Spike and Season 8

[maggie2]

It's not so obvious to me that Spike isn't going to play a role in season 8

 

I’m under the impression that a lot of people assume that Spike will certainly not figure in season 8, and that Joss either never was interested in Spike (or Spuffy) or he views that story as settled and is just moving on.   Of course, we won’t know until the tale is done, but it does seem to me that it would be very strange if the same writer who knew that Angel marked Buffy for life didn’t think that Spike, who played at least as major a role in Buffy’s story, could vanish from her story without trace. But all I want to argue for here is the proposition that based on what we have seen in the first 21 issues, there is plenty of room for Spike to enter the story, perhaps even in an important way.

 

Before getting to the text, it’s worth observing that Scott Allie has said (Slayalive Q&A #20, question 4) that Joss has the right to use the characters in Angel as much as he likes. There thus seems to be no contractual reason for Spike to remain offstage. All that will matter is what the story demands. 

 

While I wouldn’t go so far as to argue that the story demands that Spike play a role, there is a fair amount of text at this point that would retrospectively set up his appearance.

 

1.   Buffy is the main character of the series. (Duh). When last we saw her, Spike was arguably the most important person in her world – the one who was in her heart, the one with whom she shared the fiery hands of passion, the one whose name was the last word she spoke in the entire series, the one with whom she spent what could well have been her last night in the world, the one who stood by her when all her other significant folks kicked her out of her own house, etc. etc. etc. The status of Buffy’s relationship with the person who was so very important to her was left hanging at the end of the story. It matters how it is resolved. Really. Angel hung over her story for years. It’s unreasonable to think that Spike vanished without a trace in 18 months, or that the resolution of Buffy's story with Spike is insignficant.

 

And it’s not like the writers of season 8 are insensible of the fact that romantic story lines from season 7 need to be resolved in season 8. Pretty much the first thing we learn about Faith in #6 is that Robin ended up not surprising her – she’s still very much alone. It took a while, but we finally learn that Xander really did spend some serious time mourning Anya (#13). If Joss really wanted to close off the Spike/Buffy story line, he’d have done so much the way Faith/Robin got closed out. He didn’t.

 

2. On the contrary, one of the first things Joss tells us about Buffy is that she doesn’t know the significance of the Immortal to either Angel or Spike.  It opens the door to the possibility that she does not know that they tried to track her down in TGIQ. Far from closing the story down, Joss offers a tantalizing detail that reminds us that we really don’t know where things stand between Buffy and Spike.

 

3. There is the mysterious absence of Spike from Buffy’s dream space (#3), where every other significant figure in her life is present. (With the possible exception of Hank). Angel is here, as is Riley. Tara, and Dawn, and Faith, and, Joyce, and all the major villains and the Scoobies. There are cubes from early in Buffy’s life through season 7 (Xander with an eye patch; Caleb).   There are three ways I can think of to account for this fact. (a) The scenes and figures drawn were chosen by Jeanty and have no particular significance. But Enisy asked Allie about this, and Allie says that Joss did interact with Jeanty both about what should be there and about what should not be there (Slayalive Q&A #19, question 6). (b) Buffy really doesn’t see Spike as an important person in her life (beyond his usefulness in her erotic fantasies).   That defies imagination. Whether it’s the fiery hands of passion or the bathroom scene, Spike has impacted Buffy enormously, both in good ways and in bad ways. (c) The absence is significant in a way that has yet to be revealed.

 

4. Buffy finally mentions Spike in A Beautiful Sunset sandwiched between Angel and Riley. As already noted, both Angel and Riley figured in her dream space. They’ve also both (now) appeared in the series. Angel in a nod to what lies firmly behind Buffy (#20); and Riley as either a villain or an undercover ally (#19). If two of the three major loves in Buffy’s life deserve a role in the series, it is even stranger that Joss couldn’t be arsed to close out a dangling thread about her most recent romantic involvement. 

 

5. There are plenty of places where one can read resonances with Buffy’s history with Spike, things that could take on different shades if Spike turns out to be part of this story.   In the first battle we are shown, Buffy is in a church killing a demon with a cross. The last time we saw Buffy in a church with a demon, the demon was draped on the cross in one of the most arresting images of the entire series.   General Voll points to the crater at Sunnydale and says “look what she did to her hometown”. But when Buffy last had anything to say about what caused that crater, her answer was “Spike”.   In Buffy’s dream about Xander, she promises to be gentle “this time”, yet knocks off Xander’s head and worries about being dark. There are resonances here with her not-so-gentle relationship with Spike, which was epitomized in the alley scene in Dead Things where she didn’t quite knock his head off. Buffy even says “oh balls” here, which is a line that comes from that scene in DT. Ethan’s entrance into her dream is teased as Spike (we just see his Spike-like clothes at the end of #2) and Buffy explicitly objects to him calling her “pet”.    Skipping ahead, and going in less detail: Dracula’s relationship with Xander mirrors in some ways Spike’s relationship with Buffy (evil vampire crossing lines to help the good guys because of love); Willow tells Frey that the most important men in Buffy’s life are lurks (and that that fact makes it too simple to say that Buffy’s life is about eliminating them); and in the most recent issue we have Clem and Harmony allied, the two demons who were friendly with Spike during his time in Sunnydale. None of these allusions or references have to mean anything. But they are available to mean something if Spike turns out to figure in the story. 

 

So we’ll see. It’s true that we’re nearly two years into the comics. But we’re also just over half way through the “season”. And in many of the seasons on Buffy, the real contours of the season aren’t revealed until the second half. It’s too soon to claim that Joss is going to pay no attention to Spike.  Indeed, I tend to think that the strange absences and silences point to a larger role rather than a smaller one – since the failure to close out Spike/Buffy quickly seems to demand some sort of pay-off when the story finally is continued.

Comments

[angearia.livejournal.com]

in 2002-2003, and that's why Firefly fell apart, Buffy S6 went offkilter, and Angel was a bit lop-sided.

Buffy S7. Sorry, nitpicky. :)

What I do know is that there have been delays on Dollhouse. That he is struggling with it - but I think that would happen anyway.

It's really difficult how he's being put under a microscope here. I think the sword of Firefly's damocles is hanging over his head and we just have to watch and over-scrutinize. There's been so much press about this show already and it hasn't even premiered.

he's a horrid micromanager. Always has been.

