Thoughts on Bangel in the context of gender roles and subversion in Buffy shiping

[boot_the_grime]

This recent post by shadowkat about shipping Spuffy and gender reversals in the relationship  shadowkat67.livejournal.com/793238.html linked on Buffyforums by moscow_watcher got me to write a short reply about my views, which are a bit different from hers. I can't do that on her LJ  because she flipped out on me with absolutely no reason and attacked me on her LJ about a

Comments

[kikimay]

I'm having a complex situation with Angel, trying to write a spuffel and understand Angel and Buffy's relationship, since I'm more Spuffy then ever.
I love Spike and Buffy because they constantly "walk the line". It's not simple flipping over the gender roles: Spike and Buffy put gender roles in discussion, they both play "the man" and "the woman" in their relationship.
Like you say, they share gender roles and I LOVE that.
Let's focus on Angel and Buffy.
Angel is often the passive one.
In What's my Line, Buffy saves him like the Prince Charming would save his princess. I think your right, but still Angel is much older, wiser and less (really LESS) innocent and, as Angelus, he plays with those traits.
He plays this alpha male-thing. (I hate this categorization)
It's like seeing a typical patriarchal relationship (like the ones above) with the subversial commentary below. So I think that Bangel fits the description (like Jane/Rochester and the others) but we can see, as audience, way this topos is wrong and subverted.

[boot_the_grime]

Well, Jane/Rochester and Dracula/Mina fit the description; Buffy/Angel, however, doesn't quite (the social status, power, wealth - none of it actually fits; Angel is older and more experienced than Buffy, but so is Spike). Some others, like Fred/Gunn or Echo/Paul, don't fit that description at all. I don't know, it seems like a very broad generalization applied to some arbitrary choices.

[kikimay]

Dracula/Mina, Jane/Rochester, Edward/Bella fit the description perfectly.(Gunn and Fred or Fred and Wes are different, for me. And Ballard seems a lieutenant for the universal leader, Caroline/Echo. I don't know the other pairings) But, in general, Angel and Buffy have a really strong December/May vibe, especially because Buffy is really young: we see Dawn at her age with Spike and he's like a big brother or a babysitter to her.
Angel and Buffy seem to me very similar to the Rochester/Jane kind of pairing, since Angel is all the byronic hero, but even with Rochester and Jane things are twisted. It's just my opinion, but except his money and house (BIG house), Rochester is pretty pathetic while Jane is a brave, worker girl. It's his status that makes him powerful and superior, not what he really does, as much as Angel's status (Being older, wiser, vampire with a soul and mysterious past) makes Angel more powerful in Buffy's eyes while, in reality, she's the one saving world and going to school etc.
She doesn't understand her power.

[boot_the_grime]

Yes, that's true - but Rochester still has power over Jane socially, even though she's a stronger person in many ways: he is her rich employer, she is poor and without family and works for him, and needs his money. They are from different social classes, and the very fact he was a man also puts him in a position of social power over a woman in Victorian England.

On the other hand, vampires don't even have any particular rights (undead Americans? :D) and can be staked at any time; Buffy is the Slayer, which means she's the one to decide if Angel (or Spike) should be spared or dusted. She's not only physically stronger despite her stature and gender, she's in a position of power due to their respective status (leaving aside the emotional, sexual and other aspects of those relationships), since souled Angel and chipped Spike are outsiders without support from other vampires, the way they have when they are soulless/unchipped.

[gabrielleabelle]

I also wonder if the "vast majority" of Spuffy shippers really identify with Spike rather than Buffy? A poll would be interesting, but I'm not sure where the best place to conduct it would be.

Poll? I can do it! Gimme a few days! :)

[rebcake]

I don't actually much disagree about Angel, but a few points occurred to me.

1. Angel is not wealthy. Well, he's presented as rich if he's got the objets d'arte and doesn't have to work to support himself. In fact, not working is very much an indicator of wealth unless there are signs of poverty present. At the end of S2 we see the alley-rat-eating version, but the implication for me is that he was too depressed (or whatever) to keep it together at that point. He clearly didn't have to live like that, and has resources he can call on when he gets motivated. (He didn't bring the art with him in steerage on the boat to America, so either he's accumulated it since he immigrated, or he has the resources to keep things in storage for a century. Again, an indicator of wealth.)

2. How Angel managed to make Buffy not notice how pathetic he really was in Sunnydale is really amazing. This is actually pretty common with older man/young girl relationships. The man IS seen as pathetic by his peers, and that's one of the reasons he preys on/is

[boot_the_grime]

But where does he get that wealth all of the sudden? It doesn't make sense. It's kind of like the theory that Buffy is really rich because she wears designer clothes and has different outfits every time. It's just the Unlimited Wardrobe TV trope. Same thing with Angel: he can't possibly be the owner of that Gothic mansion, which he moved into with Spike and Dru in season 2 after Factory burned down. (The only sense-making explanation is that it's an abandoned mansion; granted, we've been told that real estate is ridiculously cheap in Sunnydale because of the death rates.) Where would he get the money? What does he do? Nothing. Where did he keep all those artefacts while he was eating rats in an alley? Why does he have money troubles in season 3 of AtS? Angel's financial situation on AtS is quite a mystery, but he doesn't appear to be a wealthy benefactor.

