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

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Crap. That was me. I don't know why my computer does this on the first post every night.

[next_to_normal]

That... doesn't make sense to me.

You were disappointed that the story you saw in S6 wasn't the story they were telling (which is fair, I've had the same experience at times), based on what the writers said outside the text. So in S7 you don't trust your instincts about Buffy... even though Joss has confirmed your instincts in the commentary and said that Buffy did love Spike?

I mean, either accept authorial intent or ignore it, it's up to you, but why accept it one season and then ignore it the next? Especially when the author AGREES with you, lol.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Maybe that works if you watch the whole thing on DVDs after the fact. I didn't. I watched it during its first run and commentaries came way late. And the sheer fact that Jane E of all people reacted with surprise that Joss had said that in commentaries showed that this was far less than clear in the writing room.

And, no, I don't necessarily place great weight in writer commentaries because anyone who reads very many of Joss's can come away with a sneaking suspicion that he tailors his answer to the questioner. And I'm not basing my Season 6 purely on commentary (though god knows we were given an earfull of it) but on the way what was said influenced subsequent writing. People were surprised at first when Spike came up in OMWF that Buffy was just using him because "whisper in a dead man's ear doesn't make it real" because, hey, were we nuts to think her behavior was genuine? Except that the story went on to reinforce this concept exactly as the writers proclaimed it would. She was using him as her secret, as confirmation that something was "wrong" with her. When people protested that it wasn't all dark and destructive, the writers felt the need to illustrate that fact, so we "Dead Things" and "Seeing Red" where Marti Noxon does a post interview of "See! I told you so!!" And after reading Marti's "I proved my point!" the desire grows to say, "I'm not second guessing the text again." You may adopt "I'll believe the text, the text, and only the text. AMEN." And the text? Is ambiguous. If it weren't people wouldn't have come away firmly believing entirely different things. Writers of the actual show wouldn't react with surprise to Jossian commentaries.

And it's REALLY difficult to take Joss saying "Oh, I left this blank spot in Chosen for you to imagine whatever you want because I won't write it, but feel free to fill in the blanks if you wish." Or the fact that he now writes a comic scene where Buffy tells Angel that Spike is "beneath him," that Spike is only "convenient" because, as Joss penned "he has a ship"... yeah. I'm not feeling so positive about Joss's view of things (and if he wants to convince me otherwise he has a hell of a lot of work).

I realize that a lot of people have very firm feelings about what they think Buffy feels. Those with the strongest convictions feel a strong connection to Buffy. I don't really feel that I have a strong connection to Buffy. In fanfic, I feel that I get her. But when I see her on screen... well, she's often enigmatic. And it's not that I can't take subtle or restrained performances. I adore Gilian Anderson, Claudia Black, and even Anna Torv's portrayal of restrained women. But I feel that I can read those actress, I don't have the same ease with SMG. I have even less ease in the case of Buffy where every writer out of the box had often polar opposite interpretations of what they thought was going on. So it isn't clear to me. I don't know how clear it was to the people involved. Certainly the writers have given every kind of answer and so have the actors. So I don't feel it's unambiguous. And I don't feel that I can just look at Buffy and know. And I don't really buy "they couldn't really clarify it in the text" because they had no issues with clarifing "You're beneath me" multiple times. Of for Joss to just recently write Buffy flinging herself into Angel's arms proclaiming "You're the guy I'd spend the rest of my life with."

So I don't pick and choose which version is the 'right' one. It honestly isn't clear to me. I can see a multiplicity of views for what's on screen. And no matter who insists that I should be certain can make me actually feel certain. The dye was cast long ago. Before there were DVD commentaries but when there was still a lot of contradictory statements floating around.

Frankly, I'm proud of myself for having now reached the point that I'm fairly sanguine with it because I used to not be. I've written my share of incendiary screeds. This is my generous interpretation. Trust me, in the bad old days, it was worse. :)

[next_to_normal]

I'm not saying you should accept authorial intent at all if you don't want to. (Frankly, I think trying to figure out what the hell Joss really intended is an excellent way to drive yourself completely mad. You're absolutely right - he contradicts himself all the time.) It just seemed weird to me that you'd assume your interpretation of S6 is wrong because it's contradicted by what the writers said, but when Joss actually agrees with you in S7, you discount it. But clearly we're talking past each other to some extent, because you're incorporating the comics, whereas they have absolutely no bearing on my interpretation of the TV show.

Personally, I don't give a fig what Joss intended. If the comics have done anything for me, they've proven that the story I want to see is not the story Joss is interested in telling. That doesn't mean the story I'm seeing isn't there, and if something he says or does outside the text contradicts what I see on screen, I'm gonna ignore him.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

they've proven that the story I want to see is not the story Joss is interested in telling

Yeah, unfortunately, I reached that conclusion long ago.

And it really isn't a matter of picking and choosing commentaries it's that what we were told foretold what happened. As you watch it in a cause and effect sequence rather than explanation after the fact, it takes on a slightly different perspective.