I can't help but be anything but grateful that he does that. All those scenes you listed I've always appreciated how Joss stepped in and made them better imo. I think the problem is not just that he's a horrid micromanager, but that he's a ambitious horrid micromanager with too many great ideas he wants to bring to life.

Because it was important that certain themes get addressed in the right way.

You just hit on something that I really admire Joss' creative works for - the themes. And I think he devotes incredible attention to how those themes are introduced and that they're present throughout the entire piece, episode to episode. It's something I've been complaining about with After the Fall (alone for the most part, though Maggie seems to be with me on the argument also) - that AtF doesn't have the carefully laid out themes of S8 and I think this is the clearest sign of Whedon's lack of direct involvement in the project.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Buffy S7. Sorry, nitpicky. :)

No, I meant Buffy S6. I just forgot to add Buffy S7.

Firefly aired in the fall of 2002. And was cancelled in the spring.
Many viewers complained that Whedon handed the enterprise over to Fury and Noxon in the second part of S6 so he could focus on developing Firefly. (Writers will focus on a new show up to 12 months before it actually airs. Or have been known to. Whedon also, they complained focused too much of his time on launching the ambitious musical. ) They are wrong. The musical pretty much demonstrates that - in it all the themes and subplots of S6 are touched upon. So Whedon was clearly involved.

You are right, however, Buffy S7 - should have been included in my statement. Because another group of viewers whined about Whedon being too distracted during S7 to make it work. This doesn't really hold water - since Whedon was actually the busiest during the portion of the Season everyone liked - that aired in 2002. It was the second part of the season they disliked, when he was actually not involved with Firefly - because it had been cancelled. But it could be argued that he was burnt out by that point - but that would have been true regardless.

My take is there was more than one person involved.

I don't know if you've read kevin levine's blog? He was one of the head writers of MASH and Cheers. He says that by about the seventh season, actors start to burn out on the show - they get bored. They stop learning their lines ahead of time, flub lines, and will often memorize them right before they have to go on - just for a challenge. It's true, I guess of most long running series - the actor is a nomadic animal - who often likes to jump roles, and being stuck in one for a very long time while safe, secure and at times challenging, can for some actors be wearing. Sarah Michelle Geller left All My Children after less than three years - for much of this reason.

It's something I've been complaining about with After the Fall (alone for the most part, though Maggie seems to be with me on the argument also) - that AtF doesn't have the carefully laid out themes of S8 and I think this is the clearest sign of Whedon's lack of direct involvement in the project.

I've heard this complaint twice now. Please explain? Because I do see clear themes in Lynch's story. So I'm not sure what you mean?

They are admittedly noir based (not everyone likes noir) and a bit bleak, but definitely there. Example: The view that even if you are doomed to fail - you must strive anyway, to try to be a better person, to help those outside yourself. Or if you look into the abyss, it looks back at you. Or the theme that we are not at the whim of fate - we can flip the board and fight to write our own history.

Angel is about not being chosen, it's about the desire to be a hero or champion when you aren't. About trying to redeem yourself. And from a psychological perspective - how we handle this alien voice inside ourselves - the fight between the animal nature and the psyche.

I see all those themes. And they are pretty well set out. The plot is actually tighter than Buffy. With a definite end in sight.

I'm not sure what your problems are with the story or Lynch's handling of it? Please clarify.

Whedon's lack of direct involvement in the project

He's actually very involved according to Lynch. He plotted the story out with Lynch, identified the themes, and has told Lynch what characters to add and what to do with some of them.

PS: Sorry about all the typos in this post and the one above.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I think when Emmie talked about Whedon's lack of direct involvement, she was referring to an interview he did recently where he said that beyond plotting and a bit of early feedback, he hadn't had any hand in AtF. And I do think it shows.

So on to the main question. Like Emmie, I'm very disappointed in AtF. But my disappointment would be not so much that their aren't themes, but rather that they are entirely pedestrian and uninteresting. Who doesn't think that you should keep on trying even when things look bleak? Seriously. It's not a theme that tells me *anything* that I don't already know.

I also think it's untrue to the greatness that was in the series. NFA is perfectly and utterly ambivalent about whether or not its good to "keep trying" even when everything is against you. Yes, you can read it as you (and obviously Lynch) do where the heroes fight the good fight and "go to work" even though they are against insurmountable odds. But you can also read NFA as being about a suicidal mission where the ends most certainly do not justify the means (killing an innocent, ordering the execution of another, doing hits on metaphorical representatives of businessmen and politicians -- which is assassination, not heroism in many worlds, etc. etc.). BOTH readings are there. Lynch only has one. And that is the heart of my complaint. It takes Angel from being a very fascinating reflection on the hero genre and the ambiguities of that genre to just being an ordinary garden variety exemplar of the genre: heroes fighting the good fight, blah, blah, bore me to tears, blah, make me angry because it was so much more and is not that any longer.

Yes, the plot is tight. But the mechanics of how the "we keep fighting no matter what" brigade manages to overcome what once really was meant to be an entity that couldn't be overcome (for profoundly interesting philosophical reasons) is not interesting, and again aggravating because it flat misses the dimension of the show I loved the most.

And SPOILER (which I'll put in my next comment.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for clarifying.

As angevine (or Emmie) put it so well above - it's hard to tell when people are bashing the comic and merely critiquing a portion of it that makes them nuts.

But my disappointment would be not so much that their aren't themes, but rather that they are entirely pedestrian and uninteresting. Who doesn't think that you should keep on trying even when things look bleak? Seriously. It's not a theme that tells me *anything* that I don't already know.

That's a bit subjective. While I'd agree the themes are simple and to me at least rather obvious. I wouldn't say pedesterian or uninteresting. I'd say that Lynch just isn't interested in social-political themes or philosophical ones. He's not into philosophy.
His interest is more on plot and psychological arcs and his themes tend to be more emotional or psychological.

I could do an in depth psychological analysis of the themes I see in the issue, I'm not that interested. And well, I can analyze or find philosophical things in just about anything. Frusted psychologist/philosopher here.

Yes, you can read it [NFA] as you (and obviously Lynch) do where the heroes fight the good fight and "go to work" even though they are against insurmountable odds.

