Cliche Arguments

[Miss Muffet]

For fun and coming up with better arguments, what do you think is an overused argument for the opposite side of a shipping war? (Preferably without arguing, but I put it in the Battleship section so...)

 

[Plasma]

That either of the big two, Spuffy and Bangel, were healthier for Buffy than the other.

The whole point of the relationships is that they are unhealthy and add drama. The best stuff with Spuffy happens in the comics and Bangel leads to Jenny Calendar getting murdered and Angel going insane. Like I’m a massive Spuffy, but I would detest being in a relationship like S6 Spuffy.

 

[Bop]

I think the inconsistency with Spike and what being unsouled/souled really means makes a lot of the arguments for Spuffy sound like clichés because I'll often hear that Spike was better than Angel because he could love and be a decent man without a soul but then if I were to discuss what Spike does without a soul including the AR or anything else he does that's wrong, the tune changes and it's what do you expect he's a soulless vampire. Yeah, one that you said could feel real empathy for Buffy and was a special vampire like that and whatnot. Or the argument that a lot of them use for season 7 Spuffy is that Spike is literally not the same person who did bad things to Buffy, yet otherwise they talk about him like he's the same person that's been on the show since season 2 and had an amazing evolution.

Angelus/Angel is far far more consistent. Nice to get that off my chest it's been 10 years in this fandom 😂

 

[thetopher]

- 'Bangel is a forever love'

This seems like a lazy meta-comment instead of looking at the characters actions during the shows. You could say maybe from Angel's pov (if we completely ignore Cangel, and why wouldn't we?) because his future and overall emotional development is somewhat stunted by his manpire-ness and curse condition. And even then he made lots of progress and built himself a new life and family entirely away from Buffy.
Angel's 'one day I'll shanshu and be with Buffy' doesn't feel like a love story, but a retirement plan; 'this, then that'.

With Buffy, she always seems to be hopefully searching for something to be like what she had with Angel, which suggests that she might want to replace her 'forever love' with something more here and now and fulfilling and great. Good luck to her I say (show Buffy obviously, not comics!Buffy, comics Buffy is a broken character)

Overall the argument is cliche because it seems very static, stale and not the stuff of interesting storytelling.

- Bangel was just 'puppy' love; immature and not real. But Spuffy was 'real' love; adult and messy.

Firstly, way to be completely dismissive of the main characters unambiguous emotional declarations before then saying that later on a super-depressed and traumatized Buffy is 'obviously' in love with Spike because of a look or something lol.
And secondly, nope, neither was real love, as in 'realistically depicted' love, both were totally melodramatic in their way. You want to look at semi-realistic relationships in the show then Buffy's undead beau's are not a good example. Look to maybe Buffy/Riley (at a massive stretch) or one of the Scoobies and their love interests; those were made up of more little sweet moments. Real love is often more like that.

- 'Angel never really knew Buffy, Spike understood the real her'

This well-tread argument often blows my mind; on the show Buffy was never more emotionally open and real and honest with anybody than she was with Angel. She talked with him, confessed and discussed with him; everything about her personal life and her fears and many neuroses; really, a lot of yammering occurred on her part. Angel would listen intently (not really a big talker) and then give advice or just some comfort. He knew her because she talked to him about herself.
With Spuffy their communication was awful; incredibly terrible. Punch, punch-snark-kiss-unwanted declaration of love-got a soul for you or whatever.
Spike never knew like, the basics of Buffy's struggles and fears, he just projected onto her an awful lot. What we tended to have with Spuffy was 'Spike and his insights' where Spike would say 'Buffy, you are this, because this', and most of the commentary was just way off the mark more times than not. It gives the illusion of knowing without actually giving us a true picture of closeness.

On the flip-side Buffy always wanted to know more about Angel, wanting to share together (and yes, its kind of a problem with their relationship that he never really did), but Buffy wasn't really interested in knowing the 'real' William, especially when he got a soul.

 

[Faded90]

‘William was a much better human than Liam’

It’s actually totally irrelevant. Particularly because it’s almost certain that Buffy wouldn’t actually care.

