James Marsters on Spuffy or Bangel

[Kairos]

Interesting, I've never thought about destiny that way. I don't quite understand what you mean though? If you're willing to share more, I'd love to hear it. 🙂

Certainly. I see the concept of destiny - in real life - as an eventuality that will come to pass according to (not in spite of!) one's choices and whatever other factors are at work. The future is just a place on the time stream that we can't remember and haven't experienced, like the final chapter of a book is for a character who appears in the first one.

When you transfer that idea to fiction, well, there you go. Some people look at a writer's machinations as the Hand of God - he or she controls everything that happens to the characters. I see the writer as destiny. The story will take on a life of its own, if it's any good, but the ultimate truth is whatever the author has chosen.

Thus, Buffy/Angel. If Joss intended them to fall in love, they were always going to fall in love. You could say he forced it, but the man is a storyteller; he's just doing his job.

Put another way, do the Bangels support James Marsters' statement primarily because it is pro-Bangel?

I didn't listen to it. Sorry. But no. There's no chance that "Buffy's feelings toward Angel are derived from her immaturity" or anything like that was ever in a script.

 

[prophecygrrl]

Certainly. I see the concept of destiny - in real life - as an eventuality that will come to pass according to (not in spite of!) one's choices and whatever other factors are at work. The future is just a place on the time stream that we can't remember and haven't experienced, like the final chapter of a book is for a character who appears in the first one.

When you transfer that idea to fiction, well, there you go. Some people look at a writer's machinations as the Hand of God - he or she controls everything that happens to the characters. I see the writer as destiny. The story will take on a life of its own, if it's any good, but the ultimate truth is whatever the author has chosen.

Thus, Buffy/Angel. If Joss intended them to fall in love, they were always going to fall in love. You could say he forced it, but the man is a storyteller; he's just doing his job.

Thanks for your response! I think I understand a little better now. I don't know if I agree, but like you said in your original post, you don't need anyone to share your opinion lol. It's just that speaking of authorial intent and destiny kind of reminds me of something Joss said a few weeks ago in a Reddit AMA: "All worthy work is open to interpretations the author did not intend. Art isn't your pet -- it's your kid. It grows up and talks back to you." I think the context of the question was about scholarship of his work, but I think it applies similarly here? Authorial intent only goes so far, if at all. IMO, the text doesn't necessitate destiny because an "ultimate truth" is really quite debatable.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Aloverssoulz, to respond to your quandary regarding the very existence of "Spuffies:" perhaps we happen to view the relationship, the characters, and the events involved in the storytelling very differently from how you might perceive them. 🙂

[MENTION=10219]Kairos[/MENTION]: interesting points! I agree that ultimately the writer is "fate" and that because Joss intended for Buffy and Angel to fall in love, they did. But I guess what confuses me is the issue of whether they are to stay in love, or--more specifically--to end up together. From my own perspective, the story does take on a life of its own, post season 3, (or IWRY) in such a way that makes it clear that the two have gone their separate ways and that the notion of "forever" in the romantic sense is now in the distance; certainly there doesn't seem to be anything canonical to point to that indicates otherwise.
I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with believing that it could happen--that's why we believe in these ships anyway, isn't it? And I don't mean to put down the Bangel perspective and hope of forever or to call it invalid. (And I apologize ahead of time if this paragraph makes any Bangels feel that way). I guess what I'm saying is that in spite of the fact that I think they will always love each other, I just don't see their future romantic relationship as "destiny" as opposed to "in the past?" I mean objectively, canonically, textually--truly, all thoughts of Spuffy aside.

 

[Kairos]

Thanks for your response! I think I understand a little better now. I don't know if I agree, but like you said in your original post, you don't need anyone to share your opinion lol. It's just that speaking of authorial intent and destiny kind of reminds me of something Joss said a few weeks ago in a Reddit AMA: "All worthy work is open to interpretations the author did not intend. Art isn't your pet -- it's your kid. It grows up and talks back to you." I think the context of the question was about scholarship of his work, but I think it applies similarly here? Authorial intent only goes so far, if at all. IMO, the text doesn't necessitate destiny because an "ultimate truth" is really quite debatable.

Oh, I loved that quote about art. And I'm totally with him/you on that point. I get bogged down by the question of authorial intent - it's so slippery - but I know that if I'm ever published, my stock answer to "Does this mean?" is going to be "Sure."