Actually, I didn't read NFA as simply as you think. But there's no way you could have known that one way or the other from my post above. Apologise for not being clearer. At the time it aired I wrote an essay about NFA, in which I compared it to a Dylan Thomas Poem - Go into that Good Night, and another essay - in which I compared it to Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch - which Whedon based it on. Whedon is huge Western fanatic and studied those films in film school - as did I.

Here's the links, in case you are interested in reading it:

1. The Wild Bunch Rides Again - essay on Powerplay. I also posted it at Tea At the Ford and a few other sites, but voy didn't archive at the time. (circa. May 2004)

2.Do not Go Gently into that Good Night - my analysis of Not Fade Away, which in some respects - I actually preferred to Chosen, which felt a tad less ambiguous and more simple in comparison, but then I admittedly like noir themes.

(Also should probably share with you that I analyzed Buffy and Angel pretty heavily back when they were on. Mostly psychological analysis and a philosophical, not so much socio-political, which I try to stay away from.
And a lot of literary analysis. Here's the link to a site containing most of the essays - http://www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs/. It hasn't been updated since 2004, when I more or less stopped.)

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

My apologies. There's something about AtF that has frustrated me a great deal. I've been sitting on it for a while, and for some reason am currently in venting mode. Not sure what it's all about, though a lot of it is just a feeling of huge loss in the transition from NFA to AtF. NFA was so rich, not just in terms of morally interesting stuff, or political philosophy, but also psychologically. Lynch might well be telling an interesting story (though I've only seen one post, by Elisi, that made the case for that). It's just not resonating with anything about the story I thought I was watching. But other people have really grooved on it, and that's cool. I can make some peace with it if I think of it as being something other than a continuation of the series.

And maybe also part of the energy I have on it has to do with an unease I've felt about both shows for quite a while. Rahirah did a post on this recently, but it's basically the question of whether the writers inhabit the same moral framework you do. If the writers really did mean for us to see NFA as heroic and nothing but heroic, then I just am not on board. And that would be hard to deal with cause I love the show. Anyway, I find it hard to imagine that NFA was written by people who were entirely unaware of the dark side of what was going on. But AtF really does seem to be unaware of it. Brian really does seem to think that Angel is about a guy who while not perfect is basically a hero, but who is beset by really bad misfortune. So it's nice to finally give him a happy ending. For me, Angel is a classically tragic figure in that his tragedy is rooted in his character. I can't get him to a happy ending when the trajectory of events began with his choice to wipe the memories of his friends and sell out to evil, inc.

I'll definitely be having a look at your meta. I oughtn't to make assumptions about where people are coming from. Especially when I am, for whatever reason, in venting mode.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I oughtn't to make assumptions about where people are coming from. Especially when I am, for whatever reason, in venting mode.

I've made much the same mistakes in lj and fanboard discussions. I make assumptions about where the person is coming from, knowing very little about them. I'm learning to ask for clarification - because you never know if you might agree.

If the writers really did mean for us to see NFA as heroic and nothing but heroic, then I just am not on board. And that would be hard to deal with cause I love the show. Anyway, I find it hard to imagine that NFA was written by people who were entirely unaware of the dark side of what was going on. But AtF really does seem to be unaware of it. Brian really does seem to think that Angel is about a guy who while not perfect is basically a hero, but who is beset by really bad misfortune. So it's nice to finally give him a happy ending. For me, Angel is a classically tragic figure in that his tragedy is rooted in his character. I can't get him to a happy ending when the trajectory of events began with his choice to wipe the memories of his friends and sell out to evil, inc.

Actually - the issue doesn't end happily. Just read issue 16 last night. It's a very ironic ending. And somewhat tongue firmly in cheek. Lynch has a sardonic sense of humor and makes fun of things. Sardonic or sarcasm is tough for people to catch and can be very subtle. I know because I have the same sense of humor.

If you read the issue, with the last Buffy issue featuring Harmony clearly in the forefront of your head, you'll see how disturbing that ending is and why Angel states, "uh, this is not normal at all and really not good."

Also Angel is not depicted as a "straight-up" hero, so much as a bit of tragic figure. Everything he does in hell causes someone he loves to die. It's all about him. He only changes it when he finally dies - but it is not a selfless act and he is not motivated to do it until Connor dies, so in a way it is an act of suicide.

I saw the comic as a wry critique of the whole idea of "champion". Angel is a bit, shall we say, self-absorbed and vain? Note the comparisons the writer makes between Angel and Gunn and Angel and Spike?

No, there's a lot going on there beneath the surface. I'd write more but time does not permit. Must go to work.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Should you ever get time, and be inclined to help "talk me down" on all of this, these are the specific problems that keep me from reading Lynch charitably:

1. Lorne got his groove back. In the notes he says that he just needed to figure out that it's better to help people than to mope around when you've done something wrong. The last we saw Lorne he was shattered. He was executing someone in cold blood. Moreover, he was executing *Lindsey* on behalf of *Angel*. Not only did Angel use Lindsey for his own purposes before disposing of him; he was giving up on Lindsey's possibility of redemption. That's either hypocritical (since Angel has needed and still needs a ton of forgiveness and room for redemption) or its despairing (he's identified with Lindsey and is giving up on himself by proxy). Either way, Lorne gets it, I think. Which is why he is in such despair. The little message "you get over this stuff by helping people" doesn't seem to fit the dimensions of where we were. I read it as trivializing. Of course it's good to help people, and it's better than brooding. But it loses the commentary on Angel. And it seems to violate one of the principles of the 'verse which is that you don't just shrug stuff like that off.

