I think we read the book rather differently. I'm basically with stormwreath in thinking Angel wasn't consciously lying when he told Buffy he didn't kill anyone. It's literally true and what he says about both demons and governments being on the warpath, in spite rather than because of anything the masked man said or did, is consistent with what's been shown in previous issues if you go back and look at them carefully. One advantage of the comics medium is that it's very easy to do that, a reader can process comic time like Dr Manhattan in Watchmen. This doesn't mean that I think Angel was right, I think he could have acted differently maybe by trying to set up negotiations rather than manipulations but that would have been very out of character for Angel.
I think Buffy believes Angel when he said the killings weren't his doing in particular I think she believes him when he says that her changing the world is what caused the backlash. The idea that Buffy, at heart, blames herself for the war has been set up from the very first meeting she has with twilight after which she asks Xander if they're really doing any good or just creating more monsters to fight. She blames herself for the war in Retreat and again in the Joss penned Turbulence only to be pep talked out of it by Riley and then Xander. That works as long as she has the mysterious bad guy to blame but when he turns out to be Angel that excuse starts to be much more diffcult for her to hide behind.
Meltzer's intention was earnest depiction of Buffy and Angel's relationship as the ultimate romance. I'm not so sure, he's been very careful not to piss off B/A shippers in his interviews, especially when their his interviewers. I'm certainly not so sure that he sees ultimate romance as necessarily a good thing. Joss believes love is a selfish emotion and I don't think he's unique in that. Though if they were to make that explicit that would probably piss off shippers even more than what's gone down already.
I added the link to your entry. I will read and comment soon.
I think we read the book rather differently. I'm basically with stormwreath in thinking Angel wasn't consciously lying when he told Buffy he didn't kill anyone. It's literally true and what he says about both demons and governments being on the warpath, in spite rather than because of anything the masked man said or did, is consistent with what's been shown in previous issues if you go back and look at them carefully.
You may be right. Maybe it's one of suspension-of-disbelief moments. I mean, in real life, when a man finds out that the girl he loves is in danger, he warns her and/or helps her directly. But in genre fiction heroes sometimes make a lot of illogical steps to create intrigue and tension.
I think Buffy believes Angel when he said the killings weren't his doing in particular I think she believes him when he says that her changing the world is what caused the backlash.
The question is, is it true? Was it Buffy and Willow's spell that eventually brought the apocalypse? Or was it Twangel's machinations? Looks like it's a lose-lose. Either we have to blame Buffy or we have to blame Angel.
I'm certainly not so sure that he sees ultimate romance as necessarily a good thing.
I have the impression that Meltzer's Buffy and Angel are radically different from Joss' characters. Joss sees love as a selfish emotion, mostly, (Spike's love to Buffy in season 7 is an exception) while Meltzer's heroes are defined by the traditions of the romantic genre where love rules supreme.
Meltzer's heroes are defined by the traditions of the romantic genre where love rules supreme.
Or so it would appear, until you get halfway through 8.35 and Buffy turns around and says "I never do what I'm meant for" and walks away from her "destined true love" back to her friends instead.
I mean, in real life, when a man finds out that the girl he loves is in danger, he warns her and/or helps her directly. But in genre fiction heroes sometimes make a lot of illogical steps to create intrigue and tension.
I think real life is just as complicated as genre fiction. People often do what they think is for the best, they tell white lies, they try and fix things themselves to save other people's suffering. Sometimes they misjudge things terribly.
The question is, is it true? Was it Buffy and Willow's spell that eventually brought the apocalypse? Or was it Twangel's machinations? Looks like it's a lose-lose. Either we have to blame Buffy or we have to blame Angel.
The end of the world seems to be hard written into the Universe. I don't think either Buffy or Angel wrote those rules. As for the slayer backlash I understand why Buffy would blame herself but I would the human/military authorities who needed an enemy to fight and picked Slayers.
I have the impression that Meltzer's Buffy and Angel are radically different from Joss' characters. Joss sees love as a selfish emotion, mostly, (Spike's love to Buffy in season 7 is an exception) while Meltzer's heroes are defined by the traditions of the romantic genre where love rules supreme.
Where do you get that impression from? Metzler just wrote an arc where romantic love destroyed the world and the happy ending meant abandoning it.
The end of the world seems to be hard written into the Universe. I don't think either Buffy or Angel wrote those rules.
The difference between "then" and "now" is that in the past Buffy has been successfully preventing all the apocalypses. Now she's the cause of it. Either she or Angel. Or both.
human/military authorities who needed an enemy to fight and picked Slayers.
