Analyse de Bangel

Voilà un essai qui analyse la relation entre Angel et Buffy. Je l'ai trouvé ICI .

Citation :

Angel and Buffy

Chapter I:
A Classic Tragedy

Seasons 1 and 2: The Tragedy

Perhaps the first thing to say about the Buffy/Angel relationship is that, at least until the end of the second season of BtVS, the writers had a very clear concept for it. It was to be a tragedy in the classic tradition of Western literature. It was a story about a love between two protagonists - a centuries old vampire and a teenage slayer - who are polar opposites to one another. One had a duty to protect the world; the other had a force within him that could and would destroy it. Knowing this, they relied upon their love - the most exalted of human emotions - to overcome their differences. Ironically it was the very consummation of that love that so doomed them and ultimately led to the slayer having to choose between her love and her duty. And importantly this was a story that concentrated not only on the pathos of the characters' plight but asked some fundamental questions about the role of human beings in the Universe.

Angel and Buffy were such a dangerously unlikely couple that the fact that they got together seemed almost to be the working of a perverse, perhaps malign fate which created something only to destroy it. In the season 1 episode "Angel" we see both the attraction the vampire held for Buffy and his true nature. And from that point onwards events moved through the logic of the situation the characters find themselves in to the events of the second half of Season 2, climaxing in "Becoming II". On this view Buffy and Angel were doomed from the very beginning and there was no escape. As against that Buffy and Angel made choices which led to "Becoming 2". The turning point for them was not "Angel" but Buffy's choice to make the relationship with Angel a physical one. In this context the crucial theme becomes the fatal effect of ignorance. Making the wrong choices through not knowing (about the "true happiness clause") is part of the human condition. Both interpretations hint at the cruelty of the universe but explain that cruelty in very different ways. More particularly they have very different moral implications. In the determinist universe, it can be argued that where a particular outcome is predicted then no-one has any moral responsibility for bringing it about. It was after all a matter of fate. On the other hand, where consequences are a matter of choice, then responsibility for those consequences rests with those who made the choices, as does blame or praise as appropriate. As with all the best tragedies, BtVS does not finally resolve the issues it raises, preferring to leave that for the viewers to decide. But interestingly at the very end when Buffy was faced with the necessity of making an intolerable choice between her love and her duty, she was in effect confronting questions about where her responsibilities lay - the very same questions she sought to avoid in her relationship with Angel. What does come first - her duty or her feelings?

These are timeless themes of immense power and account for much of the impact that the second half Season 2 of BtVS undeniably had. It meant that the Buffy/Angel relationship wasn’t just soap opera - a romance for the sake of a romance. It was about something. It had a sense of direction and a coherence. Of course, for the story to live up to its potential to move an audience and make it think, the relationship at its heart had to be both credible and sympathetic. A viewer had first of all to believe that this seemingly ill-matched couple really did love one another. There must be a willingness on the part of the audience to wish them well, even while fearing a happy ending was not possible. And secondly there must be genuine sadness at the final disaster, a feeling that the central characters’ punishment was undeserved. Indeed tragedy at its best is an uplifting and not a dispiriting experience precisely because the central characters are sympathetic and because they maintain a dignity and an integrity in the face of all that is thrown at them.


The “Ick” Factor

And here we come to the central problem of the Buffy/Angel relationship. He is a 250+ year old vampire. She is a mortal schoolgirl who was 15 years old when he first saw her and who had only just turned 17 when they consummated their relationship. A relationship like that could not hope to be “normal” in two senses. Firstly, there was the vast disparity in their age and experience. Secondly there were their “lifestyles”. Mayor Wilkins perhaps put this best in “Choices”:

“You're immortal, she's not. I married my Edna May in ought-three and I was with her right until the end. Not a pretty picture: wrinkled and senile and cursing me for my youth. Wasn't our happiest time. And let's not forget the fact that any moment of true happiness will turn you evil. I mean, come on. What kind of a life can you offer her? I don't see a lot of Sunday picnics in the offing. I see skulking in the shadows, hiding from the sun. She's a blossoming young girl and you want to keep her from the life she should have until it has passed her by.”

To me it is very interesting to look at the way the writers portrayed the relationship between Buffy and Angel in the light of these concerns.