2. Does Lynch see Angel's tragedy as externally driven or internally driven? The fact that Lindsey and Drogyn have disappeared from AtF, makes it at least possible that Lynch thinks that Angel's mistake here was to not see that the senior partners could retaliate by damning an entire city. But in the series Angel's participation in the evil of W&H was far more problematic. He was there in the first place because he sold himself and his friends out to W&H to save his son. He might be telling himself now that the idea was to fight evil from the inside; but at the time, when Lilah tried to tempt him with that he KNEW it could never work and rejected it. Lilah only got him with the promise of saving Connor. That's an internally motivated tragedy. Angel made a trade which we can understand, but which was still wrong. It violated his own integrity. And the mindwipe violated his friends. And we could go back further. Connor was in a mess because Angel couldn't figue out how to deal with him; he was unreachable or difficult because of his experience in hell with Holtz, but Holtz was motivated by the very terrible things Angel had done to him and his family; Connor himself exists because Angel despaired of his own redemption and sought to lose his soul by sleeping with Darla. It's all character-driven. This is not to say that Angel isn't doing plenty of good as well. But the bad stuff does not just randomly plop on him. But Lynch seems to think so. Read his opening remarks in the first TPB. Poor Angel had all this bad stuff happen; but no mention of why it was happening. And here he delivers Angel a "happy ending". Even if it is ironic in the ways you see, it's not at all obvious that the irony has anything to do with the fact that the tragedy has been driven by his own character all along.

3. In Home Connor tells Angel that you can't save someone with a lie. Angel proceeds to try to save him with a lie. Of itself that's problematic. But now we have a saved Connor, and no sense that there's an underlying dilemma. Further, there's a real question of identity. How is post-Home Connor related to pre-home Connor? Angel killed pre-Home Connor, and replaced him with post-home Connor. So who, exactly, got saved here? Lots of very interesting stuff to be done on personal identity, and on whether Angel's motivation was to save Connor, qua Connor, or to save his son, who happened to be named Connor. We know at a minimum that he did not save the Connor who was standing before him in the sporting goods store.

Continued...

Continued

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Responses to your observations:

I did see that the final set up could be used to interesting effect given the problematics I see as coming out of NFA. There could be a ginormous irony about Angel being viewed as "hero" when in fact he was not hardly an innocent bystander. It's true that at a minimum Lynch sees it as somewhat ironic, because the whole LA in hell thing did stem from Angel's act. But as I've said above, I'm pretty sure that Lynch sees Angel's contribution as having failed to see the consequences of standing up to the partners, but not all the rest of it. So, yes, Lynch intends some of the shading. And were the story to be continued by a different writer it could be extended to encompass the whole thing. The fact that Lynch forgot about Lindsey and Drogyn doesn't mean that future writers have to, and the 'reset' opens up space for it. (Though I bet you large sums that Aftermath will NOT be going in this direction).

I'm not sure how you see the comparisons between Angel and Gunn and Angel and Spike working. I'd be interested in knowing more about that. (I have my own ideas, but...)

Anyway, I tried to stay charitable with Brian. But something snapped after the first issue of First Night. And of course, once you decide not to be charitable you stop reading so closely. Much of the community here has given up on season 8 in much the same way. But since I want people to rethink about season 8, I plainly need to rethink about AtF. So if you could help talk me down, it'd be very much appreciated.

I'll try but with the following caveat.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

So if you could help talk me down, it'd be very much appreciated.

Hee. I'll try. But with the caveat that I actually agree with some of the concerns that you've raised above. And I do, to a degree struggle with the story. As I was telling Emmie, I find ATF more enjoyable when I don't analyze it. While Buffy S8 is more enjoyable when I do analyze it or read someone else's analysis.

I don't know how much of Lynch's work that you've read. I'll tell you what I've read - being an unapologetic and pseudo-obsessed Spike fan - I've read all Lynch's Spike comics. Actually I've read all the Spike comics. I loved Lynch, because in comparison to the other comics, he was a breath of fresh air. Peter David didn't appear to get the character at all or he did but at a far more rudimentary level(Old Wounds, Spike vs. Dracula). Lynch seemed to get Spike's internal struggle the best - and was the closest to Whedon's vision of the character - which has been more or less supported by the fact that Whedon selected Lynch to write ATF based on Spike:Asylum and Spike:Shadow Puppets (which in some respects, were in my opinion, far better written and drawn than ATF was). The other Lynch comic I tried to read and gave up on was a Zombie one - the humor was there, but the writer bugged me on other issues, which I won't bore you with a long sub-tangent on, except to say they are to a degree similar to the issues you are currently having with ATF and that I to a degree have with ATF.

You ask above it Lynch sees Angel's struggle as internally motivated or externally? I'd say mostly internally. If there's any external - it's probably Whedon. I don't think Lynch cares all that much about social-political themes or the external issues. Whedon is the rare writer who cares about both - which is why he appealed to such a diverse group of fans. You will see psychological analysis of Whedon's work or internal struggles, as well as sociological and political analysis in essays on Slayage and elsewhere. I think Lynch in some respects is more limited in his outlook, but to be fair, he is also a lot younger than Whedon and not as experienced a writer.

I think Lynch does some of the characters internal struggles rather well.
Spike - for example - he appears to have a fairly firm grasp on. He does not, and he's admitted this in interviews, really understand what Whedon was up to regarding the Spike/Buffy dynamic in S6-7. (But a lot of people don't understand that, so I've gotten used to it and more or less shrug it off.) Nor is he a fan of Spuffy. (Which I am by the way. Favorite ship in the series for reasons a lot of people don't understand.) That said, he's been good about not going there, possibly because Whedon drew a line in the sand and told him not to? From the interview in the back of the mag and Whedon's interview reproduced above - I think Whedon told him - look you can do whatever you want, but this, this, and this need to happen and this, this, and this can't happen or you will screw up what I'm doing.
Then swore him to an oath of secrecy not to leak what those items were.

I know this isn't exactly talking you down. But it's better, if we can figure out what we agree on. More productive or so I'm learning. Hee.

That said, I think and I see this in all of Whedon's projects, that point of view is very important here. From your post above - I get the feeling that you may be disregarding this. A lot of fans and readers seem to shrug it off or disregard it. And you really shouldn't - it's key to understanding the story the writer is telling. I'll discuss that in next response, because I think this may be getting too long. And therefore tough to read.

Point of View

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Some writers like omnipresent pov, some prefer first person. Lynch is most comfortable with first person, close, where there is a narrator and he is telling us the story and that narrator is the protagonist or lead character. In a few exceptions - such as First Night - the character telling the story is a character watching and hearing the action, unable to take part in it directly. But mostly it's the lead.

