But isn't this point based on a false premise? First of all, perfect happiness only counted for one of them, once, and that was Angel. Second I agree with Wesley in that perfect happiness is so rare that it's almost impossible to achieve while you are alive. And the more Angel went through in his own life the less likely that it would ever happen for him again. Third, Buffy and Angel were never perfect and were never going to be because of their very nature (slayer/vampire, human/immortal). Fourth, while their relationship may have seemed perfect to pre-Angelus Buffy (though I wouldn't know), post-Angelus Buffy had to face some harsh realities.
As I see it Buffy/Spike is the relationship that can't develop. Spike takes Buffy in any way that he can get her (robot, depressed, rotting zombie corpse) and seems to be fine with her loving him less than he loves her (something Riley didn't accept because he felt he deserved more and I agree). So Buffy automatically holds all the cards in the relationship. She makes or breaks it, always, because Spike accepts whatever scraps he can get. It's a relationship that can't change and won't because Spike doesn't change.
I wasn’t talking from the perspective of Angel being a character. I’m more concerned with his (and Spike’s) function as narrative devices within the text. Angel/Angelus is a metaphor figuring dualism, the Spirit / Body fundamental to Western Philosophy since Plato. Spike represents a more recent trend (probably originating with Romanticism, certainly through the more radical elements of 20th century thought). I think Whedon is challenging dualism as being fundamentally flawed – that doesn’t make my premise flawed. I agree - completion (or perfect happiness) is generally achievable only through death - or paradoxically before life (I mention this because it's important to the text. There are other occasions but they're more complicated). For me, it's his association with perfect happiness that sets off alarm bells.
Change – a) I can’t see the grounds for arguing Spike doesn’t change. b) Perhaps he doesn’t need to change every aspect of his personality (biting people not withstanding) – instead his function is to be a catalyst for change in others? Perhaps we should take his claim he influenced Billy Idol seriously. Maybe he was right when he said, “You’re an idiot, I’m a rebel”. He does effect structural change in the Scoobies. Ultimately, the change Spike is associated with is dialectical – it’s a synthetisation of his position and the position of those around him. There are moments of epiphany but they’re off-screen or unspoken.
So are you saying he shouldn’t care for Buffy when she’s not perfect? Willow cares for Tara when Glory takes her mind – and Spike is cognisant of Tara’s needs. I don’t recall the Zombie episode so can’t comment on how it functions as trope but change Zombie for any life changing condition such as dementia – would it be wrong for Spike to care for Buffy then? The Buffybot? It was uncanny but why was it wrong? Buffy treated Spike as an object. She called him a thing, an animal but went to him for sex – how is this fundamentally different to Spike’s r/ship with the Bot? That said, in the comics, in theory and in reality we’re going down the road of post-humanism and transhumanism so the Buffybot was prescient in terms of the Whedonverse. Look at Bladerunner as a precursor. Look at Koreeda’s Air Girl, Gillespie’s Lars and the Real Girl for sensitive interrogations of the trope.
Love – in the sense it’s a positive feeling associated with self-respect and self-worth that repletes the ego - comes from all directions – it doesn’t need to be balanced 1 to 1. Is love deserved, is it a right or do we earn love is a question that’s been bothering philosophers and theologians for years (I think there’s a reason Angel is Catholic, Spike is probably C of E and Buffy can be associated with Puritanism)? Buffy holds all the cards? Spike’s psychological structure is that of the hysteric – in essence, he’s looking for a master or “subject supposed to know” so he’ll always be led – always be second fiddle and, in general he’s happy with that. The problem with master is it works in dialectic with slave (there’s a reason he sings “I’m your willing slave”) and is far more complex than it seems. Spike can, and does, bite back. He bites back over Dawn in the comics. He has thresholds he won’t allow Buffy or the Slayer to cross. Yes – he’ll take scraps – scraps of Buffy – he admits that in After Life - but I doubt he’ll submit to objectification or being considered a thing for any length of time. In fact, the rescue attempt in the recent comics is to do with saving the "magics" from real death after they've suffered the symbolic death of reification. That aside, scraps/traces/fragments are incredibly important metaphors in this text and not to be seen negatively.
To get back to the original question – who loves Buffy more? It’s impossible to answer – love takes a myriad of forms and has an equal number of functions. Angel and Spike love differently but to presume Spike’s is a lesser love because it’s earthy and messy and complicated isn’t IMO sustainable. Whedon has Spike there to investigate these contradictions. The reason I come down on the side of Spuffy is less to do with the characters (I like Spike and Fred/Ilyria) than the fact that the coupling is a radical interrogation of social structures and reflects the direction the ‘verse seems to be going. The latter comes with a caveat - it could change. As I said – it’s Whedon’s universe so anything could happen. Sorry if this sounds in anyway curt - it's not meant. Believe it or not, I was going for brevity!
🙂