‘X loved Buffy more than X’ when it’s given as a reason for who Buffy should be with. As if Buffy should just have a tally chart of who loves her ‘best’ for who she should be with. Almost always completely ignores who the other person (Buffy) may actually love most

‘Buffy and Angel were just Romeo and Juliet’

They’re pretty much the complete opposite of Romeo and Juliet. Both consistently decide to not let the others death/absence destroy them and at least attempt to move on

‘Spike got a soul for her. Angel had to be cursed with one’

Pretty much totally irrelevant argument. Buffy never asked him to get a soul, she also had zero interest in dating Angelus and never particularly cared (quite rightly of course) what he wanted. As an add on I’d like to add that Faith is the only person in the entirety of both shows; of all the scores of people who have wronged Buffy in some way to actually ASK ‘what can I do to make it better?’

‘Angel never smiled with Buffy’

Patently not true. There is multiple episodes and scenes of them enjoying each other’s company. Then doing fun things together like going to the movies, ice skating, indoor picnics etc. They also had easily the best communication and issue solving of all Buffyverse couples, and it’s like not even close!

Also a more general one but anytime we see ‘this ship is better because they’ve seen each other at their worst’ - except why is this necessary or even particularly a positive? Some people only ever know their partners when they’re their best selves and that’s cool! It’s an argument I just never really understand the merits of really

I’m sure I’ll think of some more 😂 an interesting topic!

 

[RachM]

Fred and Wes were a better match because they had more in common than Fred and Gunn.

This argument really bugs me because it's really not true. The only thing Fred and Wes have in common is that they're both academics. Other than that, they had very different upbringings, lives and experiences. If anything, Fred has more in common with Gunn, with both of them coming from more working-class backgrounds, having strong family ties (even if Gunn's has been lost to death) and knowing what it's like to survive in a dangerous world that's constantly trying to kill you (Gunn growing up on the vampire-ridden streets of L.A. and Fred being trapped in Pylea).

I particularly hate this argument when it's used to portray Gunn as "dumber" than Fred and Wes and therefore not "equal" to Fred, which is also completely wrong. As we see many times over the series, and particularly in Season 5, Gunn is just as smart as both Fred and Wes and could have taken a similar path had he been born into a better position in life/had more privilege.

 

[katmobile]

I think anyone who tries to claim anything is an OTP - people can and do love different people in different ways.

The idea that you're first love is the ONE. The stats aren't with you.

The sole canon is a tricky beast but as a Bangel you can't have your cake and eat it IF Buffy is willing to overlook all the bleep Angelus did to her then you shouldn't be surprised if she overlooks the same in souless Spike. As to the argument that we try to have it both ways then think of it like this - doing anything good or for someone else without a soul is like a salmon jumping upstream - it's possible but there needs to be something in you that compels you to go against the grain - it doesn't necessarily make you 'good' but it's a thread of humanity present whereas Angelus has nothing like that except the ability of a really good performance of Giselle to make him cry.

You don't necessarily have to erase or sink other ships to get yours to sail.

 

[Bop]

The sole canon is a tricky beast but as a Bangel you can't have your cake and eat it IF Buffy is willing to overlook all the bleep Angelus did to her then you shouldn't be surprised if she overlooks the same in souless Spike.

I think I'd have the right to be surprised because in every way there is a marked difference between Angelus/Angel. In my eyes there's hardly any difference between soulless and souled Spike which is why people don't separate them in typical conversations in the fandom unless they're talking about the evil that Spike did, only then is the distinction brought up.

As to the argument that we try to have it both ways then think of it like this - doing anything good or for someone else without a soul is like a salmon jumping upstream - it's possible but there needs to be something in you that compels you to go against the grain - it doesn't necessarily make you 'good' but it's a thread of humanity present

If that something compelling Spike to go against the grain was discussed as just being his obsession/pursuit of Buffy then I could understand how a soulless being could do that, because it's not truly good. But that's not how soulless Spike's good actions are normally talked about.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

"Spike couldn't love Buffy because he doesn't have a soul."

"Angel was Buffy's first love she said she loved him more than anything in this life, so she couldn't love Spike too."

"Spike tried to rape Buffy and Angel didn't so how could she love Spike."

"Buffy told Spike she loved him but she was lying because he was dying."

Shall I go on?

 

[katmobile]

I think I'd have the right to be surprised because in every way there is a marked difference between Angelus/Angel. In my eyes there's hardly any difference between soulless and souled Spike which is why people don't separate them in typical conversations in the fandom unless they're talking about the evil that Spike did, only then is the distinction brought up.




If that something compelling Spike to go against the grain was discussed as just being his obsession/pursuit of Buffy then I could understand how a soulless being could do that, because it's not truly good. But that's not how soulless Spike's good actions are normally talked about.