Compare this to Buffy S8 - which is told in an almost multi-character pov. And is third person. Only occassionally, like Buffy's dream or The Long Way Home are we in the lead's head, hearing their thoughts, seeing what they see through their eyes. Mostly we are looking at the action from a third person perspective, so know more than the lead character does, yet at the same time feel distanced from them because we don't know what they are thinking. Some readers and writers hate third person narratives for that reason. Others hate first person narratives - because we are limited to the perspective of the narrator, whose head we are currently in, and their thoughts and their views. We can't see outside it. We may on occassion for plot reasons - jump outside to see something they shouldn't and can't know about, but usually it's something that they had been told about later, after the fact - so what we are getting is how they imagined it. Either that or the writer just leaped out, and came back again. I've seen both done in these series. Lynch is appearing to take the former tack.

In the comics - Angel:After the Fall, Spike:After the Fall, and First Night. We have different points of view.

1. Angel:After the Fall is told entirely or almost entirely, I should go back and check but too lazy, from Angel's pov. It's his story. Everything we know and are told is from Angel's perspective. It's how Angel feels and thinks about things. And from the series, we already know that Angel is well, a bit melodramatic. And a tad self-important, not to mention egotistical and vain.
(I like Angel a lot by the way, especially his flaws, he's the classic noir anti-hero. He wants to do good, but is a control freak and obsessed with power. A beautiful soul with a ruthless survivor who is selfish to the bone and obsessed with power and control.)

2. Spike:After the Fall - is told entirely from Spike's perspective. And takes place before and during Angel After the Fall - issue one.

3. First Night is told entirely from Betta George's perspective - he's been networked in by Gunn to see what everyone else is thinking. And he's telling us what certain characters are going through - acting as a sort of omnipresent narrative voice. We aren't really in their points of view. When we are it's brief. Lorne's is brief as is Connor's - so what we get isn't that much.

Also, bear in mind, that Lynch didn't write all the stories in First Night - it was a collaboration. And personally? I don't think it worked as well as they thought it would. They were trying to do a Citizen Kane technique - which is explore the lesser characters, the man on the street claiming the world will end (who I think is the same guy in issue 16 of Angel After the Fall getting his photo taken with Angel.), Connor, Gwen, Kate, and Lorne. As well as Gunn - who's the other central pov outside of Betta George and a bit on the delusional side.

All our narrators are unreliable narrators. No one more so than Angel. Angel tends to look at everything in regards to himself. WRH seems to know that. They are to an extent playing Angel. Manipulating him through his wants, desires, and flaws. We don't really know what WRH wants, but neither does Angel. They are the devil tempting him. They tempt him with humanity. They tempt him with a better life for his son. Etc. And Angel rationalizes it, it's turned out okay. He doesn't see all the angles, his pov is rather limited, and somewhat myopic in scope.

TBC

Angel...-and Gunn

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't believe we are meant to see Angel as a big damn hero at the end of this arc. Nor is the arc over, Lynch has one more issue before handing the reigns over to Kelley Armstrong (who I have mixed feelings above - I'm not all that familar with her writing and what I've read in bookstores isn't that appealing to me, but I am impressed with Whedon and IDW for choosing a female writer to continue Angel. And looking outside the boys club of comic writers to do it. Her voice may or may not gell, I don't know. I'll have to see. If I don't like her, I'll stop.)

From the beginning - Angel sees himself as the big damn hero. This was all "his" fault, no one else was involved, it is all about him. No one else chose it. No one else made any mistakes. And he is the only person who can save them and get them out of it. He's the only hero here.

LOL! If he wasn't so adorable about it, you'd want to strangle him.

Note - that Gunn has decided the same thing. Except that it is about Gunn not Angel. That Gunn is the hero. That this is all about Gunn! Gunn is really not that different than Angelus or Angel. The only difference is when Angel becomes Angelus - he's the biggest bad on the planet, the biggest villain, worse than anyone ever. A conciet that Jasmine played on with great effect via evil Cordy in S4. She was able to manipulate Angel through his own ego. And she understood it - because she was much the same way.

We see all of those insecurities in Gunn's delusions and insanity. Gunn believes he will save the world. And much like Angel in S5 - he attempts to do so by machiavellian means. He rationalizes that stabbing Fred, killing Connor, etc - is the ends justifying the means. It's meant as a mirror to what Angel did. Angel did the same thing. Does Angel get that? Not really. One of the most frustrating things about the character of Angel is he never seems to learn. Jasmine screams it at him in the streets of LA after he reveals who she is and sends everything into Chaos, not that her orderly world was any better. And Gunn screams it at him. Heck, Wes keeps saying it as does Spike. "Oh, right, I forgot, it's always all about you." But Angel truly believes that.

If he was a bit more self-aware - he'd notice a few things. Like the fact that while he'd been going after The Dragon! Gunn was bleeding to death and about to be turned by vampires. Spike was wounded and struggling to help Illyria. He attempts to remedy that when they get time-shifted back. Except it's not a do-over, everyone remembers everything that happened to them. The dragon does. Connor does. And so does Gunn. It's not a reset, the slate isn't wiped clean.

Note how Angel reacts to Spike. Compare Spike:After the Fall to Angel:After the Fall. They look a bit different. What we see from Spike's pov regarding what Spike is going through, Illyria, and Connor - is not what Angel saw. Angel sees a well-adjusted young man in Connor who doesn't need any help or assistence, and he's a bit jealouse of Spike who is "working" with him. In Spike:After the Fall and First Night - it's revealed that Connor needs a lot of help and assistance. Spike saves Connor's life twice. That's why he's working with Spike. Spike is "training" Connor, because he knows if he doesn't Connor will get himself killed. Connor is also insecure about Gwen - he asks Angel about it twice and Angel ignores him. I'm not even sure Angel hears him.

Then we see Gunn - who is similarly myopic. He doesn't really care about his underlings unless they met his purpose. The Fish is for a purpose. He's all about the mission - even if he's deluded regarding it. He's also a bit myopic. Just like Angel.

Illyria is going nuts. Angel sees this and ignores it.
Spike asks for Angel's help with Illyria several times, and he ignores him. Because you know, Angel has to save the world and single-handedly, because it is all his fault.

Angel is completely utterly unaware of anything that doesn't directly revolve around him.

Which brings me to...Illyria and Angel.

Re: I'll try but with the following caveat.

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

First off, thanks very much for doing this. I can see you've invested a lot.