That coiuld be an intriguing story, but, so far, human/military authorities were depicted as minions, small fish.
Metzler just wrote an arc where romantic love destroyed the world and the happy ending meant abandoning it
It's just my impression, but I think we're supposed to wish Buffy and Angel to achieve happiness in paradise; we're supposed to regard Buffy's decision to return to the lower plane as her greatest sacrifice; we're supposed to root for them.
The difference between "then" and "now" is that in the past Buffy has been successfully preventing all the apocalypses. Now she's the cause of it. Either she or Angel. Or both. I'd describe them more as catalysts than causes in this case. Back in S1 Buffy did cause the apocalypse to start when she went down to fight the Master based on misreading another prophecy.
That could be an intriguing story, but, so far, human/military authorities were depicted as minions, small fish.
I would reread the scenes of Twilight talking to his allies at the end of NFFY and ABS. In both cases he's justifying his failure to kill first Faith/Giles and then Buffy to them with excuses about trying to take their enemies out of the game or demoralise but never actually kill them. If Twilight were really the all powerful leader why would he need to justify himself to his minions?
I think we're supposed to wish Buffy and Angel to achieve happiness in paradise; we're supposed to regard Buffy's decision to return to the lower plane as her greatest sacrifice; we're supposed to root for them.
I got the impression we were supposed to feel a little sorry for Angel right at the end but the writing was rooting so much for Buffy's side it was really no contest. I think what they were aiming for was the feeling that Buffy was back. Many fans felt they'd lost her in #34, that having sex with Angel was tantamount to her signing up for everything Twilight. It was the "no friends, no weapons , what's left" moment. #35 was the "Me."
Not exactly. He just seems to see romantic love and sex as evil. Love between parent/child or love between friends he embraces. It's when there's sex involved that you know that someone is going to go evil or die.
(Spike's love to Buffy in season 7 is an exception)
That's because it was platonic. Platonic love is okay. It's the same reason Joss paints platonic-sexless Season 3 Bangel as non destructive but Season 2 when they have sex it all goes to hell and he goes evil and writes nasty questions in people's blood.
Not sure where Joss's thing for platonic love comes from. But it's really become a Jossian cliche that if there is sex involved for any primary protagonist, misery, self-hate, and/or death is soon to follow.
I think it's more that he associates romantic love and sex with happiness. Perfect happiness in at least one case and happiness never lasts. Parent/child love also invariably ends in the death of either parent (Joyce, Darla, S5 Buffy) or child (Jasmine, Connor in Home). Spike's platonic love for Buffy in S7 lead to his death, but he survived the sexual relationship in S6.
But, I'm also not sure where romantic love has ever brought happiness in the Buffyverse.Yes, I know Angel's happiness curse, but that really was more about his feeling absolved/forgiven for his past and thinking it was a fresh slate as opposed to having an orgasm with his girlfriend. JMHO) Tara ended up mindwiped. Anya ended up disillusioned. Fred ended up dead. Cordy ended up several steps worse than dead. Oz cheated on Willow and when he tried to win her back, she no longer wanted him. Willow got Tara back only to see her die in front of her.
Okay, you've got Willow/Kennedy. I give that one. But I think that one ended (on the show the way it did) because having killed Tara Joss felt like he couldn't kill Kennedy. Besides, she wasn't well received and he prefers killing characters that are popular.
BtVS is not a romance. Romantic love doesn't have a happy ever after ending. Nothing does. Momentary happiness, (and sometimes that moment lasts years) is achievable but the one absolute in the verse is that everything ends. People die, love turns sour, children grow up and away from their parents. Life goes on, grief fades (but is never entirely erased), people reconcile ( but never recapture the original intoxication with each other). Even when things are going well the world is tinged with sadness, nothing matters, loss is inevitable, all we have is each other for the brief time we're together. And so on and so on and so on...
Not sure where Joss's thing for platonic love comes from.
It's typical chivalry. Typical definition that separates romantic and platonic love. That platonic love rises above base urges to reach purity. I think that's where Joss' thing comes from.
I honestly hadn't connected this with courtly love at all, but now I think you're a genius. Buffy/Spike in S7 even has that spin on things, and B/A in S3 definitely does. WOW. This is opening up all sorts of new thoughts for me. And also sending me back to college and one of my fav professors who's a medievalist and who gives and awesome lecture on courtly love.
