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

[blackfrancine.livejournal.com]

I hate it too! Because. Grrr. A woman isn't entitled to name her own emotions. What is with that? Why would she lie? To send Spike off with a pat on the head? I understand the logic from Spike's perspective--that she didn't love him before, can never love him because he's a monster, and therefore she's lying to make him feel better about joining oblivion. But does that even sound like Buffy? Sugar coating things for people? Especially Spike? She's been giving him tough love all season. I think she'd think it's more of an insult to their relationship to lie to him (that's certainly what she seems to think in season 6).

And for Pete's sake! Flamey hands of love! If Angel coming back from the hell dimension was a sign of the universe bending to their love, then so was healing fire bursting in Spike and Buffy's clasped hands. I'm sorry. But it's just the truth.

[penny-lane-42.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU.

[laeria.livejournal.com]

It's true. Buffy doesn't lie. Buffy, in fact, is way more open and specific about emotions than fandom usually recognises. (Is this because she mangles polysyllabic words on purpose sometimes? I entered the show with this vague preconception that Buffy really sucks at words. Which I think she doesn't really? She can express everythig she feels, I reckon, she just sometimes chooses not to.)

Also, yes. Fire = sparks = a very important part of their repertoire of symbols, right next to dirt, dancing and above/below dichotomies. Clearly a universal indicator of Buffy feeling. (See also: "I touch the fire and it freezes me". Also, I suppose, cleansing, new beginnings - the S3 finale. I, is there meta on this? Fire in the Buffyverse? There has to be.)

[blackfrancine.livejournal.com]

Fire = sparks = a very important part of their repertoire of symbols, right next to dirt, dancing and above/below dichotomies. Clearly a universal indicator of Buffy feeling. (See also: "I touch the fire and it freezes me". Also, I suppose, cleansing, new beginnings - the S3 finale. I, is there meta on this? Fire in the Buffyverse? There has to be.)

Yes. So, so much. Fire is CLEARLY set up in The Gift as being love. "Your love is like the fire--it's blinding." And then in season 6 when she's unable to feel connected, Buffy "wants the fire back."

And she gets it back. Boy howdy does she ever. The symbolism 100% supports that Buffy loved Spike, IMO.

And I totally think there's text there to support healing/cleansing/new beginnings fire, too. Because to me, it seems like when they burst into flames, her sword wound heals even faster (I've seen some people theorize that it's Spike's soul that heals her)--or you could say she's just surprised by the fire, and I'm totally reading too much into it. But whatever. I see healing flames. Sue me.

I'm sure there's some meta somewhere on this, but I don't know where.

[molly_may]

And for Pete's sake! Flamey hands of love!

Yes! Dismissing Buffy's words is bad enough, but ignoring the BIG FREAKING SYMBOLISM of the flaming hands in their final moments together, when we know that Spike searched for something "effulgent" and Buffy wanted "the fire back", just seems like willful ignorance on the part of those who choose to believe that Buffy didn't love Spike.

[eleusis-walks.livejournal.com]

If Angel coming back from the hell dimension was a sign of the universe bending to their love

I have always assumed this owed to Jasmine, actually.

But then, I am something of a cynic.

[blackfrancine.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I get that. And I actually think that would make way more sense. But, if it has nothing to do with their ~Special LUV~ --if it was all about Jasmine/the Powers--how come the claddagh ring was the catalyst? (I'm actually hoping you have an answer for this--because I really hate making the leap to "their love brought him back!"--it seems so irrational--at least with Buffy and Spike there's mystical light beaming out of Spike at the time--and the flames are mostly symbolic, they aren't an actual plot point).

[eleusis-walks.livejournal.com]

The claddagh ring belonged to him before he gave it to her -- it symbolizes his connection to the world, and it's a sympathetic object. It's like using a photograph of Joyce to bring her back from the dead, or using Buffy's ring (in "Who Are You?") to summon the draconian katra.

Basically I imagine Jasmine (or The Powers, or Jasmine and The Other Powers -- this is all open to interpretation) used an emotionally charged object belonging to him as a focal point. Sort of like a guiding beacon as he traversed the worlds.