Ok - there are many different types of love but C S Lewis mentions four important ones - Eros - romantic/passionate love although not lust, Philia - sort of companion love, Stoage - the love of family both blood and found, and Agape - altruistic, universal love closely related to charity and morality. Through Spike we see that the souless are actually capable of all but apage - he is capable of caring about individuals but not humanity as a whole and that's because agape is truly selfless - the others are to do with building relationships. I've always argued that Spike is not capable of true selflessness souless but he retained his ability to feel for others because it's not related to the soul, because of who he was as a mortal and because it was tied to Dru, his sire. However you are guilty of black and white thinking in strawmanning certainly my position as saying that Spike was being truly altruistic in seeking a soul and then painting what I believe to be an equally untrue opposite that it was pure obsession. It was literally erotic in the truest sense of the world i.e.motivated by eros ergo a mix of selfish and selfless. He both wanted to improve himself for himself - to win her love and get out of the rut he was in where he was neither fish or flesh and for her - so that he would never hurt her like that again and maybe begin to atone or even truly understand her. I have bias but it's not an unthinking one.

As for Buffy forgiving Angel out of naivete or because Angelus obviously isn't Angel then sorry but nope. I call it consistency - there's an obvious difference in how broken Spike is at first and it's not playacting, he's a mess. There are some differences between Angel and Spike because of their differing natures which lead to differing ensoulment circumstances but boldly speaking Spike willingly suffered to get a soul and Angel does to keep his - both are heroic.

 

[Bop]

However you are guilty of black and white thinking in strawmanning certainly my position as saying that Spike was being truly altruistic in seeking a soul and then painting what I believe to be an equally untrue opposite that it was pure obsession. It

I wasn't strawmanning you I was talking about the Spuffy fandom overall and the contradicting thoughts I hear all the time. I think many of you have had to make up your own ways of making sense out of soulless and souled Spike together because the show was inconsistent with it. In fact isn't that why the AR scene even happened in part- because Whedon felt fans were forgetting Spike's true nature and abilities as a soulless vampire. That's the writers fault for how they portrayed Spike in season 5 and then having to backpedal in season 6 and again in season 7. That's how I see it.

 

[Nothing13]

For me, the show was inconsistent in general in regard to Spike and Angel as vampires. (Also vampires personalities of characters)
Yes, souless Spike of seasons 3-4-5-6 is almost identical to souled Spike of season 7. Sincerely, for me, soulless Spike of School Hard is more different than soulless Spike of season 4-5-6 compared to his souled version of season 7. (It doesn't make sense to me).
However, the problem for me is the bullshit of the show: outcasts/nerds become heroes/"someone important".
Liam, a lazy drunken and William, a shy poet became Angelus and Spike; 2 of the most dangerous, evil (Angelus) and violent (Spike) vampires in history according to the ridiculous mythology of the show.
Instead, as humans:
-Kralik was a serial killer who tortured and murdered more than a dozen young women. He wasn't special as a vampire
-The Gorch brothers were murderers, known for their extreme brutality, such as massacring an entire Mexican village. They were a joke as vampires.
-Vlad the Impaler became Dracula, and he was a joke in season 5.
I think that the show was inconsistent and arbitrary on "vampire personalities". Vampire Harmony didn't change compared to her human counterpart. Writers did what they wanted without consistency or logic.
The problem of this nonsense (Liam and William becoming Angelus and Spike) is that the show wanted to represent the bullshit "outcasts/losers/nerds" become "someone important" (in good or evil)
-Liam and William: 2 outcast losers became badass vampires (Angelus and Spike) and after heroes
-Xander, Willow Giles: outcasts/losers became heroes.

Realistically, for me, there is no way immature incompetents as Liam, William etc. can surpass someone as Vlad the Impaler as vampires.
Liam and William lack psychological strength and maturity compared to other examples of personalities of the past, for example (hypotheticals profiles):
-A Spartan Soldier, raised since he was a child to be a soldier with hard physical and mental training in order to fight and survive or be killed; a life of wars always ready to die.
-A Gladiator of the Roman Empire, that lived a life as a slave, killing people to survive as entertainment and see other people (friends and loved ones) die and tortured almost all his life
-A Viking Warrior
Imagine these psychological profiles as vampires. Are you telling me that 2 idiots as Liam and William can surpass these people? Ridiculous
For me, it is like to compare a mindset and psychology of a child (Liam, William and Warren etc..) to a veteran adult (Vlad the Impaler, a Spartan Soldier, a Gladiator etc..)