Ooooh! I'd love to hear what thoughts were conjured up from your fave medievalist professor and the awesome lecture on courtly love!
True story. I love medieval times. TRUTH. I took a history class just on that period. I've read Chaucer in Middle English. My love for this period is deep!
You know, I haven't quite processed what this means for Joss to be using chivalric love this way. I think he's showing that chivalric love can be evil with Twangel. Twangel loves Buffy, puts her on a pedestal, but also defiles her, treating her as his very own pygmalion doll. Putting a woman up on a pedestal often correlates with this idea of that you've collected her for your own purposes, that she is to be admired by you and only you. She's on display for your love alone. And that you see how Twangel literally raises Buffy up metaphysically--she's not on a pedestal, she's on another plane of existence!
Check out the icon. Now imagine it's Angel pointing at Buffy going, "I want YOU to be strong so that we can rise up and be destined ubermencshe lovers."
Nothing's really solidified yet, but when it does, I'll let you know.
Just for now: the tradition arose because marriage was beyond your control, dictated by social conventions and your father's striving for wealth and power. But people still love to fall in love--people have always been people. But of course promiscuity is frowned upon. So the whole tradition really arose because it had to.
You had spiritual love--agape, the Greeks called it that's selfless and pure--and obviously erotic love, eros. A true marriage is supposed to blend both of them, but when you're a sixteen-year-old girl married off to a fifty-year-old man just because that's what's best for your father's pursuit of power...obviously they aren't necessarily going to follow. So you get the whole feeling of falling in love, the whole thrill, with that cute young guy who you could never have married, but you obviously can't have sex with him both for religious and patriarichal reasons. That's where courtly love comes in. So you start to elevate the idea of agape--make it the thing to aspire to, and you get to fall in love without adultery entering the equation. (There's more going on, but I'd need to dig up my notes to find it.)
All of this, of course, makes loads of sense in the context of that world--most of it is self-evident, and it's easy to see why it is the way it is. Located into a modern context, though, it just doesn't make sense. If you're free to choose who you marry (or otherwise get involved with), then you can choose that blend of both. We don't need courtly love anymore. So I wonder why Joss is so hung up on it.
I haven't yet figured out how this ties into the comics--although I will say that it would be really interesting and kind of awesome if, now that Spike's shown up, he does the courtly love thing again. Because Destiny or the Universe has thrown Buffy into this relationship with Angel, but she can choose her relationship with Spike. (Okay, I know it's not that simple, but still. It'd be fun.)
I totally wanted to take our Chaucer course--it's one of the most popular classes in the major because of our awesome professor. But I never had the time. *wistful sigh*
She's on display for your love alone. And that you see how Twangel literally raises Buffy up metaphysically--she's not on a pedestal, she's on another plane of existence! I would love if he deconstructed it like that. But there's still his long-standing ONLY PLATONIC LOVE IS GOOD position to address.
I think we read the book rather differently. I'm basically with stormwreath in thinking Angel wasn't consciously lying when he told Buffy he didn't kill anyone. It's literally true and what he says about both demons and governments being on the warpath, in spite rather than because of anything the masked man said or did, is consistent with what's been shown in previous issues if you go back and look at them carefully. One advantage of the comics medium is that it's very easy to do that, a reader can process comic time like Dr Manhattan in Watchmen. This doesn't mean that I think Angel was right, I think he could have acted differently maybe by trying to set up negotiations rather than manipulations but that would have been very out of character for Angel.
I think Buffy believes Angel when he said the killings weren't his doing in particular I think she believes him when he says that her changing the world is what caused the backlash. The idea that Buffy, at heart, blames herself for the war has been set up from the very first meeting she has with twilight after which she asks Xander if they're really doing any good or just creating more monsters to fight. She blames herself for the war in Retreat and again in the Joss penned Turbulence only to be pep talked out of it by Riley and then Xander. That works as long as she has the mysterious bad guy to blame but when he turns out to be Angel that excuse starts to be much more diffcult for her to hide behind.
Meltzer's intention was earnest depiction of Buffy and Angel's relationship as the ultimate romance.
I'm not so sure, he's been very careful not to piss off B/A shippers in his interviews, especially when their his interviewers. I'm certainly not so sure that he sees ultimate romance as necessarily a good thing. Joss believes love is a selfish emotion and I don't think he's unique in that. Though if they were to make that explicit that would probably piss off shippers even more than what's gone down already.