I've decided to respond post by post because I'm lazy that way. So this is me writing without having read the next four.

We have important common ground: I'm massively Spike-obsessed. My ability to continue to be engaged by season 8 is a testimony to my interest in Whedon's work, because emotionally speaking it's never going to matter to me one way or another as long as Spike's story isn't a part of it.

This might be a difference: I'm post-Spuffy. I think it was a totally fabulous relationship. Hugely important for both characters. This whole post started because I think it defies imagination to say that we can understand who Buffy is now if we don't know what she knows about Spike. And I think it's obvious that Joss knows this. I can live without there being a Spuffy future, partly becasue I see Buffy as the sort of person who will never be in a long-haul relationship and partly because I think Spike has literally given everything he can for Buffy, and she really can't do the same. Your remark that Lynch doesn't understand Spuffy is alarming because, of course, it's central to how one understands Spike.

I have not read extensively in the non-Lynch Spike comic book world. (Boy that's a clunky way of putting it.) I have read all of Lynch's Spike stuff. I did like Asylum very much. With an important caveat. It seemed off about where Spike is vis a vis Angel, depending on where in the season 5 arc you thought it was. That didn't matter so much because it was a stand alone that had no clear tie to the arc of season 5. (Not canonical and all of that). A big disappointment in AtF is that Lynch seems to see that relationship as not having advanced through season 5. Minor caveats were that I don't see Spike as someone who is a braggart about sex. There were the teeniest hints of that in Lynch's earlier Spike work, it became very much a nails on the chalk board thing for me here.

Indeed, a fair amount of my energy about the books is that for all that Lynch does love Spike (and I know he does), he's not leading me to deeper insights or understandings about the character I adore. And he's regressed him in some ways. (We'll see if the POV thing helps here, but I think that just shifts the problem to Angel). And because I'm Spike-centric, I have a rather visceral reaction to the idea that Angel is the sort of guy who would jump from a 10-story building to help someone, while Spike would take an elevator. I might just be petty enough to have let that color my whole engagement with the book. (It was a one-two punch in that fatal issue of First Night: Spike in the elevator, and Lorne getting his groove back).

Continued...

Re: I'll try but with the following caveat. (pt. II)

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Part 2:

Where we are not on the same page: I think you are not reading "internal" and "external" the way I mean. When I say that I see Angel as internally driven, I mean that his tragedies are all a product of his actions and his character. Bad things don't just happen to him. They don't even just happen to him because that's part of the package of being the PtB's boy toy. Bad things happen to him because he's wrestling with Angelus, and because he wants to maintain an image of himself as a champion that isn't really reflective of where he is. Angel's obsession with Darla had a lot to do with this, and consequently Angel's feelings about Connor have a lot to do with this. Angel's relationship with Lindsey is also a big reflection of Angel's internal character issues. The tragedy with Connor has a sort of karmic aspect to it since Connor was begotten in a shockingly irresponsible act of despair. Angel's own reaction to his tragedy with Connor served to remind us just how far Angel is from his own ideals. That gap was very large at the start of season 5, which was a totally fascinating story of how he deals with that gap -- with very, very large questions at the end about whether he was actually closing the gap, or cementing it as some sort of huge chasm, or maybe even closing the gap by giving up on the possibility of redemption. Many fans see Angel as a champion who has a lot of very bad luck. My fear going into AtF was that Angel would be written as someone who has very bad luck. The following things made me think that my fears were going to be realized: Lynch's front page introduction to the first hardcover collection, where he talks about being riveted by the stream of bad things that happen TO Angel; Lorne got his groove back; the argument between Spike and Angel is about unforeseen consequences of NFA, not about the dark side if the things that happened in NFA (and what they meant about where Angel is internally). Admittedly, I really did disengage after First Night, reading the following issues, but not all that carefully. So I might have missed some moves that were reassuring on this point. If so, it would help a lot to learn what they are.

And maybe that crops up in the next four posts! On to number two.

Spoiler AtF #16

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

And it's so not surprising that we're resetting the whole thing. The only resonant thing he did was kill Connor and he let that ride for exactly one issue before taking it back. Brian just isn't going to go for the hard edges. And that's part of the "we're just heroes" bit that he has going. It's nice for the crowd that likes that and wants their stories to be straight-forward and clean. But not for those of us who loved that it was exactly not straight-forward and clean.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Sarah Michelle Geller left All My Children after less than three years - for much of this reason.

With you on everything else you posted in this first part, but I believe another huge reason why SMG left AMC was because of a troubled working relationship with diva, Susan Lucci. Which angers me when you consider that Sarah was only 15 at the time she started working there. This troubled past is even obliquely referenced at the Paley Reunion who makes a sarcastic aside remark to Sarah about Lucci being such a positive role model.

I've heard this complaint twice now. Please explain? Because I do see clear themes in Lynch's story. So I'm not sure what you mean?

Here's the most recent interview with Whedon where he talks about After the Fall:

Jeffrey Berman: Do you think about it in terms of seasons?

Joss Whedon: I do. I do. Season 8 will be 40 issues long; I know what Season 9 is about, it's very different from Season 8.

Jeffrey Berman: 40?

Joss Whedon: Yes
.
Jeffrey Berman: Wow. Same thing with "Angel"?

Joss Whedon: The "Angel" thing is different. The "Angel" thing, they just, you know, they had a good writer, Brian Lynch, who had done a thing I admired, so I said, look, I can tell you where we were going with Season 6... You can't call it Season 6, because "Buffy" actually is Season 8, I'm literally executive producing the comic book.

Jeffrey Berman: I see.

Joss Whedon: I'm going through every script, I'm going through every sketch, I'm going through... I'm doing the job. On "Angel", I'll tell you basically what we had in mind, give you some ideas, and Brian and I went back and forth on a few things, then I just said "Good luck!"

(from The Write Environment DVD)

Continuing due to passing the word limit above

[angearia.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what your problems are with the story or Lynch's handling of it? Please clarify.

Maggie's done a good job of explaining this:

my disappointment would be not so much that their aren't themes, but rather that they are entirely pedestrian and uninteresting. Who doesn't think that you should keep on trying even when things look bleak? Seriously. It's not a theme that tells me *anything* that I don't already know.