First of all I find the writers’ choice of emphasis in dealing with the relationship worthy of note. Physical attraction was there at the beginning of course. For example Buffy first described Angel in WttHM as:

“This…guy. Dark, gorgeous in an annoying sort of way.”

In addition to his physical attraction Angel is a man of mystery with a dark tragic past that haunts him and gives him an air of vulnerability with just a hint of danger. But of course these characteristics do not provide a very sound basis for a meaningful relationship. They speak of a superficial attraction but nothing more. So, up to and including the episode “Angel” (where we hear the comments about Angel Buffy entrusted to her diary) the slayer’s attraction to cryptic lurker guy could have been dismissed as a schoolgirl infatuation. But from “Prophecy Girl” on it became obvious that there was something far more serious than that between them. From then until “What’s My Line” the writers seem to be making an effort to portray the relationship that gradually unfolds before us as a very normal and traditional romantic love. In fact it is an almost idealized love. There is no mention of sex at all (at least until “Surprise”). Instead in WSWB Angel was the person who was there for Buffy even when she was behaving at her worst – a source of both help and comfort. For her part, in “Halloween” Buffy longs to be a normal girl who goes out on normal dates. In similar vein, at the end of SAR, Angel regrets not being a bigger part of Buffy’s life in the way Xander can be:

“Yeah, but he's in your life. He gets to be there when I can't; take your classes, eat your meals, hear your jokes and complaints. He gets to see you in the sunlight.”

This is the attraction of ordinary domesticity – the sharing of two normal lives.

But, as we have seen, these are not two normal lives. And while SAR set the seal on the attraction between Buffy and Angel it left unresolved their future as a couple. Here the writers approach set the tone for the whole Buffy/Angel saga and was of crucial importance in the development of their respective characters. Given the whole premise for BtVS it shouldn’t really come as too much of a surprise that the normal dynamic of an older man/younger woman relationship is completely reversed. Instead of showing Angel in control through his greater age and experience it is Buffy who takes the lead in the development of the relationship. She controls the pace at which it advances. A crucial episode here is “Reptile Boy”. At the beginning he is the cautious one, trying to restrain her:

Angel: “You're sixteen years old. I'm two hundred and forty-one.”

Buffy: “I've done the math.”

Angel: “You don't know what you're doing; you don't know what you want.”

Buffy: “Oh no? I think I do. I want out of this conversation.”

Angel: “Listen, if we date you and I both know one thing's gonna lead to another.”

Buffy: “One thing already has led to another. You think it's a little late to be reading me a warning label?”

Angel: “I'm just trying to protect you. This could get out of control.”

Neither the age difference nor the fact that Angel is a vampire seem to matter to Buffy.They do to him and he is reluctant to let things go further because of them. And yet in the end he is the one who gives in to her:

Angel: “I hear this place, uh, serves coffee. I thought maybe you and I should get some. Sometime. If you want.”

Buffy: “Yeah, sometime. I'll let you know.”

He thus tacitly accepts that she is in control of the relationship and she isn’t slow to exploit that acceptance.

All of this seems to me to be used to minimize as far as possible the “ick” factor in a relationship between two people of such vastly disparate ages and experiences. The love between them is presented as romantic and (because she is in control of it) the relationship is almost seen as the empowerment of the younger female character. This is clearly intended to reinforce the sympathy of the audience for the characters by emphasizing those aspects of the relationship that are idealistic rather than are a result of baser human appetites thus counteracting ordinary cultural objections to relationships between people of such different ages and experiences.



Character Development for Buffy and Angel in Season 2

But, as a series, BtVS put a high premium on realistic character development. So, while there are aspects of Angel, in particular, that may be said to conform to a romantic archetype it is important that both his character and that of Buffy are shown to be very far from ideals. They have their fair share of human flaws. Indeed, for the relationship to be tragic in the nature discussed above, we had to see the frailty of human nature in the two protagonists and their relations - otherwise we would have been left with pure melodrama and nothing more.

