The Cookie Dough Speech and Other Musings

[Kana]

I was reading about this topic on livejournal and I just wanted to revisit it. As always, this isn't meant to be a shipping war, it's more an analysis of the speech itself and the implications it has on Buffy, Angel and Spike.

There are several different factions in the fandom in regards to how the speech is interpreted:

Some see it as a promise from Buffy to Angel that she'll be with him one day. Some see it as a roundabout way of letting Angel down easy so she can be with Spike. Others believe she's just plain leading Angel on and other see simply don't fall into those categories.

So, let us look at these different interpretations and attempt to see if they fit the context of the narrative.

These options are basically lifted from livejournal but without further delay let us get to it

Buffy still loves Angel the best and she is promising to be with him in the future.

I'm sure most Bangels will agree to the first part but I'm almost certain they would at least question the second part. As far as I'm concerned this interpretation is incongruent to what was said in the speech. She spends a great deal of time talking about how she's on the journey to self-discovery and seems to imply that jumping into another relationship would only impede that journey. She also says outright that she doesn't know who she'll be with when she's done baking. Now, if one is to argue that when she calls out to him saying "Sometimes I do think that far ahead", she's actually promising a future then it would seem you're essentially implying that Buffy is saying "I don't know who I'll be or who I'll end up with"¦but I know it's going to be you". I mean that doesn't even make sense. If there was any ambiguity, then we have to remember she was quick to say "It's going to be a long time coming, years if ever". As far as I'm concerned, the fact the she added "if ever" is important in terms of the unpredictability of her future and she's only said she sometimes thinks that far ahead, which at most means she considers Angel could be in the running. It certainly doesn't exclude other suitors.

For me, it's not about her feelings for Angel, it's just the absurdity of the idea that's promising to be with Angel when her speech is about finding her identity before she decides who'll she'll be with.

Buffy's leading Angel on with hints that she never plans to follow through

So do we really believe that Buffy would knowingly lead Angel on when she has no intention of being with him? I personally believe this interpretation is a great disservice to her character. Firstly, it's not even factually correct because Buffy doesn't give Angel any promises. The most she's said is that she sometimes thinks about a possible future together.

Buffy is giving him the easy let down and telling him they're probably never going to happen.

Again, when does Buffy even imply this?

My overall conclusion is that the speech was about Buffy admitting that she doesn't know who she is or what she wants. I'm not entirely happy with Angel pressing Buffy for answer that she doesn't have especially considering the fact that he broke up with her!

In my mind she neither promising Angel anything nor attempting to dash his hopes. It's not really about him or anyone else; it's about being mature enough to know she's not ready to make that kind of commitment with anybody.

I've always found that Buffy put too much pressure on herself to make relationships work. In Chosen she discovered she didn't have to do that. When she's done baking, she'll find the person for her.

So what are your thoughts? Is she choosing one guy over the other? Is it significant that she kissed Angel but wasn't physically intimate with Spike? Is it significant that she sent Angel away and spent what could have been her last night in Spike's arms?

 

[Kean]

I took it as her saying that she doesn't know if she'll have a future with anyone or even what that future would be, but when she does think about the life she would like in her future, she sees him there with her.

It was Buffy telling him nothing had changed; she was still the slayer with the life that goes with it, and she still wanted him in her life. She had no clue what her life would be like but she knew she would still want Angel.

For me, it was her saying all this stuff has happened but, I still love you, you still matter to me, I still don't know if we can ever be together but I want you to know I still want you.

I don't think there is anything strange or illogical about that.

*cue Love Song by The Cure* 😉

 

[Blaze]

I interpreted it differently. I think Buffy doesn't necessarily see Angel in her future and if she's not lying to herself her future will most likely not involve him (she already knows the implication and complications of being with him too well). But I do agree that it was her way of letting him know that she'll always love him.

Honestly, I don't really think any of the 3 options are correct. She's not promising him a future, but she's not letting him down. And she certainly doesn't lead him on, in fact this is a very honest speech. And sure, the speech provides some hope about the future, but Buffy is only saying how she feels. I thought it was a good conclusion to the whole Bangel ship.

The speech is actually kind of her picking no guys, it's letting Angel, and Spike (even if he wasn't there), know that she loves them both but she's not going to pursue a relationship with either of them. Sexual contact, or physical contact, with either of them really didn't matter. Her kissing Angel or her sleeping with Spike was just proving that she loves them both and needed comfort, but she wasn't ready to consider a future with neither of them.

