Annoyance of the day:

[lirazel]

People who flat-out say that Buffy didn't love Spike despite the fact that she said she did.

She said she did. The only reason we have to believe that she didn't is one thing Spike said, and since when do people believe anything that comes out of Spike's mouth? Boy can speak the truth that no one else will, but he also says a ton of b.s., and everyone knows it.

I just hatehatehatehatehatehate all of these people sitting around telling a woman (and it would be a woman--if a man said, it I think a lot less people would disagree with her) who finds it nearly impossible to say the words "I love you" even to people she regards as family (remember "Intervention"? That's canon) that she doesn't love someone when she said she did.

I don't have a problem with people quibbling over the nature of her love. You can argue that she didn't love him romantically or as much as she did Angel or whatever (I would disagree with the first one and re: the second, I would remind you that, as the_royal_anna says, we don't love in amounts. We love in ways). That's legit. But to say, flat-out, that she didn't love him even though she says she did takes agency away from Buffy in a way that I am entirely uncomfortable with and that DRIVES ME CRAZY, OKAY. If she had said she loved Riley (she didn't, did she?), I would be pissed at people saying she didn't love him, either. Uuuugh why does this annoy me so much?

Comments

[miss-mishi.livejournal.com]

I respectfully disagree. I think there's a huge difference between platonic love and between being in love with someone. To go for the in-universe comparison, Bangel v. Cangel. Buffy and Angel said they loved each other all the time. They had moody make out sessions and that whole sort of EPIC DESTINY bag of tropes. However they never really convinced me of it. All they talked about is how much they loved each other. There was no depth. They had nothing between them but those declarations of love. Once forcibly separated, Angel admits that he is fine without her. Hearthrob as an episode is about how Angel realizes he's okay without Buffy and that that's...okay.

Compare that with Cangel. They never officially say it (other than that time where Angel's like I love you and Cordy's like I love you too! Everyone I love Angel and Angel loves me! because the apocalypse is coming) but it consumes their entire beings. They're best friends and they're made of one another and they cannot function without one another. I mean Angel keeps going but he loses sight of the mission. She has to come back to get her guy back on track. Angel loves Wes and Gunn and Fred, but he's in love with Cordy in a very real way.

Anyway I have no idea if I'm articulating this well at all, but I think the difference is in the maturity of the relationship and the way it develops and also the necessity of the other person and their chemistry and the way they are physically with one another and the way they look at one another and the way they speak to each other in regards to in love v. love.

[eleusis-walks.livejournal.com]

they do officially say it just never to each other (cordy in "tomorrow" and angel in "ground state")

sorry i'm too obsessed

[miss-mishi.livejournal.com]

Oh I meant to each other I should have clarified

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

There's nothing here that I disagree with? I'm just setting feelings aside and talking about love as an action and a choice, and I don't really believe that platonic and romantic love are all that different when you take away the trappings of infatuation, sexual attraction, cultural baggage, etc. And I'm not saying that all those things aren't important or powerful, because obviously they are, but those aren't the foundation of love.

But while I 100% agree with your assessment of Angel's relationships, I don't know what it's got to do with disagree with me? I mean, is Buffy and Angel's relationship obviously immature? Yes. But I think they absolutely did love each other, even if it was a very adolescent kind of love.