In this context let us look at Angel first. It is clear almost beyond argument that his relationship with Buffy was central to his personal development as he struggled towards some sort of redemption. From the start of their relationship Angel is clearly very sensitive about his vampirism, indeed perhaps ashamed of it. It’s not only the defensiveness with which he reacts when Xander refers to him as “dead boy”. In WSWB, Buffy taunts him by saying “I’ve moved on…to the living”. And in SAR we see how much this nettled him when he said

“See, whenever we fight you always bring up the vampire thing.”

But perhaps more tellingly in “What’s My Line I” we see the hurt that his nature causes him both in his remark “I’ll never be a kid” and in the fact that he didn’t want Buffy to touch him while he had on his “game face”. This is all part of his feeling of unworthiness. He was on earth only to suffer, and to make the demon inside him suffer vicariously, for what he had done. When he first met Buffy in WttHM had no concept that there was any positive role for him to play in un-life. His vampirism was, therefore, simply a burden to him, a constant reminder of what he had once done.

It was through Buffy that he gradually began to come to terms with this past. In “Becoming I” it is Whistler who first approaches him as “crazy homeless guy”. But Whistler says little to make Angel change. Instead he brings him to LA where he shows him Buffy being called and making her first kill. In “Helpless” Angel explains the effect she had on him when he saw her:

Angel: “ I saw you before you became the Slayer.”

Buffy: “What?”

Angel: “I watched you, and I saw you called. It was a bright afternoon out in front of your school. You walked down the steps and... and… I loved you.”

Buffy: “Why?”

Angel: “'Cause I could see your heart. You held it before you for everyone to see. And I worried that it would be bruised or torn. And more than anything in my life I wanted to keep it safe; to warm it with my own.”

Angel’s basic motivation in coming to Sunnydale was not, therefore, to help humanity or to atone for his sins. It was to help Buffy. And at the start he helped her the only way he felt able, by doing what he did best – lurking. Perhaps he didn’t yet have the strength to do more. When Whistler found him he couldn’t go three rounds with a fruit fly. More likely he didn’t have the self-belief in himself to be more active. This changed in “Prophecy Girl”. When approached by Xander to help save Buffy, Angel at first could only see the dangers. Unlike Xander, Angel had difficulty even admitting to himself his true feelings for Buffy. But Xander’s challenge to him "Don't you [love Buffy]?" acted as a catalyst. It forced him to admit to his real feelings. When compared to Buffy’s life his own doubts about himself suddenly became unimportant. He had to do something to help her and by doing so he began to help himself.

Throughout the early part of season 2 we see his ever-greater involvement with her work. At first he continues to help her in episodes such as “The Dark Ages” as a sort of auxiliary. That is until the next crucial stage that came in “What’s My Line I” where for the first time he acts on his own by trying to force Willy to reveal Spike’s part in hiring the Taraka. But everything he did was for Buffy. There is no suggestion that he was fighting evil independently from her. To the extent therefore that this involvement marked his path to self-respect it was due to his relationship with her. In this context the fact that she touched his “game face” in “What’s My Line I” and didn’t notice had great symbolic significance.

And just as importantly, in “Lie to Me” Buffy had to confront the most unpleasant truth possible about Angel but in the end her sad words – “well I asked for the truth” – mark a stage in the further development of the relationship because they betoken a deeper understanding and acceptance of his dark past. And the fact that she knew the worst about him and still accepted him was what helped Angel the most. Is it any wonder then that in “Somnambulist” Kate’s (thinly disguised) profile of Angel refers to his relationship with Buffy in the following terms?

“He would have regarded it as a lifeline, his salvation”

But the connection with Angel also showed us something about the character of Buffy and, in particular, had implications for her relationship with the members of the Scooby gang. Angel was clearly never a member of that gang, although linked to it through Buffy. Even before he “turned” he is rarely included in meetings of the gang. If she patrols, it is either with Giles or Angel, never both. In “What’s My Line I” she doesn't tell Giles about her date at the ice rink. Angel himself didn’t appear to have any problem dealing with Giles directly (at least before “Innocence”). This does, therefore, appear to be very much Buffy’s choice. It seems to me that she had deliberately excluded the members of the Scooby gang, including Giles, from that part of her life with him. There was no obvious reason for this. In NKABOTFD there was clearly a conflict between her wish to have a normal boyfriend and her duty as a slayer. But, unlike Owen, Angel fitted very naturally into the world of the slayer. Then there is the fact that she keeps Angel well away from her mother. Apparently before the events in “Passion” Joyce had no idea that Buffy was even seeing him. Her only memory was of the college boy who was tutoring her daughter. Perhaps it simply suited Buffy to be completely in control of who it was in her circle that Angel did or did not have contact with. That way there was no risk of anyone reawakening the doubts about the relationship that Angel might have harbored, thus interfering with arrangements that suited her