 

[SiegePerilous02]

I took it as Buffy saying she still needed to grow up and figure herself out before being in a relationship with anyone, which I think was a very mature place to end her arc in the series. Our romance obsessed culture demands shipping resolutions in every series finale, but this one took a more unique approach.

I think she still really wanted Angel to be in her future, and of her romantic interests up to that point, he was still #1. But she was considering that that might not be a possibility for whatever reason, and she was pretty up front about it. She never "lead him on," and he seemed to understand what she was saying and respected it.

 

[thetopher]

To me her speech is saying that Buffy realises that there's nothing wrong with not finding that perfect someone in your early twenties. It's a moment of clarity, a 'hey, actually I need to figure out what I need before I get involved in another intense romance thing'.

I don't think Buffy is letting Angel down easy (she even promises that 'sometimes I do think that far ahead'.) and Angel, classy guy that he is, takes it on the chin and this time gives Buffy what she wants- time and space.
It's also worth noting that Buffy doesn't say 'I'm in love with Spike' ('casue she isn't) but that he is 'in her heart', which means there is the possibily of future love/relationship with him, but it never happens.

 

[white avenger]

Something Else...

Buffy is sending Angel away with a really lame excuse. "Second Front?" If the First Evil got by Buffy and her people in Sunnydale, no force that Angel could possibly muster would be any more effective in containing it. If she had told Riley that, yeah, he would have had access (presumably) to military support. Bringers, as far as we know, could be stopped by regular gunfire, and ubervamps could be taken out with incendiary rounds and flame throwers. But Riley wasn't there. Angel was. And, as useful as Angel himself might have been in the fight that was coming, Buffy already had Spike there, more or less familiar with what was going on. You don't put two pit bulldogs in the same pack, because they'll spend more time fighting each other than doing what really needs doing. No, Angel and Spike aren't pit bulldogs, but the analogy holds true, or was at least so likely to hold true that Buffy couldn't risk the distraction and disruption to her group.

And nowhere in that entire cookie dough speech did Buffy ever mention Angel by name or use the word "you" in the context of naming him as the recipient of her cookies. Someday, when her cookies are baked, assuming that such a day ever does come, she'll be ready to make a lifelong commitment to someone, maybe Angel, or maybe someone else, but she never made him any specific promise that it would be him. Maybe he interpreted it that way, certainly a lot of fans heard it that way, and maybe he actually will be the one, someday, a long time from now, or maybe it will be Spike, or Riley, or someone totally unknown as of yet. But Buffy never actually said anything about spending the rest of her life with Angel. The point is, Buffy could have made that exact same speech to Spike, to Riley, to Giles, to Xander, even to Andrew, and it would have worked exactly the same as it did when she said it to Angel.

 

[NeonNightLight]

I took it as her saying that she doesn't know if she'll have a future with anyone or even what that future would be, but when she does think about the life she would like in her future, she sees him there with her.

This is pretty much what I take away from her speech, too. In terms of romantic relationships, I mainly saw hope and possible promise of a time where Buffy and Angel *could* be together. Even though life is unpredictable, Buffy is acknowledging that in the end of her journey she has imagined him by her side, even if that it is not how it turns out. And this makes sense to me, as a person might not know what their future will hold, who they will be or be with, but they can still have hopes and visions of all such things.

The options are rigidly stated, but I think my thoughts mainly fall under the first one.

 

[Kana]

Ok, viewing the results so far, it seems that no one believes that Buffy was leading Angel on, which as I’m concerned is great news because I think that would be a huge disservice to her character.

In any case, I do realize the options are rigid and I literally pulled them from Livejournal. The reason being is because I've seen many a shipper fall into these categories but I was hoping a few if not most would not fall into those 'boxes' in this discussion.

I interpreted it differently. I think Buffy doesn't necessarily see Angel in her future and if she's not lying to herself her future will most likely not involve him (she already knows the implication and complications of being with him too well). But I do agree that it was her way of letting him know that she'll always love him.

I assume you mean that her future will not involve him romantically. I’m actually torn on this because she does mention the ‘highlights’ of being with Angel when he was skeptical about her future with Spike, so she understands now the possible pitfalls of being with him. She’s definitely not the wide-eyed school girl she was when she met him and to be honest, I’m glad she’s not. Emotionally, she paid dearly for that relationship. I do agree that her loving him is not a promise that they will invariably be together somewhere down the line.