Reply
I think we read the book rather differently. I'm basically with stormwreath in thinking Angel wasn't consciously lying when he told Buffy he didn't kill anyone. It's literally true and what he says about both demons and governments being on the warpath, in spite rather than because of anything the masked man said or did, is consistent with what's been shown in previous issues if you go back and look at them carefully.
You may be right. Maybe it's one of suspension-of-disbelief moments. I mean, in real life, when a man finds out that the girl he loves is in danger, he warns her and/or helps her directly. But in genre fiction heroes sometimes make a lot of illogical steps to create intrigue and tension.
I think Buffy believes Angel when he said the killings weren't his doing in particular I think she believes him when he says that her changing the world is what caused the backlash.
The question is, is it true? Was it Buffy and Willow's spell that eventually brought the apocalypse? Or was it Twangel's machinations? Looks like it's a lose-lose. Either we have to blame Buffy or we have to blame Angel.
I'm certainly not so sure that he sees ultimate romance as necessarily a good thing.
I have the impression that Meltzer's Buffy and Angel are radically different from Joss' characters. Joss sees love as a selfish emotion, mostly, (Spike's love to Buffy in season 7 is an exception) while Meltzer's heroes are defined by the traditions of the romantic genre where love rules supreme.
Reply
Or so it would appear, until you get halfway through 8.35 and Buffy turns around and says "I never do what I'm meant for" and walks away from her "destined true love" back to her friends instead.
Reply
Plot necessity. Keep in mind that they go to fight hand in hand, and before leaping into the fray reaffirm their feelings - "I missed you, etc."
Reply
I think real life is just as complicated as genre fiction. People often do what they think is for the best, they tell white lies, they try and fix things themselves to save other people's suffering. Sometimes they misjudge things terribly.
The question is, is it true? Was it Buffy and Willow's spell that eventually brought the apocalypse? Or was it Twangel's machinations? Looks like it's a lose-lose. Either we have to blame Buffy or we have to blame Angel.
The end of the world seems to be hard written into the Universe. I don't think either Buffy or Angel wrote those rules. As for the slayer backlash I understand why Buffy would blame herself but I would the human/military authorities who needed an enemy to fight and picked Slayers.
I have the impression that Meltzer's Buffy and Angel are radically different from Joss' characters. Joss sees love as a selfish emotion, mostly, (Spike's love to Buffy in season 7 is an exception) while Meltzer's heroes are defined by the traditions of the romantic genre where love rules supreme.
Where do you get that impression from? Metzler just wrote an arc where romantic love destroyed the world and the happy ending meant abandoning it.
Reply
The difference between "then" and "now" is that in the past Buffy has been successfully preventing all the apocalypses. Now she's the cause of it. Either she or Angel. Or both.
human/military authorities who needed an enemy to fight and picked Slayers.
That coiuld be an intriguing story, but, so far, human/military authorities were depicted as minions, small fish.
Metzler just wrote an arc where romantic love destroyed the world and the happy ending meant abandoning it
It's just my impression, but I think we're supposed to wish Buffy and Angel to achieve happiness in paradise; we're supposed to regard Buffy's decision to return to the lower plane as her greatest sacrifice; we're supposed to root for them.
(Maybe I'm wrong)
Reply
I'd describe them more as catalysts than causes in this case. Back in S1 Buffy did cause the apocalypse to start when she went down to fight the Master based on misreading another prophecy.
That could be an intriguing story, but, so far, human/military authorities were depicted as minions, small fish.
I would reread the scenes of Twilight talking to his allies at the end of NFFY and ABS. In both cases he's justifying his failure to kill first Faith/Giles and then Buffy to them with excuses about trying to take their enemies out of the game or demoralise but never actually kill them. If Twilight were really the all powerful leader why would he need to justify himself to his minions?
I think we're supposed to wish Buffy and Angel to achieve happiness in paradise; we're supposed to regard Buffy's decision to return to the lower plane as her greatest sacrifice; we're supposed to root for them.
I got the impression we were supposed to feel a little sorry for Angel right at the end but the writing was rooting so much for Buffy's side it was really no contest. I think what they were aiming for was the feeling that Buffy was back. Many fans felt they'd lost her in #34, that having sex with Angel was tantamount to her signing up for everything Twilight. It was the "no friends, no weapons , what's left" moment. #35 was the "Me."
Reply
Not exactly. He just seems to see romantic love and sex as evil. Love between parent/child or love between friends he embraces. It's when there's sex involved that you know that someone is going to go evil or die.