This was never exactly a mature attitude. Indeed one could characterize it as both immature and self-centered. Buffy could really only see as far as what she wanted. There is never any real evidence of her asking herself: what is best for him. It is always about how she feels. When she wants him she bulldozes his objections (as in “Reptile Boy”). But when things become too painful for her (“Lover’s Walk” and “Enemies”) she drops him. But most disturbing of all was her attitude towards re-cursing him in both “Innocence” and “Becoming I”. She knew the pain that he felt over the crimes of Angelus. That was the whole point of the curse. But it doesn’t appear to have occurred to her for a second to question whether cursing him again might not be in his best interests. She seemed more concerned by what having her boyfriend back would mean to her. And you can even detect the same attitude in her inability to kill Angelus in “Innocence”. At that time, as far as she knew, Angel was gone for good. Killing the thing that wore her boyfriend’s face couldn’t harm him. But despite the fact that failing to do so would cost lives, she couldn’t because it would have been too painful for her.

It seems to me that what we had here was a dangerous imbalance in the relationship. It was Buffy who is in control of the relationship, but she was the one who was self-centered and immature in her concept of the relationship and headstrong in her determination to take it where it suited her. Angel on the other hand appears to have been the more selfless one. The relationship meant if anything more to him as an individual. But he was the one who wanted to slow things down because of what he fears it might mean for Buffy. And yet he is too weak to act as a check on her.

And of course this imbalance crystallized in the moment that led to disaster – Buffy decision to sleep with Angel in “Surprise”. Her motivation seems clear and was well ventilated in her talk with Willow beforehand:

Buffy: “I don't know. I... I mean, 'want' isn't always the right thing *to* do. To act on want can be wrong.”

Willow: “True.”

Buffy: “But... to *not* act on want... What if I never feel this way again?”

Willow: “Carpe diem. You told me that once.”

Buffy: “Fish of the day?”

Willow: “Not carp…carpe. It means 'seize the day.'”

Buffy: “Right. I... I think we're going to. Seize it. Once you get to a certain point, then seizing is sort of inevitable.”

Her reasoning here is neither very mature nor terribly well thought out. It amounts to no more than “if we don’t do it now we never will”. In “IOHEFY” we see how she comes to realize this when she identifies her actions with those of James:

“James destroyed the one person he loved the most in a moment of blind passion. And that's not something you forgive. No matter why he did what he did. And no matter if he knows now that it was wrong and selfish and stupid, it is just something he's gonna have to live with.”

But there is one other thing I find it very interesting in Buffy’s talk with Willow. Once she made up her mind to do something she took Angel’s acquiescence completely for granted. And here she was right. Left to himself Angel would not have made love to Buffy. But as usual he gave into what she wanted.

And so in the best tradition of tragedy the fate of our two protagonists works itself out through the medium of their own weaknesses and failings. These don’t show them to be ill-intentioned or mean spirited. Buffy, for example, just sees things from her own point of view and can't see them from anyone else's. She looks at how things affect her rather than how they affect anyone else. That is, of course, a fault. But it's not the worst fault a person can suffer from. Moreover it is not untypical in someone so young and it is something she will probably grow out of as she gets older. Angel’s lack of moral courage when faced with Buffy is equally something that can be easily understood given what he had to cope with. The truth is that both tried to act for the best and while their weaknesses got in the way it was because they are human. That particular failing is shared by us all and because of that we can identify and sympathize with them. That is after all the whole point of tragedy.

Citation :

Chapter II:
A New Beginning

Return From Hell

With “Anne” and the decision by the slayer to reclaim her identity the themes of the Buffy/Angel tragedy had worked themselves to a natural conclusion. Matters could, therefore, have been left there. But they weren't and when Angel returned to earth and was discovered by Buffy the writers were, therefore, left to decide how the Buffy/Angel storyline was to be continued from two points of view - theme and character.