Honestly, I don't really think any of the 3 options are correct. She's not promising him a future, but she's not letting him down. And she certainly doesn't lead him on, in fact this is a very honest speech. And sure, the speech provides some hope about the future, but Buffy is only saying how she feels. I thought it was a good conclusion to the whole Bangel ship.

Totally agree!

The speech is actually kind of her picking no guys, it's letting Angel, and Spike (even if he wasn't there), know that she loves them both but she's not going to pursue a relationship with either of them. Sexual contact, or physical contact, with either of them really didn't matter. Her kissing Angel or her sleeping with Spike was just proving that she loves them both and needed comfort, but she wasn't ready to consider a future with neither of them.

Absolutely! If she were picking either one of them, she would have said so. For example, if she wanted to be with Spike, no one would blame her for saying that to Angel because she doesn’t owe him that. In fact it would be kinder to say she wanted to be with him, if that were the truth.

Similarly, if she was promising Angel a future with him, she could have just said so without any ambiguity. To me, the ambiguity is the key: she hasn’t figured things out yet, not about herself and subsequently, her future relationships.

Buffy is sending Angel away with a really lame excuse. "Second Front?" If the First Evil got by Buffy and her people in Sunnydale, no force that Angel could possibly muster would be any more effective in containing it. If she had told Riley that, yeah, he would have had access (presumably) to military support. Bringers, as far as we know, could be stopped by regular gunfire, and ubervamps could be taken out with incendiary rounds and flame throwers. But Riley wasn't there. Angel was. And, as useful as Angel himself might have been in the fight that was coming, Buffy already had Spike there, more or less familiar with what was going on. You don't put two pit bulldogs in the same pack, because they'll spend more time fighting each other than doing what really needs doing. No, Angel and Spike aren't pit bulldogs, but the analogy holds true, or was at least so likely to hold true that Buffy couldn't risk the distraction and disruption to her group.

This actually makes sense. If she was concerned about Angel and Spike fighting alongside each other (while fighting each other) it does make sense, she’d send Angel away. The reason being, is that Spike is a part of her team and Angel isn’t. The same way, if Angel had issues with say Xander or Willow for example, she’d ‘pick’ them over him because they are part of the team.

And nowhere in that entire cookie dough speech did Buffy ever mention Angel by name or use the word "you" in the context of naming him as the recipient of her cookies. Someday, when her cookies are baked, assuming that such a day ever does come, she'll be ready to make a lifelong commitment to someone, maybe Angel, or maybe someone else, but she never made him any specific promise that it would be him.

Exactly! If she meant that it was Angel who was going to be the recipient of ‘warm, delicious, cookie Buffy’, there is no reason she wouldn’t have just said that. There is in no way, at least in my mind “Sometimes I do think that far ahead” is a statement implying any kind of commitment.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

The point is, Buffy could have made that exact same speech to Spike, to Riley, to Giles, to Xander, even to Andrew, and it would have worked exactly the same as it did when she said it to Angel.

Shudda, Wudda, Cudda.


I know some people dont want to see this speech as being aimed at Angel, but why would she say it to him if it wasn't intended for him? She never hints at a possible future with Spike to Spike at all.

If we're allowed to take things she says to one person and say they were about someone else, then her saying "I love you" to Spike, could have been about Angel or Riley.

When Angel asks who she thinks about in her future, she says she doesn't think about someone.
Then calls him back to correct herself and admit she does think about it. Why would she call him back if it wasn't about him?
It makes no sense to call him back when he's walked away to correct that point.
If that scene was about Spike it basically goes:

BUFFY
(calls after him) Angel. (he turns to look at her) I do... sometimes think that far ahead of a future with Spike.

ANGEL
Sometimes is something. (smiles, walks away)

BUFFY
Be a long time coming. Years, if ever till I'm with Spike.

ANGEL
(shrugs) I ain't getting any older. (walks away)

BUFFY
Neither is Spike.


It doesn't fit at all.

If she had the exact same conversation/cookie dough speech with Willow it would be way more ambiguous, but it's not, the conversation is to Angel, and it's to Angel cuz it's about Angel.
Even if she hadn't called him back it'd be way more ambiguous.

You can say she pictures a future with Spike ALSO, but I find it impossible to believe she's having a conversation with Angel about a future she pictures with Spike.


There are two sections to this speech, the first cookie dough part is general, I dont think she's saying I'm waiting to be done baking to be with you. She's saying she's waiting to be done backing till I can be with anyone, it could be you or it could be someone else, but whoever it is, right now she's not ready.