(Spike's love to Buffy in season 7 is an exception)
That's because it was platonic. Platonic love is okay. It's the same reason Joss paints platonic-sexless Season 3 Bangel as non destructive but Season 2 when they have sex it all goes to hell and he goes evil and writes nasty questions in people's blood.
Not sure where Joss's thing for platonic love comes from. But it's really become a Jossian cliche that if there is sex involved for any primary protagonist, misery, self-hate, and/or death is soon to follow.
Reply
Reply
I'm not entirely sure of that.
But, I'm also not sure where romantic love has ever brought happiness in the Buffyverse.Yes, I know Angel's happiness curse, but that really was more about his feeling absolved/forgiven for his past and thinking it was a fresh slate as opposed to having an orgasm with his girlfriend. JMHO) Tara ended up mindwiped. Anya ended up disillusioned. Fred ended up dead. Cordy ended up several steps worse than dead. Oz cheated on Willow and when he tried to win her back, she no longer wanted him. Willow got Tara back only to see her die in front of her.
Okay, you've got Willow/Kennedy. I give that one. But I think that one ended (on the show the way it did) because having killed Tara Joss felt like he couldn't kill Kennedy. Besides, she wasn't well received and he prefers killing characters that are popular.
Reply
Reply
Reply
It's typical chivalry. Typical definition that separates romantic and platonic love. That platonic love rises above base urges to reach purity. I think that's where Joss' thing comes from.
Reply
I honestly hadn't connected this with courtly love at all, but now I think you're a genius. Buffy/Spike in S7 even has that spin on things, and B/A in S3 definitely does. WOW. This is opening up all sorts of new thoughts for me. And also sending me back to college and one of my fav professors who's a medievalist and who gives and awesome lecture on courtly love.
Reply
True story. I love medieval times. TRUTH. I took a history class just on that period. I've read Chaucer in Middle English. My love for this period is deep!
You know, I haven't quite processed what this means for Joss to be using chivalric love this way. I think he's showing that chivalric love can be evil with Twangel. Twangel loves Buffy, puts her on a pedestal, but also defiles her, treating her as his very own pygmalion doll. Putting a woman up on a pedestal often correlates with this idea of that you've collected her for your own purposes, that she is to be admired by you and only you. She's on display for your love alone. And that you see how Twangel literally raises Buffy up metaphysically--she's not on a pedestal, she's on another plane of existence!
Check out the icon. Now imagine it's Angel pointing at Buffy going, "I want YOU to be strong so that we can rise up and be destined ubermencshe lovers."
Reply
Just for now: the tradition arose because marriage was beyond your control, dictated by social conventions and your father's striving for wealth and power. But people still love to fall in love--people have always been people. But of course promiscuity is frowned upon. So the whole tradition really arose because it had to.
You had spiritual love--agape, the Greeks called it that's selfless and pure--and obviously erotic love, eros. A true marriage is supposed to blend both of them, but when you're a sixteen-year-old girl married off to a fifty-year-old man just because that's what's best for your father's pursuit of power...obviously they aren't necessarily going to follow. So you get the whole feeling of falling in love, the whole thrill, with that cute young guy who you could never have married, but you obviously can't have sex with him both for religious and patriarichal reasons. That's where courtly love comes in. So you start to elevate the idea of agape--make it the thing to aspire to, and you get to fall in love without adultery entering the equation. (There's more going on, but I'd need to dig up my notes to find it.)
All of this, of course, makes loads of sense in the context of that world--most of it is self-evident, and it's easy to see why it is the way it is. Located into a modern context, though, it just doesn't make sense. If you're free to choose who you marry (or otherwise get involved with), then you can choose that blend of both. We don't need courtly love anymore. So I wonder why Joss is so hung up on it.
I haven't yet figured out how this ties into the comics--although I will say that it would be really interesting and kind of awesome if, now that Spike's shown up, he does the courtly love thing again. Because Destiny or the Universe has thrown Buffy into this relationship with Angel, but she can choose her relationship with Spike. (Okay, I know it's not that simple, but still. It'd be fun.)
I totally wanted to take our Chaucer course--it's one of the most popular classes in the major because of our awesome professor. But I never had the time. *wistful sigh*
She's on display for your love alone. And that you see how Twangel literally raises Buffy up metaphysically--she's not on a pedestal, she's on another plane of existence!
I would love if he deconstructed it like that. But there's still his long-standing ONLY PLATONIC LOVE IS GOOD position to address.
Ha!
Reply
Leave a comment