In fact, not working is very much an indicator of wealth unless there are signs of poverty present. Spike didn't work either, and nobody thinks he was rich. But we knew that he had

[rebcake]

I doubt we'll ever agree on the wealth thing. I see Angel presented largely as someone with a trust fund. No visible means of support because well, it's just not an issue, like with so many wealthy scions. He had that rough (rat-eating) patch where he was slumming because he was too fucked-up to pick up his checks, maybe, but he's pretty comfortable. Comfortable enough to buy a freaking hotel in AtS S2. Maybe the drain of the Hyperion is why he had money troubles in AtS S3? [Actually, I'm not convinced the money troubles weren't largely psychological. We know he's cheap, and now he's a dad, and worried about providing. The "business" wasn't making money, but lots of wealthy people don't put their own money (principle) into their businesses. That's a SBO's game.] Obviously, his financial situation changes to suit the needs of the writers

[kikimay]

I have no problem with the idea that Darla insisted that they invest or acquire property and jewels as part of their nefarious activities. She was a vampire for 400 years and she didn't like to be uncomfortable. He's living off the interest, for all we know.

I like this assumption. Works for me.
With Spike we really see the financial problems of a neutrered vampire and his poverty, but Angel kinda avoid the problem.

[lostboy_lj]

I think one of the most interesting things about the show was that the writing was very trope-aware, which allowed them to both explore and subvert various tropes whenever it would serve the story. I agree that neither Angel or Buffy meet the criteria for the rich-guy redeemed by poor-girl trope (and Dracula/Mina certainly doesn't!) Angel is a sullen, rat-eating outcast, akin to Rice's vampire Louis and almost the polar opposite of Bronte's Rochester. Perhaps this view of Bangel is born of fannon?

Actually, reading through the full list, many of these couples don't seem to follow the trope. Fred/Gunn, for instance, can only possibly subvert that trope, and I don't think it does that either. Neither character was in particularly powerful positions until they took over Wolfram & Hart, after which both were. As far as power dynamics, the shape of that show had outsiders becoming insiders (as opposed to BTVS, which had outsiders protecting the insiders, at great personal cost.)

[boot_the_grime]

I think one of the most interesting things about the show was that the writing was very trope-aware, which allowed them to both explore and subvert various tropes whenever it would serve the story.

Exactly.

I agree that neither Angel or Buffy meet the criteria for the rich-guy redeemed by poor-girl trope (and Dracula/Mina certainly doesn't!)

Ha, I think it may be referring to Coppola's movie where he's kinda sorta redeemed?

It's hard to parse the canon from fanon sometimes. From what I remember of the first time I watched BtVS, I did see Angel in a romantic light but as a brooding outcast loner type of figure. The idea of him as powerful or rich never even entered my mind. I was surprised to see other fans describing him that way. "Powerful man" in BtVS makes me think of the Mayor or - in vampire world - the Master. School principals and the Council of Watchers are other men with power in Buffy's world.

I agree about the couples not fitting the description (I'm not sure if any of the Jossverse couples mentioned fit it).

[lostboy_lj]

(I'm not sure if any of the Jossverse couples mentioned fit it)

It doesn't seem so. "Cordelia/Angel" sounds like it's just packing the list full of couples, with no real connection other than one is male and one is female. Angel and Cordelia's relationship was even farther afield from the trope than Angel/Buffy. While physically strong, Angel could barely keep the lights on in his business. "Fred/Wesley"? Wesley wasn't exactly the macho pursuer/seducer there, from what I recall.

The inclusion of these couples make the list seem totally random and trope-agnostic (though I confess I'm not familiar with some of the shows/couples in it, and I could not be forced at gunpoint to watch Twilight to find out whether Edward/Bella qualifies).

[eilowyn]

Oh. Bangel fanon. I could say a lot about that which will probably get me into trouble.

[beloved_77]

I also wonder if the "vast majority" of Spuffy shippers really identify with Spike rather than Buffy

I've found this to be true for most of the Spuffy shippers with whom I've interacted. In fact, a lot of people seem to be more fans of Spike than fans of Spuffy, and they seem to ship Spuffy solely because Spike loves Buffy. But there do seem to be a few who identify more with Buffy, including me. However, I do like both characters, and I ship them because I see the incredible potential of their relationship.

[rebcake]

I don't know. I empathize (identify) more with Buffy, but I sympathize more with Spike. I totally "get" Buffy, but am more intrigued by Spike. Buffy's love life (outside of Spike) is not that interesting to me, though her life and works are. Spike's love life? Endlessly fascinating.

What does it mean?

[beloved_77]

I empathize (identify) more with Buffy, but I sympathize more with Spike.

That's exactly how I feel. I see a lot of myself in Buffy, but I find Spike more intriguing because he's a lot of the things that I'm not.

Buffy's love life (outside of Spike) is not that interesting to me

Maybe that's because her love life outside of Spike was boring at best. :-P To me, neither Angel, nor Riley feels like a deep, emotional, adult connection. I'm not inclined to see where the relationships go because they appear to be going nowhere.

[rebcake]

Maybe that's because her love life outside of Spike was boring at best.

That could be part of it, yeah. :D