As it applies here, though, I just have to simplify my original example. Two characters in love is never a solid fact. Let's take Harmony instead. At some point, it was decided that she'd be turned into a vampire. And she was. Every time you see her in the first three seasons, she's human, but her destiny is to be a vampire - that's what the author wrote, and that's what the story's got coming for her.

Nothing that appears on the screen can ever "prove" love the same way it can be proven that Harmony is now a vampire, but the creation of the story happens in the same way. At some point, it was decided that Buffy and Angel would fall in love.

 

[Goby]

I'm a Spuffy, but I think it's clear that they weren't meant to last forever. Their love was amazing, but not the kind of love that lasts a lifetime.

In terms of actual "have kids and live happily ever after" relationships, she's only had one. Yep, Riley. I think Riley was the most realistic relationship she had. If Buffy is going to marry Spike, Angel, Riley or Parker (hehehe), her best chances for a lasting happiness are with Riley.

 

[white avenger]

Buffy loves, and is in love with, Angel, and probably always will. I seriously doubt that anyone familiar with the series from the beginning deny the fact, not even the most loyal Spuffy shipper. We can accept it, live with it, and get on with our lives.

Likewise, Buffy loves, and is in love with, Spike. She loves him in a totally different way, but just as intensely and just as sincerely, as she ever loved, or ever could love, Angel. She was in denial with the fact for quite awhile, something that she has in common with just about all Bangels, but eventually, she, at least admitted the fact. The only ones still in a state of denial are the Bangels.

And that's why Adopt-A-Bangel can never rest. We will leave no Bangel unsaved.

 

[KellGreen]

I never thought of Bangel as long term. He WAS written for Buffy....as a plot device. He's served his purpose of showing us Buffy's pain from their star-crossed love and loss. Romeo & Juliet couples aren't made to last; it's the very tragedy of their situation that resonates with viewers that give it power, which is the antithesis of happily-ever-after.

Spuffy just happened and developed over time. They were written as two separate, strong characters, who happened to come togother over the course of the show. They evolved, both separately and together, which is why I ship them long-term. No crossed stars required.😀

 

[brinkster130]

Just out of curiosity, for those who feel such vindication at Marsters' statement on this subject, would you be just as supportive if he had said that he had always believed that Angel had always been toying with Buffy's affections from the time when she was an overly romantic school girl right up to the present, and that Spike was the only man who had ever really loved her?

Put another way, do the Bangels support James Marsters' statement primarily because it is pro-Bangel?

Nope, while I agree with his opinion here I look at it as just that, his opinion. I personally don't think his option holds any more authority than anyone else's. But it does make for some fun fan girl silliness.

 

[Miss Kitty]

Haha, why am I not surprised ? 😛

James often changes his mind. Last year, when had been asked who Buffy should end up with, he answered : "If you're asking my opinion it should be Spike but if you follow what the show is saying it's Angel".

If you ask me, the show wasn't saying that, but here again, it's a matter of opinion. He has every right to have his interpretation, but I don't share it. I would have like to see him supporting of Spuffy though ! But at the end of the day, it's just an opinion. Not more or less valid than any other.

I want a Spuffy/Bangel debate/discussion featuring Jane Espenson & James Marsters !!! It would be funny 😛

 

[Taake]

I can't say that I care much about what James Marsters says, I don't really think any of the actors has authority on the topic, I mean it's nice to hear their points of view of course but it's like hearing anyones opinion more or less 🙂
No matter what, actor or whomever, no one can change my opinion on Bangel or Spuffy either way 😉

And White Avenger, for you only, Bangel forever!

 

[Moscow Watcher]

James was very enthusiastic about Spuffy pre-Seeing Red. But he radically changed his opinion after that episode. I heard rumors that his sister was a victim of rape.

[MENTION=10532]Miss Kitty[/MENTION] - awesome idea! I hope they'll meet at some con on the same panel sooner or later. People should prepare their questions! 🙂

 

[sosa lola]

I don't believe in the notion of anybody being destined to be together with someone. Buffy could end up with anyone she wants and she can make it work.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

I don't believe in the notion of anybody being destined to be together with someone. Buffy could end up with anyone she wants and she can make it fail.

Fixed it for you.