We will deal with the latter first. Given that Angel was shortly to leave Buffy for LA, his former dependence on her could not be sustained. The writers had to set up a believable plotline that would split these two apart and at the same time establish Angel as an independent champion in his own right. This was something he still wasn’t. In particular Angel’s motivation (and the basis for his development as a character so far) was his desire to help Buffy. If he was to leave for LA this is something he would have to grow out of. In this context a fundamental issue thrown up by season 2 was that Angel found himself being drawn in a relationship whose consequences for both himself and Buffy were unpredictable. He had done so against his better judgment but had allowed his doubts to be bulldozed away by Buffy. The result was a catastrophe for both of them. The lesson for him was the danger in not asserting himself and being too dependent on the uncertain judgment of a teenager.

Everything, therefore, argued in favor of a continuing development of Angel’s character to show him finding a role for himself apart from Buffy and to make him more self-confident and self-assertive. Given that the central dynamic for his character development to date was his relationship with Buffy this suggested a need for fairly radical thinking about how the relationship was to be handled for the rest of season 3. And yet what the writers handed us was essentially more of the same. In “Beauty and the Beasts” Giles theorizes about what Angel experienced in Hell:

Giles: It would take someone of extraordinary... will and character to survive that and, uh, retain any semblance of self. (swallows hard) Most likely, he'd be, be a monster.

Buffy: A lost cause.

Giles: Maybe; maybe not. In my experience, there are... two types of monster. The first, uh, can be redeemed, or more importantly, wants to be redeemed.

Buffy: And the second type?

Giles: The second is void of humanity, cannot respond to reason... or love."

It is slightly disconcerting to see Giles of all people misuse the term “redemption” here. Nevertheless this exchange shows the intention of the episode. Angel’s stay in Hell was a brutal and brutalizing experience but deep down there was a corner of Angel’s soul which held on to his love for Buffy. When he saw her in danger that part of him came to the fore and allowed him to reclaim his humanity. There could be no clearer indication than this episode that their feelings for one another had not fundamentally changed because of the events of late season 2. Unfortunately the writers seemed to have few ideas for either taking the relationship forward from this point or ending it in a coherent manner.

And when writers do not have an overall concept within which to fit something like the Buffy/Angel relationship the result is often a series of inconsistent or unbelievable developments as the individuals concerned respond to short term requirements of plot or character. This is essentially what happened to Buffy and Angel is season 3 of BtVS.

In “Homecoming” Buffy tells Angel about her new boyfriend – Scott Hope. Angel for his part seems reconciled that she move in a new direction. Scott, of course, immediately disappears and by “Revelations” the Buffy/Angel attraction has reasserted itself. At the beginning of “Lover’s Walk” Angel suggests Buffy pursues the avenues of Higher Education that now seem open to her, even if that means leaving him. Buffy is disappointed by this reaction. At the end of the same episode Buffy decides that she and Angel cannot just be friends and that the only way to protect herself from a repeat of “Innocence” is to leave him. He, confusingly, is unwilling to accept this. In “Amends”, almost in a throw away line, she offers to help Angel work through his problems. By “Helpless” everything is as it was before and at the beginning of “Enemies” they seem quite happy to live within the limitations of their relationship. At the end of “Enemies” Buffy leaves Angel again – for one episode. Then in “The Prom” he decides to leave her and she is devastated. But that isn’t all. In “the Prom” the writers opt for the logical, rational “I can’t take you for Sunday afternoon picnics” approach to explaining Angel’s decision to leave her. The same argument could have been made at any point in the previous two years, so why now? Besides the validity of the argument is at best too debatable to now become the received wisdom Willow, for example, treats it as. Even if we are resolutely practical about it, Buffy is just as much a freak as Angel (and I mean that in the nicest possible way). If the previous three years proved nothing else it was that she will never have a normal life. Who else is there who would be better able to adjust to the demands of having a relationship with a slayer? Perhaps realizing this in “GD2”, the writers rewrote the script. Angel on his deathbed abandons the whole “Prom” rationale only to be given the writers’ revised explanation as to why he and Buffy cannot be together – his vampiric nature means they are too much of a danger to one another.