But there's something else to add from my perspective and that's the lack in the layered presence of the themes. Whedon's themes are present in the actions of the characters but also present in the language *and* the art of the piece, which when read superficially doesn't resonate thematically. But when you are doing a close reading, they keep rising up. What's more, I can find multiple themes and ideas in every issue of Season 8. There's big themes for the season and there's little themes that are almost like subheadings of the themes exploring the little nuances because the themes aren't "pedestrian and uninteresting", but make you consider the meaning of humanity, rather than just tell you straight 'this is the moral kids, keep on chugging along'.

With After the Fall it's just simplistic themes for the entire story. And it doesn't make me think the way Season 8 does. I remarked recently that the only thing AtF makes me wonder if who's going to die next - and now we know. No one died that wasn't dead or already dying in NFA. And there's still hope for Gunn. I think the best example of a non-simplistic theme in AtS would be in Season 4 when Lilah paints Angel and the good guys defeating Jasmine as "ending world peace". Hamnoo? But it's a question with no clear answer. How important is free will compared to peace? What is an appropriate price to pay for peace on Earth?

The plot is actually tighter than Buffy.

Well, I'd say yes the plot is tighter if we were only reading #1-5, then skip to #9 and continue to the end. First Night's placement makes no sense to me and its unclear when Spike: AtF is meant to be read. If a newcomer read S: AtF before you start AtF (which makes sense, its set before AtF), then you're spoiled for the dramatic reveal of Gunn being a vampire in the first issues of AtF. So S: AtF doesn't go there. But where *does* it go? It's unclear. And considering that S: AtF adds important character development to Spike, Illyria and Connor - I view it as necessary to the story. Except it's a separate story, so its divergent existence really downplays that AtF is tightly plotted when unplanned off-shoots of the main story keep getting created.

Season 8's design puts one-shots and mini-arcs into the heart of its nature. After the Fall was being sold as a story told like a mini-series or movie. Straight shot all the way through. It didn't happen that way.

Barring those narrative placement bungles, yes it is more tightly plotted when you look at just #1-5, #9-17 (presumably since it hasnt been released yet) and also when you just look at Spike: AtF. But they just don't fit together well with the original storytellers intent. I view AtF as being written with the plot and character moments driving the story. Not the theme. And I think the lack of prioritizing the theme is evident.

Thank you for the clarification

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for reproducing that portion of the interview with Whedon. I hadn't read it, and only knew what Lynch stated in his blog, which was fairly vague and lead me to believe Whedon was more involved.

Whedon, actually, has never been that involved in the Angel enterprise.
It was mainly Greenwalt, then Minear, and finally Bell and Fury's baby.
I think the most he was involved was during seasons 5, 1 and possibly 4.
He sort of executive produced Angel - because he trusted Minear. Greenwalt and Whedon did not see eye to eye in regards to how Season 3 was handled, so he came in at 4 to fix things. I remember that there were production problems during S3 and some definite issues with Charisma Carpenter and David Greenwalt. How much of that is rumor and how much is truth - I don't think any of us will ever know.

I do know he was fairly heavily involved in Angel S5 - because it was his only project outside of the Serenity movie.

In regards to the comic - in reading your response and maggie's which I'll respond to later. I think I came to it with a different attitude. Actually I've come to both comics with a different attitude than a lot of fans have.
I have very low expectations. Don't expect many layers. And sort of see them as well, I want to say fanfiction, but that's not quite it - more a derivative work. I don't see them as canon - two different mediums.

Regarding SMG?

The SMG/Lucci relationship was complicated. And partly a personality conflict. Both are extreemly strong personalities and both have a bit of a diva in them. SMG rubbed a lot of people on BTVS the wrong way and Hannigan apparently can't stand her. Perfectionist comes to mind.
How much of that is rumor? I've no clue.

Also, SMG and others have said that part of it was due to her role on the show and the nasty relationship that character had with Erica - which may have caused some of the dischord. Not aided by the fact that SMG won the emmy, then shortly thereafter announced she was leaving for greener pastures. (She did something similar on BTVS - where she announced she was quitting Buffy and leaving for some great movie roles - which was bit nasty to her co-workers. It happens in all industries, though. Except in this industry - an actor leaving tends to mean other people lose their jobs and lively hoods. Hence the dischord. It's amazing how many people Gellar kept employed by agreeing to play Buffy for Seven years, even if the show had continued without her - a few people would have lost their jobs. Not a fun industry.)

No one else - to my knowledge - has had problems with Lucci. So this was an isolated incident.

That said, I agree - Lucci could have dealt with it better. The problem may have been that Gellar reminded Lucci a bit too much of herself, specifically things she's not happy about in herself. But that's just speculation on my part.

Re: Thank you for the clarification

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ugh, in re-reading that I realize that I contradict myself on the bit regarding Whedon. I meant to say, that while Whedon was fairly involved in the writing of Seasons 1, 4 and 5, he was not "that" involved in the series as a whole. He left most of it to Minear and Greenwalt.
Minear left at the end of 4, so Whedon pinch-hitted or assisted Jeffrey Bell who was the new show-runner. And Greenwalt left at the end of 3 - and Whedon came in to help "fix" the series a bit with Minear. In one - he was involved to the extent Greenwalt needed him to get things started.

Re: Thank you for the clarification

[angearia.livejournal.com]

I must say that if Season 5 was when Whedon was most involved, it perhaps makes sense as to why it's always been my favorite season. While he might not have been as involved with other seasons of AtS, I still say he was way more involved than he currently is with AtF.

In regards to the comic - in reading your response and maggie's which I'll respond to later. I think I came to it with a different attitude. Actually I've come to both comics with a different attitude than a lot of fans have.
I have very low expectations. Don't expect many layers. And sort of see them as well, I want to say fanfiction, but that's not quite it - more a derivative work. I don't see them as canon - two different mediums.

I just wanted to clarify that I'm really enjoying After the Fall. Hard to believe, right? But I enjoyed reading #16 a lot. It's not that I don't enjoy the plot or the character moments Lynch has created. The characters have grown in interesting ways. But it's that I don't find it as thematically meaty as Season 8. So when it comes down to discussing it, I'm left with - "oh yeah, that scene was so cool!" After I've squee'd over it adequately, I'm left without any need to consider the thematic resonance of those moments and how they play on multiple levels. AtF just doesn't make me think as much as Season 8.

