![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I don't think your slash goggles are on quite straight.
Okay. So, there's this whole kerfuffle about something that was said in the DVD commentary for Angel S5 TGiQ
(Er, I don't think there are any important spoilers here, and anyway I already spoiled![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
stellar_dust for the most tragic thing that happened in that episode, where they killed off one of the most long-standing characters on the show, and did it for a *cheap joke*, without giving anyone time to mourn, and yes I'm still bitter). But just in case, and since I see it getting long anyway, I'll cut it:
But anyway I'm really not that interested in authorial intent. I'm interested in *Andrew*, and the rather nasty things people are saying about Joss's 'gay cred', and particularly Andrew and his presentation in that episode, and presumably his other S5 appearance in Damage.
Note, I'm only involved in Buffy/Angel fandom as a spectator, and the only Andrew episodes I've seen are a scattering of Trio episodes and his two S5 appearances on Angel. And I never really worried about whether he was coded as 'gay' or 'straight'-- according to what I've seen about this week, that mostly came out during his appearances in Buffy S7, in which I haven't seen him. And maybe it's just my continuing lack of ability to see *intentional* subtext, or care about 'gay' and 'straight', when character-intrinsic stuff is so much more interesting. (I went ahead and readmars_assassins and was continually suprised at my tendency to take all the entendres at face value.) But to me, if a character ties another character to the bed, I assume it's because they needed to immobilize them and the bed was the most convenient choice, not because, well, they wanted to chain them to the bed. And I really don't care if it was meant to be the writers winking lewdly at me; I'll just go watch Ethan and Giles snarking instead, thanks.
So, where was I. Oh yes, Andrew. Due to the magic of lj I can go back six months and replay my reaction to Andrew's appearance in "Damage": "And Andrew suddenly went from annoying dork to intriguing young man, when he had twelve lovely and dangerous women backing him up."
That was the change in Andrew: Not gay to straight, not good to evil, but annoying dork to intriguing young man. He *grew up*, which is something Spike and Angel never managed. His vibe with his Slayers wasn't ladykiller, but man-you-trust-to-guard-your-daughters. Yeah, the whole issue of masculinity in Buffy (much moreso than Angel) is an incredibly sticky question anyway, and maybe that's part of the point, that in moving from Buffy to Angel his options changed. In Buffy he was this incredibly awkward, dorky boy who had no skill with interpersonal relationships of *any* sort; in TGiQ he was comfortable enough with his sexuality not to make it more important than it is.
He's very much "one of the girls" in those episodes. Actually, to some extent the sexuality issues there have a lot to do with it being Italy, especially in contrast with the scenes with Fred's Southern parents back in LA, and Angel's jacket, and the flashbacks, and how all the masculine posturing Spike and Angel do (and, by extension, the Western gay/straight dichotomy) is just incredibly *silly* from an outsider perspective. And outsider is what Andrew is. His 'date' is not exactly a loud affirmation of conventional heterosexuality, considering that it's pretty clear the girls are in charge. He's just gone from being a miserable outcast to being a confident outsider, and frankly I find that *affirming*.
Wait, I just thought some more. You know what? This whole thing is based on the fact that I've watched too much 'As Time Goes By' and 'debonair guy going out with two girls' codes to me as 'he's flaming and they're humoring him and he knows it,' not as uber-macho. Which might actually touch on the 'European' aspect again. Hmm.
But anyway. Yeah. His speech to Angel and Spike was basically, 'grow up and stop acting like teenagers. *I* did.' Or, to quote somethinglcsbanana said about graphic novels a month ago which is SO TRUE that it has been running through my head ever since, "if I read one more 'touching' 'poignant' story of a boy and his first true love and how he was too self-absorbed to accept her as an actual human being and could only fetishize her as the object of his passion--I'm sorry, I mean, "how she broke his heart"--I will do something drastic, unpleasant, and requiring rubber sheeting."
Or in other words, "Quit worrying about whether you're enough of a man and just *kiss* him already. I did, and look how much happier I am." Buffy, to each of them, is a symbol of goodness and light, while their own relationship has been mostly stuffed back into a box that says 'we were evil then'-- if they acknowledge they love each other and that's ok, they have to acknowledge *shades of gray*, which is something that buffyverse was never good at.
Or in other other words, the episode *was* completely about Spike/Angel, who make a much better pair, platonic or not, than either of them was with Buffy. That is, I agree completely with what Joss said, isn't it cool that I'm as smart as he is? (which is pretty much what the whole authorial intent kerfuffle has always been about anyway.) Or in other other words, I probably shouldn't be in this debate anyway, because I think that portrayal of healthy, fluid sexuality, and people negotiating the boundaries of gender, is better than having a token gay character any day. And that I think a dorky, girly boy growing up and being suave is a much better message than a dorky, girly boy coming out as gay. And anyway, if he *hadn't* been previously coded much more strongly as gay-- which he wasn't to me, since I'd missed the key Buffy episodes-- Andrew's portrayal in TGiQ would have been full of squeeful slashy subtext. And I'm wondering why we're only allowed to enjoy straight-to-gay subtext, not any of the other permutations... that seems just as unhealthy as the alternative.