But the second part is purely fantasy, she admits she does let herself day dream about a future, and she's already said she doesn't picture grandchildren with Spike, but she stops Angel from leaving to specifically tell him that she day dreams about a future every once in a while.

I think the first option on the poll is the closest, but I dont think she's promising it to him, I think she's saying at the moment when she day dreams about a future she's hoping it's him and she's picturing him.

 

[white avenger]

I know some people dont want to see this speech as being aimed at Angel, but why would she say it to him if it wasn't intended for him? She never hints at a possible future with Spike to Spike at all.

If we're allowed to take things she says to one person and say they were about someone else, then her saying "I love you" to Spike, could have been about Angel or Riley.

When Angel asks who she thinks about in her future, she says she doesn't think about someone.
Then calls him back to correct herself and admit she does think about it. Why would she call him back if it wasn't about him?
It makes no sense to call him back when he's walked away to correct that point.
If that scene was about Spike it basically goes:

BUFFY
(calls after him) Angel. (he turns to look at her) I do... sometimes think that far ahead of a future with Spike.

ANGEL
Sometimes is something. (smiles, walks away)

BUFFY
Be a long time coming. Years, if ever till I'm with Spike.

ANGEL
(shrugs) I ain't getting any older. (walks away)

BUFFY
Neither is Spike.


It doesn't fit at all.

If she had the exact same conversation/cookie dough speech with Willow it would be way more ambiguous, but it's not, the conversation is to Angel, and it's to Angel cuz it's about Angel.
Even if she hadn't called him back it'd be way more ambiguous.

You can say she pictures a future with Spike ALSO, but I find it impossible to believe she's having a conversation with Angel about a future she pictures with Spike.


There are two sections to this speech, the first cookie dough part is general, I dont think she's saying I'm waiting to be done baking to be with you. She's saying she's waiting to be done backing till I can be with anyone, it could be you or it could be someone else, but whoever it is, right now she's not ready.

But the second part is purely fantasy, she admits she does let herself day dream about a future, and she's already said she doesn't picture grandchildren with Spike, but she stops Angel from leaving to specifically tell him that she day dreams about a future every once in a while.

I think the first option on the poll is the closest, but I dont think she's promising it to him, I think she's saying at the moment when she day dreams about a future she's hoping it's him and she's picturing him.

Quit trying to drag this off into another Spuffy/Bangel debate. I never said that she preferred Spike over Angel, I said that she never mentioned ANYONE specifically when she looks that far ahead, and "I do sometimes think that far ahead," doesn't name or imply Angel or anyone else. in the context of her speech, it would seem to refer to the idea of a time when she can settle down with someone, either a "him," or a "her," or even a "them."

 

[Kana]

Quit trying to drag this off into another Spuffy/Bangel debate. I never said that she preferred Spike over Angel, I said that she never mentioned ANYONE specifically when she looks that far ahead, and "I do sometimes think that far ahead," doesn't name or imply Angel or anyone else. in the context of her speech, it would seem to refer to the idea of a time when she can settle down with someone, either a "him," or a "her," or even a "them."

Exactly. I can't see any reason why she wouldn't have been more explicit if she was knew for a fact who she was going to be with when she was done baking.

We have to look specifically at what was said. Angel asked who might enjoy...and Buffy replied she doesn't sometimes think who she might be with. The fact that she calls to Angel pointedly only means that he's in the running and she does consider a future with him. It was never stated that no one else was in the running.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Realistically, any romantic future for Buffy would be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - it will recede as she chases it. She has wisely decided to concentrate on the immediate emergency and defer anything beyond daydreams about a settled life with someone she loves until her situation is such that she does not have to be on the front lines of the current apocalypse or any future ones. At this point, she is neither Bangel nor Spuffy and can imagine a future with someone new.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

I took it as Buffy saying that she wasn't going to focus on finding a relationship and work on herself first. She doesn't know who she is going to end up with and she doesn't have time to think about that right now. Her telling Angel that sometimes she does think that far ahead, was her saying that she still loves him and if she could her end dream would be with Angel but that she knows it's not a reality.

For Angel it gives him hope, because he knows about what happened in IWRY and about the Shansu Prophecy. So he thinks that if they both can wait long enough, maybe he will become human again and they can be together. But Buffy doesn't know any of this so I doubt it's her promising him that she will wait. It's just her telling him that right now is not the time and that she won't know when but it won't be for a long time.