And this brings me to the issue of theme. Central to the whole Buffy/Angel dynamic was the clash between a determinist view of the world and the idea of free will. Are we indeed masters of our own fate or are we destined merely to play the role that the greater forces of the Universe dictate for us, regardless of the actual choices we make. Were the events of "Surprise"/"Innocence" down to the past catching up with Angel or the result of choices Buffy made? These questions persisted into season 3. One one level, the very idea of the couple living within their limitations suggested that what counted was the ability to choose - in particular to avoid the same mistake twice. On the other hand Angel's decision to leave Sunnydale can be interpreted as implying that free will alone cannot be trusted and that Fate may indeed have another unpleasant surprise in store. The frustrating thing though is that little or nothing is made of this. Unlike the later ANGEL episode "Waiting in the Wings" no-one confronts the question head on. And by the time Angel does of course it is a possible relationship with Cordelia that preoccupies him, rather than a relationship with Buffy. To be fair to the writers they were in a difficult position because the determinism vs free will question is so central to the Buffy/Angel dynamic that they may simply not have been in a position to resolve the question. If they had, for example, come down firmly in the free will side (as indeed they did in ANGEL itself) there would have been no need for Angel to have left Sunnydale. But to come down on the determinist side would have been to doom the relationship past recall. But this is a false choice. They need not have finally resolved the different options at all. They didn't do that in season 2 after all. But they should at least have dealt with the issues more fully than they did because as it was we had Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. The split was dealt with at a soap opera level shorn of its real thematic importance.



The Split

It is however possible to make some sense out of this mess. As I have already pointed out, as far back as SAR and "Reptile Boy" Angel had his doubts about his future with Buffy. But Buffy had decided that they were to be together and, as always, Buffy won in the end. Equally, in "Homecoming" and "Lover's Walk" it was Buffy who decided to end things. She gave Angel no choice. The final triumphant example of her dominance in the relationship was in "Amends" when she almost literally fought Angel for his life. He was determined to die but she was the one who forced him to think again. His last effort in the argument - "Just this once let me be strong" - was almost asking her permission to do what he wanted. It was a clear indication that he had lost the argument to her and then she proceeded to finish the last of his resistance with her final sally. It was, in my view, only when Angel had accepted her argument that the snow began. Ironically, though, with "Amends" we see Angel beginning to find a purpose in life for himself, outside merely helping Buffy. With that the dynamics of the relationship changed and, for the first time, he began to assert himself. We saw something of this in "Bad Girls" when Buffy was a little out of control in the Bronze. He took her away from the dance floor, sat away from her and talked business. The when he was leaving said "be careful....I mean it" in an authoritative manner, quite unlike the slightly pleading tone he had used when he asked her to be careful in "Revelations".

Top of Angel’s agenda has always been what is best for Buffy. And he has always had his doubts about whether a relationship with himself was best for her. He had those doubts as long ago as in SAR. The nature of those doubts probably has changed. In season 2 his doubts were essentially the product of his own feelings of worthlessness. By the end of season 3 the intention of the writers (botched though the execution was in “the Prom”) was to show a more sober and rational assessment of the problems a relationship with him would cause for Buffy. Those doubts were really only convincingly articulated in GD2. There, Angel lost control of himself and fed from Buffy. This was the nightmare he had so steadfastly resisted in “Amends”. There are a number of different explanations for his actions here. The first was that biting her was a physical reaction of the vampire body; the other was that the demon inside forced its way to the surface. It does not matter which explanation you prefer. In either case the human soul was too weakened by the poison to control the feeding from Buffy until it had been cured. This demonstration of the limits of his control over the demon that the danger he thereby posed to all around him was what convinced Angel that he should part from Buffy.

But more importantly what had really changed was Angel’s willingness to assert himself against Buffy. Before he didn’t have enough confidence in himself to make his own judgments stick in the face of Buffy's opposition. Now, for the first time he does. In “the Prom” he has an argument with her and refuses to give into her. In GD2 such is the determination with which he announces his intentions to Buffy that she doesn’t even try to argue him out of it. This is an indication of a greater determination and belief in himself than we have ever seen before. In doing so he finally proved that he had finally his independence and maturity.