Re: Thank you for the clarification

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about the lack of meat.

But I disagree about whether the characers grew in interesting ways. They may have done so over the course of AtF. But that's after having first shed much of what was interesting about them when they were handed over to Lynch. Angel was much more complex in AtS than in AtF. He and Spike were at a different stage from the one we first see in AtF. Wesley had much more interesting things going on when he died. etc. etc.

I think it's clear that Whedon had more of a hand in AtS than AtF. That's exactly the distinction I take him to be making in that interview. Also, I think he shared responsibility for AtS with guys who are quite talented in their own right. Minear, especially. I hear that interview as Whedon basically walking back any idea that AtF is canon -- and I'd like to think it's because he realizes that it just isn't good enough to be part of canon.

And if we see AtF as a non-canonical fiction about those characters, then I'm with you in being able to enjoy it all much more. Lynch is a perfectly good writer if you stop trying to see the work as a real continuation of AtS. At least that's where I am at the moment.

Re: Thank you for the clarification

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Wow, I think you made me realize that I've been viewing AtF as progressively less canonical as I've been thinking about it more recently.

I agree about Wes, Spike and Angel. But I think that Illyria is one character who grew in very interesting ways.

Re: Thank you for the clarification

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

Ah, we agree straight down the line on this. Illyria's developments are interesting. I think that hand off worked because she was still a bit of a blank slate when AtS came to an end.

(Though I am confused -- haven't reread AtF enough to be clear on this -- didn't Spike say in AtS that he knew there was no Fred in Illyria? He couldn't smell her. But somehow he seems to be unclear about the status of Fred/Illyria in Lynch's books. But that's small. Illyria as a totally non-Fred non-human with a weird attraction for humanity is interesting.)

Oh thank you for clarifying that -yes, agree absolutely!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I must say that if Season 5 was when Whedon was most involved, it perhaps makes sense as to why it's always been my favorite season.

Hmmm, never thought of it from that perspective before. But it may explain why Season 5 is my favorite season as well. It's no secret that Whedon's favorite characters on Angel were - Wes, Illyria, Spike and Lorne.

While he might not have been as involved with other seasons of AtS, I still say he was way more involved than he currently is with AtF.

Yes. I think he was more involved with Angel S5 than he is with Angel S6 via the comics. With the possible exception of Illyria and Wes, I don't think he's as interested in the Angel characters.
I just wanted to clarify that I'm really enjoying After the Fall. Hard to believe, right? But I enjoyed reading #16 a lot. It's not that I don't enjoy the plot or the character moments Lynch has created. The characters have grown in interesting ways. But it's that I don't find it as thematically meaty as Season 8. So when it comes down to discussing it, I'm left with - "oh yeah, that scene was so cool!" After I've squee'd over it adequately, I'm left without any need to consider the thematic resonance of those moments and how they play on multiple levels. AtF just doesn't make me think as much as Season 8.

Thank you for this clarification. Yes, I am reading both comics exactly the same way. ATF feels a bit like an instant gratification fanfic to me - I want to know if Spike knows who Connor is? Bang - I'm told. I want to know what happened to Kate - bang told.

Buffy is more frustrating, because it's not giving me that instant gratification, or answering all those niggling questions like does Buffy know Spike's dead? Angel - we got what Angel felt for Cordy and he's relationship with her clarified in less than ten issues. Buffy and Spike? Not so much. But you are correct, it is deeper and more layered and far more ambitious and multi-faceted than Angel.

So, yes, I am reading both comics in much the same way you are and find myself analyzing one more than the other on most occassions.

Re: Oh thank you for clarifying that -yes, agree absolutely!

[angearia.livejournal.com]

Hee. :)

Yes, sometimes I think we fans misunderstand each other because there are so many out there who criticize S8 and AtF, tossing up their hands and saying, 'No more!' So often times when a person is criticizing either comic, I sometimes think they aren't enjoying it and just want to bash it.

I just see AtF as falling short of past seasons in a thematic sense. But then AtF delivers on emotional moments in more powerful ways than Season 8 - the connections between the characters in AtF feels a bit stronger and more poignant. I wish I could merge Whedon and Lynch together because I think their strengths would make an amazing comic.

Re: Oh thank you for clarifying that -yes, agree absolutely!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

angearia @ 08:55 pm: Re: Oh thank you for clarifying that -yes, agree absolutely!
Hee. :)

Yes, sometimes I think we fans misunderstand each other because there are so many out there who criticize S8 and AtF, tossing up their hands and saying, 'No more!' So often times when a person is criticizing either comic, I sometimes think they aren't enjoying it and just want to bash it.


Exactly. We end up talking past each other instead of with each other. That's why - I'm making a point of asking for clarification before launching into a full-scale defense of ATF. When we may actually agree on the strengths and weaknesses of both it and Buffy S8.

I just see AtF as falling short of past seasons in a thematic sense. But then AtF delivers on emotional moments in more powerful ways than Season 8 - the connections between the characters in AtF feels a bit stronger and more poignant.

Yes. ATF is actually in some ways more direct. Not to mention simpler. The plot certainly is. Lynch isn't going for the ambitious and somewhat controversial social-political themes that Whedon is attempting to address.

I think the two writers have very different reasons for writing these stories. Whedon want to communicate a spefic theme and ideal through his characters. Lynch just wants to communicate how he sees these characters and what will happen next. It's the difference between I think a fan who wants to know what happens to the characters next and the original writer who is interested in a lot more than that and wants to communicate that.

I wish I could merge Whedon and Lynch together because I think their strengths would make an amazing comic.

Me too. In some regards, I like Lynch's dialogue better and the emotion feels more, intense.

In short, I am responding to the comics much the same way you are. I tend to be more critical of the Buffy comics - because I'm frustrated and Whedon keeps introducing guest characters that I would have been happy not to see again, while ignoring ones that I miss. Lynch is doing the opposite, but the story while a lot of fun and enjoyable, is a tad on the obvious side.

I more worried about the Spike and Angel comics continuing - because according to the local comic book store guy - Angel makes about half of what the Buffy comics do. And Spike makes about half of what Angel does.
Also Lynch as a writer, apparently has not taken off with fans. He's not selling.