Hi, I'm de-lurking because I am pretty familiar with Lani's approach to story analysis that people are asking about it, so I can provide some context for Lani's comments re: active vs. passive characters. Also, it seems like things have gotten a little heated, and I want to take a stab at peace-making. (I know I'm a bit late, but I wanted to re-listen to podcast episodes I link below to make sure I got it right.)
=== The Background ===
The principle of active vs. passive characters applies broadly to all stories, not just to Spike's vs. Angel's soul-getting. (But of course, like all principles, there may be some exceptions.) Lani taught screenwriting at Syracuse University for many years, and this idea is part of the curriculum that she developed for that job. I know it reasonably well because she's been sharing it on her podcast How Story Works. The most relevant episode for the current discussion is #8 (How Goals Works - 13 min), with a little bit also from the beginning of #6 (Protagonist, Antagonist - 11 min) to set it up. I'll try to summarize the relevant bits below, and give some examples from Buffy as well as other examples that she uses.
From episode #6: For any story, the central narrative conflict comes from the fact that the protagonist and the antagonist have mutually exclusive goals. A good protagonist has three qualities: 1) the story is in their POV, 2) they have an active goal, and 3) they have the most to lose. Additionally, the protagonist can be different at different narrative levels - the main protagonist of the story may not be the protagonist in every scene (or the main protagonist of the show may not be the protagonist in every episode).
From episode #8: A protagonist's goal is most effective if it's active rather than passive. (This is not the only thing that matters. Lani uses the acronym ASPA: a goal should be Active, Specific, Personal, Achievable). An active goal is positive - the character should be pursuing something not avoiding something. For instance, Harry's pursuit of the 7 horcruxes, each one harder and more difficult to find than the next, is an excellent active (and escalating) goal. On the other hand, Snow White is a terrible protagonist. All she does is passively react to everything (waits for a prince, gets kicked out by step-mom, accidentally finds the dwarves, eats the offered the poison apple, is literally dead for a chunk of the movie). The only active goal she has in the whole movie is to clean the house.
=== Passive vs. Active Applied to the Buffyverse ===
**Spoilers for all seasons of BtVS and AtS below**
So, first I want to address the idea that Buffy is a weak character because she's passive a lot of the time. Before I address the specific examples given above (not choosing to be a slayer, getting resurrected), I want to point out the most powerful moments of the show - and the climax of almost every season - is Buffy making an active choice. She chooses to go confront the Master (S1). She stabs Angel with a sword and sends him to hell (S2). She leads a frontal attack at graduation and sets a trap for the Mayor (S3). She jumps off the tower to save Dawn (S5). She chooses to awaken all the potential slayers and take the battle to the First Evil (S7). Season 4 is a little different because it's more about all of them coming together as team. Season 6 is different because arguably Willow is the protagonist of the season, but the principle still works because Willow is very active in her attempt to end the world. Casting Willow as the protagonist of S6 also simplifies the issue of Buffy passively being resurrected - Willow makes the active choice to resurrect her, and is undoubtedly the protagonist of Bargaining Parts 1 and 2.
A few non-season climax examples: Buffy telling the council to shove off in Checkpoint. Buffy and the whole gang telling Tara's family to shove off at the end of Family. Buffy stabbing Faith, and then punching Angel to make him bite her in Graduation day. And of course, the exception that proves the rule: Buffy being fairly passive throughout The Body, but where her passivity is the whole point.
Regarding Buffy not choosing to become the slayer - I think it's actually very similar to Angel being cursed with a soul. But both of these are not really narrative beats in the story of the TV show - they are back story / world-building. So, on one level, it's a bit disingenuous to compare Spike choosing and earning his soul to Angel getting cursed, because one is a giant narrative arc that builds over 4 seasons of TV, and the other is a prologue (even though we see the moment depicted on screen, it's not a part of the current narrative in that episode). So yes, Angel getting cursed is never going to compare to Spike earning is soul. But Angel getting cursed isn't what makes him interesting.
What makes Angel an interesting character narratively speaking is what the person said ^ - it's not how he has was cursed with a soul, it's what he does with it: 1) struggling with good vs. evil within himself and 2) struggling with being a lone warrior vs. building a community and being a team player. Those are both really interesting things that involve a shit ton of active choices! Locking all those W&H lawyers in the wine cellar and then firing all of his friends? Trying and failing to lose his soul with Darla? Betraying his friends by wiping their memories to protect Conner? Selling out to harness the powers of W&H? Hell yes to all of that! They're narratively powerful, on exactly the same level as Spike choosing to get his soul. (It's not a coincidence that all of these examples come from AtS - he's a much more active character on his own show.)