There is, however, no comparable development for Buffy. She is now, of course, aware of the unpleasant side effects of her “moment of passion” with Angel. She will not repeat that error but otherwise her basic attitudes remain unaltered. When Angel returns almost the first decision she takes is to conceal the fact from the Scooby gang. Why? She cannot have believed it was necessary to protect him physically from Giles or Willow at least. It seems to me that this was Buffy the control freak at work again. She was going to decide what was best for all concerned and didn’t want to have to explain herself in the face of any awkward questions. She was as willing as ever to entertain alternative points of view. That is to say not at all. This is also the Buffy who in her “me” centered view of the universe didn’t stop to think how she would hurt others, namely Giles, by her subterfuge.

Equally there is no evidence that she is any less self-centered in the perception of her relationship with Angel. On three separate occasions in season 3 of BUFFY she was willing to break off the relationship because of how she felt without really considering how it might affect Angel. Afterwards when she had changed her mind she seemed to have assumed a right to walk back into the relationship as if nothing had happened. Contrast this to her attitude to Angel in GD1 after he had broken up with her. She seems intent on making things as hard for him as she can, even going so far as to suggest he was taking their break up lightly and that she was the only one who really cared.

Perhaps even more strikingly in GD2 she risked her own life to save him. At first sight this might have looked an unselfish action. But what about the others to whom she owed responsibilities? And how would Angel have been able to live with himself if he had been the cause of Buffy’s death? If she had any regard for what he would have wanted she could not have acted in the way that she did. Moreover, GD2 was the second of two occasions (the other being “Amends”) in season 3 of BUFFY where the slayer faced with resistance from Angel resorted to violence to make him change his mind. Persuasion is one thing but using force against a person in such circumstances is to deny him the right to choose his own fate.

So, whatever the writing inconsistencies in relation to the Buffy/Angel relationship in season 3, I think that we do come away from that season with a fairly clear idea of where the two protagonists stand in relation to one another. It seems to me that the basic dynamic between the two was in the process of undergoing a major change, but from one side only. Angel loved Buffy but he had a clearer view than she of the dangers posed by their relationship. Now that he was able to stand on his own two feet he acted on those doubts and proved he was a truly independent person. He also proved how much he loved her by putting her interests first. Buffy, on the other hand, did not grow in her rational appreciation of the dangers in their relationship or her willingness to put anyone else before what she wanted.

Citation :

Chapter III:
Moving On

Redefintion

If this can be characterized by the idea of "moving on" then it was one that was picked up and returned to several times on the course of ANGEL's run. First we have it in IWRY. On of the consequences of the writers' mishandling of the Buffy/Angel break-up at the end of season 3 of BtVS was that it deprived the viewers of a proper sense of closure. There was simply no opportunity to define the terms of the break-up. Where did Buffy and Angel now stand in relation to one another? Was their separation to be forever or only temporary? In what circumstances could they get together? Would there be other romantic entanglements for them? There were many for whom the drama and the emotion of the Buffy/Angel relationship meant a great deal. “GD 2” left them in limbo. For ANGEL the series and Angel the character this was not really a problem. There was no hint of romance on the horizon. For BTVS the series and Buffy the character this was a very big problem because the launch of the Buffy/Riley relationship was, by the following Thanksgiving, now imminent. The writers were investing a huge amount in the character of Riley and in the Initiative so the decks had to be cleared. In particular-

• They had to make it clear that Buffy/Angel was now of the past.
  
• They had to do so before Riley stated seriously “courting” Buffy. Riley had to be Mr. Nice Guy. So, any suggestion that Riley was responsible for the Buffy/Angel break-up had to be avoided.
  
• In all of this they had to tread warily. For the sake of the die-hard Buffy/Angel ‘shippers (and there were many of them) they could not be seen to devalue in any way the Buffy/Angel past or the character of Angel in particular. In fact one of the ways of getting Buffy/Angel ' shippers to accept Riley was to make the end of the relationship an act of voluntary self-sacrifice by Angel while at the same time hinting that there was a way for Buffy and Angel to be together in the end.