 

[SRMarx]

I always interpreted her cookie dough speech to mean that she was unsure about her future and who she would be with simply because she still doesn't know herself completely...because she isn't finished growing or learning. Interesting to see the other interpretations people have...

 

[bespangeled]

I took it as Buffy saying that she wasn't going to focus on finding a relationship and work on herself first. She doesn't know who she is going to end up with and she doesn't have time to think about that right now. Her telling Angel that sometimes she does think that far ahead, was her saying that she still loves him and if she could her end dream would be with Angel but that she knows it's not a reality.

For Angel it gives him hope, because he knows about what happened in IWRY and about the Shansu Prophecy. So he thinks that if they both can wait long enough, maybe he will become human again and they can be together. But Buffy doesn't know any of this so I doubt it's her promising him that she will wait. It's just her telling him that right now is not the time and that she won't know when but it won't be for a long time.

I agree with you - but you sparked a thought. Is Angel even in his right mind? He just slit his son's throat - then he hops in a car and drives to Sunnydale. It almost seem that he is way off kilter and he really needs something to center him.

If Buffy knows she needs to bake - grow and change - then she can't promise Angel he'll be the one. Honestly, I think she should never date either vamp - way too high maintenance.

 

[ladydorotea]

Er, just dropping my own two cents thought, that's , all. By itself and out of the context the cookie dough speech can be interpreted in as many ways as the 'I love, you - No you don't but thanks' exchange. In the context of the follow up by the creator himself that reads : 'Buffy and Angel transcend everything', I tend to take it at face value as a piece placed at the end of the last season for the exact reason to mean what it implies. Which is that yes, she is not done 'baking' but when she will be... and he is not getting any older.

And by the way I know it is odd piece of evidence, but the infamous 'napkin' that just surfaced this week has Joss own drawing of 'more Buffy' of what looks suspiciously like Buffy 'metaphorically' 'staking' ( ahem) a vampire that has rather weird looking hairdo, while flaunting great fashion sense and a pun... Meaning for him the 'transcend everything' thing is real, and it was always about those two, even so many years after.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

I agree with you - but you sparked a thought. Is Angel even in his right mind? He just slit his son's throat - then he hops in a car and drives to Sunnydale. It almost seem that he is way off kilter and he really needs something to center him.

If Buffy knows she needs to bake - grow and change - then she can't promise Angel he'll be the one. Honestly, I think she should never date either vamp - way too high maintenance.

That's a good question that I forgot about it. I think for Angel since that was hard on him, he went to see Buffy because she was the only one that could make him feel better and he needed to hear that maybe someday, even after everything that happened, that there is a possibility that he could have his happy ending with Buffy. And if Angel becomes human again then she wouldn't be dating a vampire.

And by the way I know it is odd piece of evidence, but the infamous 'napkin' that just surfaced this week has Joss own drawing of 'more Buffy' of what looks suspiciously like Buffy 'metaphorically' 'staking' ( ahem) a vampire that has rather weird looking hairdo, while flaunting great fashion sense and a pun... Meaning for him the 'transcend everything' thing is real, and it was always about those two, even so many years after.

I just googled this pic. It reminded me of Becoming pt 2. But how is her staking him a metaphor for their love transcending everything? If he's dead they can't be together. Was that suppose to be Angelus?

 

[ladydorotea]

I just googled this pic. It reminded me of Becoming pt 2. But how is her staking him a metaphor for their love transcending everything? If he's dead they can't be together. Was that suppose to be Angelus?

Noticed the arrow pointing to the said stake annotated 'metaphor'? Well, it is a metaphor. 😀 Stake was always a phallic symbol. And Joss was always mixing sex and death and making fun of it.

 

[white avenger]

And by the way I know it is odd piece of evidence, but the infamous 'napkin' that just surfaced this week has Joss own drawing of 'more Buffy' of what looks suspiciously like Buffy 'metaphorically' 'staking' ( ahem) a vampire that has rather weird looking hairdo, while flaunting great fashion sense and a pun... Meaning for him the 'transcend everything' thing is real, and it was always about those two, even so many years after.

Am I the only one here who has no idea what "infamous napkin" is being referred to here? If so, I would be eternally grateful if someone would provide a link so that I could join the enlightened among the fandom.

 

[ladydorotea]

Am I the only one here who has no idea what "infamous napkin" is being referred to here? If so, I would be eternally grateful if someone would provide a link so that I could join the enlightened among the fandom.

Just google : Joss Whedon Buffy napkin.

http://www.themarysue.com/joss-buffy/

http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/2014/07/LargeJoss.jpg