blamed. In S6 when he returns, he again stands in as the apparent good, healthy romantic partner that Spike is not. Riley becomes defined by not being Spike.

Faith, on the other hand, is constructed with intentional similarity to Buffy's other love interests. Her original arc in S3 is designed as a repeat of Angel's in S2, as I and others have gone into in details plenty of times before. Like Angel, she becomes close to Buffy early on, and represents someone that could draw Buffy away from her destiny/metaphorical adulthood. Her turn into evil and eventual fate being kissed and killed in the finale mirors Angel exactly. There are a dozen other little moments throughout the season that draw more parallels. She even shares the commonality of having an ironic religion-related name (Angel being an unholy demon, Faith being someone totally lacking in any). Whether or not you see the Faith/Buffy dynamic as romantic or not, this is undeniable - Faith is Angel come again.

Faith is of course also designed as Buffy's shadow self, representative of her repressed desires and darker side. And while I would argue that she owns this role for the entire series, on a practical level she can't perform it when she's not on the show anymore. So it is Spike that picks up the mantle after her exit. And Spike and Faith both perform this role in very similar ways, in a way that distinctly differs from Buffy's other shadow self (Cordelia). They attempt to actively goad Buffy into embracing their darker side, and will explicitly tell her what she wants (which Buffy will deny but then go on to clearly confirm their truth). In both cases, it is also tied up with their own projection and desires. They both also do a lot to link Buffy's dark side to sexuality and death. Spike is in many ways Faith come again. This ends up being reflected back again in S7, when Faith and Spike become mirrored as people who follow Buffy instinctively, who stick up for her when others don't, and who are the only other people Buffy really trusts by the end.

And then there are all the ways in which Angel/Faith/Spike make a clear common trio between them. They all fit the "bad boy/girl" archetype. They all start off with a belligerent relationship to Buffy. They are all at some point villains, even the Big Bad. They all end the series as redeemed sinners who are trying to be better people than they once were. They are all supernatural warriors who are defined by being one or two of a kind. They all look great in leather. None of these apply to Riley.

So of course when it comes to grouping the love interests, of course Faith gets included in the paralllels posts and Riley doesn't. It's not just because Faith/Fuffy is more popular than Riley/Briley. It's because, by design of the show, Faith fits alongside Angel and Spike, and is deliberately positioned as their equal in many ways, while Riley is intentionally written to be their opposite and unequal comparison.