How do you write a serial show like this where everyone is happy with their relationships? There is no drama that way. Angel is the unreachable goal, the forbidden fruit, the impossible dream. Spike is a stop-gap, a port in the storm, the mister right now instead of mister right. Writers can work with that. Relationships have to explode or implode in a drama.

I am a firm believer in karma - but I don't know what karma would turn someone into a one-of-a-kind creature like a slayer. I do believe in destiny - but the destiny of a lead character in a drama is to have serial relationships that all crash and burn.

 

[iShower4free]

I sort of disagree... I personally don't think that Buffy and Angel were "destined to be together". I mean, sure they loved each other... But that's really it, you know? I think the fact that they couldn't even make love showed that their love wasn't meant to be... Ever since they were together there was always something getting in the way. If they were really "meant to be" then they would have "been".

Sorry to Bangel shippers. That's just my opinion. 🙂

Idk, I feel that because they can't have sex is just one of the reasons they should be together. We already know Buffy is Angels one true love since he had the ever so rare moment of true happiness. And they were so madly in love despite the fact that they couldn't have sex as well as despite all the crap they had been through. Spike was what Buffy needed during season 6 and even came to care for him genuinely when he got his soul but it was never more to her I don't think.

 

[WileyDairyGnome]

Idk, I feel that because they can't have sex is just one of the reasons they should be together. We already know Buffy is Angels one true love since he had the ever so rare moment of true happiness. And they were so madly in love despite the fact that they couldn't have sex as well as despite all the crap they had been through. Spike was what Buffy needed during season 6 and even came to care for him genuinely when he got his soul but it was never more to her I don't think.

They should be together because they can't have sex? 😕

I'm not denying that what they had was true love, but was he her one true love? I don't think so in my opinion... In the finale when she held hands with Spike before he turned to dust, and she looked into his eyes and she got that fire back, Joss himself said that she loved him right there at that moment. Nothing around them existed, it was just them in that moment, in love.

It's true, Buffy and Angel were in love despite the fact they couldn't have sex, but I feel like the fact that they couldn't perform the act of making love together showed that their love wasn't meant to be had, you know? That's just what I think anyway, no disrespect for Bangel shippers. 🙂 I'm always worried about these shipper debates 'cause sometimes they can get ugly, hehe.

 

[iShower4free]

Im not trying to debate or anything jsut having a nice discussion haha. I didnt mean that because they couldnt have sex that they were meant to be together, only that since they were together despite that fact that it was just another sign that they were really in love. idk lol. I havent heard any of Joss's interview so I dont know exactly what he meant, I was just never a fan of SPike and Buffy together. I love both characters, dont get me wrong. Just not together.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Spike and Angel are like Rhett Butler and Ashley in "Gone with the Wind", with Buffy as Scarlett. Scarlett would always pine away for Ashley (Angel) but Rhett (Spike) was the one who understood everything that was going on and had the insight and just plain street smarts to be able to know what the situation was.

 

[white avenger]

Spike and Angel are like Rhett Butler and Ashley in "Gone with the Wind", with Buffy as Scarlett. Scarlett would always pine away for Ashley (Angel) but Rhett (Spike) was the one who understood everything that was going on and had the insight and just plain street smarts to be able to know what the situation was.

So, "No you don't,but thanks for saying it," is the Buffyverse equivalent of "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Excellent point, especially in view of what happened in the sequel. (Though, whoever cast Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler should be lynched)

 

[iShower4free]

I feel that Spike was the convenient one, he could be there for her and that was great. She needed someone like that at the time, someone she could relate to. I just don't it was the "meant to be" type of love that Angel and Buffy had. Idk, thats just how I have always seen it

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

Do you have the links to where he gives different answers? I've watched a couple and don't remember him giving any conflicting answers on Spuffy or Bangel

Here's an instance where James discusses the topic on his site's Q&A:

What do you think of Joss Whedon’s comment that “Buffy was in love with Spike the moment their hands clasped” in the finale?

Yeah, I believe that. Only then was he a true hero, only then did he truly sacrifice himself for other people and only then did he truly deserve her.

His answer is ambiguous - just like Buffy and Spike's relationship. I think James believes that Buffy loves Spike. As to if she belongs with him? That's still up for debate. I think James's varied answers reflect that he, like many of us, still isn't sure if the two are meant to be together. No one wants to give a definitive answer. Then we'd stop wondering and hoping.

http://www.jamesmarsterslive.com/?page_id=227