There's been some question about why they didn't have Andrew's date be a guy, and the answer is that, as much as it would have been nice, it wouldn't have worked within in the episode, *especially* if Spike/Angel was going to stay central yet subtext, which frankly is how it works best -- because it was important for symmetry that Andrew be going on a date, and unless there was a big media blitz, it seems to me that a guy at the door wouldn't have been automatically read as 'date' any more than two girls at the door read as 'girls' night out' to most people. More interesting, though, is that, unlike most 'slashy' texts, where we claim we turn to m/m relationships because of a lack of any strong, interesting female characters, this was an episode in which the central m/m pairing was completely immersed in strong women and healthy f/m relationships, which puts it in a completely different perspective... and having another m/m relationship in there would have changed the perspective again.
Can you tell that's one of my very favorite buffyverse episodes (regardless of the gratuitous cruelty to Nikki's memory)? And you thought my *comments* on meta-posts were long and rambly.
You also might want to note that while it's always been obvious that Spike/Angel is oh-so-canon, I also firmly believe that Methos has never made love to a man, so I'm not *entirely* in line with Joss's reasoning here. q:
(Er, I don't think there are any important spoilers here, and anyway I already spoiled
stellar_dust for the most tragic thing that happened in that episode, where they killed off one of the most long-standing characters on the show, and did it for a *cheap joke*, without giving anyone time to mourn, and yes I'm still bitter). But just in case, and since I see it getting long anyway, I'll cut it: But anyway I'm really not that interested in authorial intent. I'm interested in *Andrew*, and the rather nasty things people are saying about Joss's 'gay cred', and particularly Andrew and his presentation in that episode, and presumably his other S5 appearance in Damage.
Note, I'm only involved in Buffy/Angel fandom as a spectator, and the only Andrew episodes I've seen are a scattering of Trio episodes and his two S5 appearances on Angel. And I never really worried about whether he was coded as 'gay' or 'straight'-- according to what I've seen about this week, that mostly came out during his appearances in Buffy S7, in which I haven't seen him. And maybe it's just my continuing lack of ability to see *intentional* subtext, or care about 'gay' and 'straight', when character-intrinsic stuff is so much more interesting. (I went ahead and read
mars_assassins and was continually suprised at my tendency to take all the entendres at face value.) But to me, if a character ties another character to the bed, I assume it's because they needed to immobilize them and the bed was the most convenient choice, not because, well, they wanted to chain them to the bed. And I really don't care if it was meant to be the writers winking lewdly at me; I'll just go watch Ethan and Giles snarking instead, thanks.So, where was I. Oh yes, Andrew. Due to the magic of lj I can go back six months and replay my reaction to Andrew's appearance in "Damage": "And Andrew suddenly went from annoying dork to intriguing young man, when he had twelve lovely and dangerous women backing him up."
That was the change in Andrew: Not gay to straight, not good to evil, but annoying dork to intriguing young man. He *grew up*, which is something Spike and Angel never managed. His vibe with his Slayers wasn't ladykiller, but man-you-trust-to-guard-your-daughters. Yeah, the whole issue of masculinity in Buffy (much moreso than Angel) is an incredibly sticky question anyway, and maybe that's part of the point, that in moving from Buffy to Angel his options changed. In Buffy he was this incredibly awkward, dorky boy who had no skill with interpersonal relationships of *any* sort; in TGiQ he was comfortable enough with his sexuality not to make it more important than it is.
He's very much "one of the girls" in those episodes. Actually, to some extent the sexuality issues there have a lot to do with it being Italy, especially in contrast with the scenes with Fred's Southern parents back in LA, and Angel's jacket, and the flashbacks, and how all the masculine posturing Spike and Angel do (and, by extension, the Western gay/straight dichotomy) is just incredibly *silly* from an outsider perspective. And outsider is what Andrew is. His 'date' is not exactly a loud affirmation of conventional heterosexuality, considering that it's pretty clear the girls are in charge. He's just gone from being a miserable outcast to being a confident outsider, and frankly I find that *affirming*.
Wait, I just thought some more. You know what? This whole thing is based on the fact that I've watched too much 'As Time Goes By' and 'debonair guy going out with two girls' codes to me as 'he's flaming and they're humoring him and he knows it,' not as uber-macho. Which might actually touch on the 'European' aspect again. Hmm.
But anyway. Yeah. His speech to Angel and Spike was basically, 'grow up and stop acting like teenagers. *I* did.' Or, to quote something
lcsbanana said about graphic novels a month ago which is SO TRUE that it has been running through my head ever since, "if I read one more 'touching' 'poignant' story of a boy and his first true love and how he was too self-absorbed to accept her as an actual human being and could only fetishize her as the object of his passion--I'm sorry, I mean, "how she broke his heart"--I will do something drastic, unpleasant, and requiring rubber sheeting."Or in other words, "Quit worrying about whether you're enough of a man and just *kiss* him already. I did, and look how much happier I am." Buffy, to each of them, is a symbol of goodness and light, while their own relationship has been mostly stuffed back into a box that says 'we were evil then'-- if they acknowledge they love each other and that's ok, they have to acknowledge *shades of gray*, which is something that buffyverse was never good at.
