Question for ya, Harlan. To me, the relationships (and specifically, the nature of those relationships) formed in the show are a really important part of the narrative as a whole. I don't think ships are that much different from any other story/character arc. Why exactly do you think Buffy/Giles should be considered the same as any other ship in the verse? I didn't quite understand what you were saying before, since you were mostly talking about why you disagree with Spuffy as a ship. You can respond to me in PM if your answer gets too off-topic. 🙂
See, this double talk is what doesn't make sense to me.
I don't "disagree" with "Spuffy" as a ship.
I don't know what that means and nobody will explain it to me. I see the notion of Buffy and Spike being in true love as nonsensical as Buffy and Giles being together. Because Buffy and Spike, as I see them in the series, do not come off as actually being a healthy couple. I see the implications of their relationship just as creepy as Buffy and Giles, just in different ways.
Let me dissect why your paragraph confuses me and literally does not make sense to me.
Question for ya, Harlan. To me, the relationships (and specifically, the nature of those relationships) formed in the show are a really important part of the narrative as a whole. I don't think ships are that much different from any other story/character arc.
See, I don't disagree with this. But the usage of the word "ship" doesn't make any sense to me. Why would you segregate romantic arcs as "ships" but everything is else is a character or story arc? On that token, what does it mean to "support" a ship?
Based on this thread and the above conversation, supporting a ship, to me, sounds like liking a couple because something is appealing about them reaching true love. And while someone obviously disagreed with me about this, here's the kicker:
They're not in love.
And honestly, it was REALLY aggravating to see people say "OH WOW MORE SPUFFY TALK DUR HUR" because...that's not what I'm getting at. At all. Nobody who said that read my posts (or they did, but just don't care. Which is even MORE aggravating).
Shipping and liking a romantic arc aren't the same thing. They CANNOT be. I've seen a post here explaining how sad this user was seeing Angel leaves Sunnydale because of "how good Buffy and Angel were together"...even though the entire point of their arc in season 3 was
how they weren't.
Enjoying a romantic subplot isn't shipping. Shipping, in every instance I've ever seen is ignoring actual story to "support" a couple that doesn't exist regardless of their actual story arc. Which is why the fact Buffy and Giles being "canon" is a weak defense: most of these ships, by fan interpretation, actively spit in the face of the nuance of the source material.
Unless I'm wrong. Which I apparently am, but NOBODY WILL EXPLAIN WHY. Zobo made offhanded comments about "my definition" of shipping, but never told me the "correct" one, despite the fact I asked more than once (while also proving my definition as correct). YOU also don't answer, instead trying to figure out my definition and asking questions I already clarified in a post about Riley. I appreciate you trying to understand my viewpoint, but in doing so you're largely ignoring what I've already said multiple times and CONTINUE TO LEAVE ME IN THE DARK.
Why exactly do you think Buffy/Giles should be considered the same as any other ship in the verse?
See above.
I didn't quite understand what you were saying before, since you were mostly talking about why you disagree with Spuffy as a ship.
But that wasn't...
Mother of God.
I don't...
I don't know what the hell this means. I literally cannot understand what you mean. The way this terminology is applied is inconsistent and does not make any sense.
And nobody will explain it to me, because they seem to replace my words with the same shipper debates they've apparently read a million times. Or get mad I don't like their "ship" (which apparently isn't what I think it is, but then demonstrates itself as exactly what I said it is) and try to challenge my viewpoint while I'm asking to be cured of my ignorance.
I'm discussing an aspect of the show, and the fandom, in detail, with supporting evidence. Calling me a "douchebag" for that is rude.
I wanted to edit my previous note but can't - is there a time limit on editing?
Harlan Phoenix, you described your own notes this way: "I explain my interpretations. . . .. I sat down and gave you the benefit of dissecting my view of Spike's character arc and why it's inconsistent with your views."
How is that different from what I did, that made you react with "douchebag?"
Because you're reacting to a seven year old Livejournal post and being all, like, "MAN THIS IS SICK GUYS." It's the most needless way to bring up a group of people and bash them behind their backs. You're literally bashing shadows. To the point where you feel the need to construct a list of things that refute an old document that is about as relevant as you make it. Really. This document only matters as much as you complain about it and actively rally discussion about it. It exists entirely because of how much you hate it.
Also, see above. All "ships" are, on some level, illogical. They're really no different. You're just being mean about faceless people's harmless fun for no reason.
And that irritates me. I'm told I can't call you what I think this makes you, but I think dots can be connected.