Angel on S1 and S2 of BtVS is super passive (except as Angelus, and then a bit in S3). All he does is show up randomly, whisper something mysterious and almost helpful, and then run away. Surprise / Innocence is the first moment that Angel does something active - as Angelus. (It's also when DB's acting first becomes compelling, and you can tell playing Angelus taught him how to play a much better ensouled Angel in season 3. You can't really be too harsh on him though, since BtVS was his first acting job). Angelus in the back half of S2 - and especially in Becoming Parts 1 & 2 - is amazing. I weep like a baby every time. In season 3 Angel's involvement in the Faith storyline is also active and great! But a lot of the time the writer's just didn't really know what to do with him. Angel on BtVS was mostly just sitting around being tormented by guilt and his desire to be with Buffy, but he didn't have any other ambitions. Thank god they got him his own show where he could be the main character and have an active goal - to help the helpless.
Conversely, Spike is much more active during his time on BtVS. In seasons 2 and 3 Spike wasn't a regular, so they only included him in episodes when they had a good reason to. Additionally as an antagonist, it was easy to give him an active goal - his whole job was to cause problems for Buffy. (Not a coincidence that Angelus-as-antagonist was also great - they are relatively easy to write as active characters.) And then in S4 and beyond the writers room just did a better job of keeping his character occupied with mischief, goals, and motivations.
=== Love What You Love ===
I feel like this whole kerfuffle has just been a big misunderstanding. People who didn't like Spike were annoyed with Lani's perspective on Still Pretty which has only covered the Spike/Buffy era of the show. Lani announced an Angel show. Those annoyed people who are probably used to more aggressive fandom interactions and shipper wars came at Lani. They got aggressive, insulted her, and fan-splained at her how to do her job (and told her to in fact, quit her job). She responded somewhat aggressively. Then it continued to escalate.
I have two - I think compelling - arguments for why Lani is not actually your enemy:
1. Lani's #1 guiding principle is literally "Love What You Love" (she even sells merch with that slogan). She hates the term "guilty pleasure" and would seriously be the last person to shame somebody for their narrative preferences (especially as a writer of romance novels and a big defender of genre fiction in general). She fully admits to loving a lot of stories that are not structurally sound according to her own rules. She's always open for genuine questions and comments, and happy to hear people explain why they love things that break the rules because of their primary values (e.g., witty dialogue vs. melodrama vs. careful plotting), personal history, or whatever reason. She would be 100% on board with someone who said, "Okay, that's a fair critique of Angel, but he's my favorite character and I ship him with Buffy because reminds me of my first love from high school, and I love the star-crossed lovers trope." But she's also been doing this long enough, she doesn't have a lot of patience for people who try to put strawmen in her mouth, tell her what she thinks, or tell her how to do her job (and let's be honest: it's usually men).
The Chipperish discord chat admittedly skews towards Spike lovers, but we have some outspoken fans who prefer Angel, and one devoted Willow/Xander shipper who talks about his love for that couple without any issues or fighting. We are very much a "Love what you love" group - we want to know *why* you love something, and have people explain their reasoning so we can find different ways to look at the stories we love, but it's not a debate where the goal is the change people's minds.
2. This is a direct quote of Lani's that I pulled from the Discord chat: "I love David Boreanaz. I think he's great. I just think the romance with Spike is better, mostly because Buffy doesn't give a shit what he thinks of her, because she minimizes herself for every other man."
Lani is doing an Angel the series podcast, because she loves Angel the series and Angel the character *when he's on his own show.* Period. She will treat the show and the character fairly according to her approach of narrative analysis. Not being an Buffy/Angel shipper and being a Spike/Buffy won't affect her ability to do that, because Buffy and Spike barely show up (until S5, obviously).
However, if you can't stand listening to someone who likes Spike, or if you've read this far and think "Wow, that style of analysis was way overkill / boring!" then Lani (and our community) is probably not for you, and she would be the first to admit it. Love what you love. Don't force yourself to love something you hate. Don't give up a story you love because of shame.