Or in other other words, the episode *was* completely about Spike/Angel, who make a much better pair, platonic or not, than either of them was with Buffy. That is, I agree completely with what Joss said, isn't it cool that I'm as smart as he is? (which is pretty much what the whole authorial intent kerfuffle has always been about anyway.) Or in other other words, I probably shouldn't be in this debate anyway, because I think that portrayal of healthy, fluid sexuality, and people negotiating the boundaries of gender, is better than having a token gay character any day. And that I think a dorky, girly boy growing up and being suave is a much better message than a dorky, girly boy coming out as gay. And anyway, if he *hadn't* been previously coded much more strongly as gay-- which he wasn't to me, since I'd missed the key Buffy episodes-- Andrew's portrayal in TGiQ would have been full of squeeful slashy subtext. And I'm wondering why we're only allowed to enjoy straight-to-gay subtext, not any of the other permutations... that seems just as unhealthy as the alternative.
There's been some question about why they didn't have Andrew's date be a guy, and the answer is that, as much as it would have been nice, it wouldn't have worked within in the episode, *especially* if Spike/Angel was going to stay central yet subtext, which frankly is how it works best -- because it was important for symmetry that Andrew be going on a date, and unless there was a big media blitz, it seems to me that a guy at the door wouldn't have been automatically read as 'date' any more than two girls at the door read as 'girls' night out' to most people. More interesting, though, is that, unlike most 'slashy' texts, where we claim we turn to m/m relationships because of a lack of any strong, interesting female characters, this was an episode in which the central m/m pairing was completely immersed in strong women and healthy f/m relationships, which puts it in a completely different perspective... and having another m/m relationship in there would have changed the perspective again.
Can you tell that's one of my very favorite buffyverse episodes (regardless of the gratuitous cruelty to Nikki's memory)? And you thought my *comments* on meta-posts were long and rambly.
You also might want to note that while it's always been obvious that Spike/Angel is oh-so-canon, I also firmly believe that Methos has never made love to a man, so I'm not *entirely* in line with Joss's reasoning here. q:
no subject
i'm not sure i agree with the last part of why there couldn't have been a boy at the door (other than the practical aspects), b/c that parallel would have worked as well, i think (i.e., how stupid of angel and spike to angst over whether their relation was steeped in evil badness when it just was...)
oh, can i throw another thought out (very tongue in cheek): idid joss portray homosexuality as evil since, after all, he not only calls them deviant (in the sense of being sex craved utterly violent killing machines) but thus makes clear that the two (gay and soulless monster) are connected??? ok..i'll stop now :-)
no subject
that was unclear. let me explain my INTENT :D
when their relationship just was, as in the feelings were there regardless of evilness or not or soul or not bladibla. btw, can you love without a soul??? spike sure looked like he did, but then that was obsession? then again, who wants to take apart the finer detqails of love....betraying angel against dru's wishes for her own good in S2 certainly was pretty selfless (or utterly selfish?)
no subject
Of course, I saw that argument and said, Oh! Just exactly what everybody's been saying about Methos and Kronos in Highlander for years! And there are all these fluffy fics where Mac gently helps him get over the TRAUMA by sleeping with him! Why is it okay for slashers and not for Joss? ... I mean, I'm sure he didn't think it out that carefully, and it makes *sense*.
And since when is deviant inherently *bad* anyway? Homosexuality *is* deviant. And note he said Spike and *Angel*; I've always wondered what happened in that year when he came back...that should be a fic. *g*.
no subject
re Angel(us). yeah, we tend to distinguish, but i think spike has made it pretty clear that the separation's not all that it's cracked up to ne....ort is angel's demon just a bad motherfucker whereas spik'es more gentle? thought not :-)
no subject
no subject
oh, china!angel..yeah, that'd be very intersting. i think i stopped reading before that ep...
no subject
no subject
What was said in the DVD commentary, anyway? After our talk in
I was really happier *not* thinking about gender in Buffy/Angel. But once I read the essay on gender at allaboutspike, it won't go away again. Angel seemed like it was going to be a little more balanced, for awhile there, but then they killed off all their wonderful female characters one .. by .. one. Splat goes Kate (ok, maybe not dead, but not coming back), Darla, Lilah, Cordy, Fred ... Grr. Buffy went the other way, thinning out the guys till Xander was alone in a sea of femininity. And then there the issue of homosexuality, if he's portaying gays as deviant and evil, yet Willow's relationships with Tara and Kennedy were shown very positively ..
Meh. I'm getting impatient with Illyria. How long till more Spike/Angel snark? (;
no subject
The actual comments were apparently:
Spike and Angel; they were hanging out for years and years and years. They were all kinds of deviant. Are people thinking they never... ? Come on, people! They're opened-minded guys!
-Joss Whedon commentary on "A Hole in the World"
I already had the perfect couple. It was Spike and Angel.
-Joss on "The Girl In Question"
Note that nobody's giving them any actual context, so who knows?