And in addressing these issues IWRY is pretty successful. As I remarked in my review of that episode this success stemmed from the fact that the writers gave us in microcosm the whole Buffy/Angel experience, but provided it at the same time a twist which adds a whole new dimension to it.

They started out in the obvious way by acknowledging where Buffy and Angel were in their relationship. The whole scene in the sewers just after the Mohra demon attacked was intended to explore the status quo ante for the two of them. Here the writers were, importantly, faithful to the rationale set out for the break-up of the pair in “GD 2", namely that Angel’s vampiric nature meant that it was too dangerous for them to be together. But clearly neither of them has made their peace with this situation yet. The fact that Buffy assumes Angel’s “I feel weird” comment was about seeing her again shows just how close to the surface her own confusion about Angel is. This leads them both to confess their feelings. Angel perhaps puts it best:

"No, it…it… is confusing. And I… when we're apart…it’s easier. It hurts, every day. But I live with it. And now you're…you're right here and I can actually reach out and…it's more then confusing; it's unbearable."

But as Buffy confirms:

"If we let something happen here we'd want more. And nothing's changed. We'd only end up having to leave each other again."

In other words in many ways we were back to the status quo ante for the Buffy/Angel relationship. Once there it became easier to follow the significance of the fundamental change in the ground rules around which the episode turns. When Angel becomes human everything keeping him apart from Buffy no longer applies. The implications of their new situation are dealt with in another pivotal scene as Buffy and Angel share tea and crackers. There are two striking things about this scene. The first is that the past is not forgotten as they still hesitate. Or rather Angel still hesitates; thus showing just how deeply the events since "Surprise/Innocence" have marked him.

Angel: "I just…I…I think, maybe we'd be asking for trouble rushing back into things. Not that I don't want to…rush. Believe me, I do."

Buffy: "Right. You spoke to the Oracles and they said you were cured for good. But how do we know that they really speak for the Powers? I mean they could be…pranksters."

Angel: "Or there could be another loophole."

Buffy: "Exactly. And then the two of us would be in even deeper and it’s 'grr' all over again."

Angel: "It would be smart to wait a while. See if this mortal thing takes."

This is not only true to character but is also very important in keeping the new ground rules of the Buffy/Angel relationship in the context of everything the pair of them have endured. It is therefore almost against Angel’s will that they give in to nature.

Equally significantly, even before the second encounter with the Mohra, Angel shows a keen awareness what his newfound status as a human means:

"You're still the Slayer. And I'm not sure what I am now. I don't know what my purpose is. I can't just wedge myself into your life back in Sunnydale. It wouldn't be good for either of us. Not to mention the fact that you just started college. And what about slaying? I mean, if you had me to worry about, you might not be as focused."

Thus Buffy and Angel are able to consummate their love but at the same time are not baggage free. Their past continues to haunt them. In other words Angel becoming human does not break the continuity of the Buffy/Angel myth arc but becomes a part of it. Moreover Angel’s initial uncertainty over being with Buffy and his uncertainty about how his being human will affect her not only look back to the past but also foreshadow the choice to come and the reason for it. And this is a choice made more painful by the inability of the pair of them to stick to tea and crackers rather than go with the chocolate and peanut butter. Because the events in "I Will Remember You" do form part of the historical continuity of the Buffy/Angel story we can appreciate the full significance of their resolution. The choice that Angel makes does not just end a temporary though happy interlude in life for Buffy and Angel. It simultaneously precipitates a fundamental change in the relationship as a whole while at the same time reinforcing its overall authenticity. When Angel chooses to return to being a vampire he puts a much more credible end to the relationship than was possible in “GD2”. This is because he had the choice and deliberately turns his back on the relationship. He does so simultaneously for the love of Buffy and to play his part in the fight against evil. The two are inseparable in the sense that in order to save Buffy he must help her fight the forces of Darkness. Yet the two are also in conflict because he can only fight evil as a vampire and as such he cannot be with Buffy. So, Angel had to sacrifice what he valued most in all this world in order to preserve it.

Because only Angel retains a memory of the lost day the relationship is ended in a way that allows Buffy, if not Angel, to move on. Yet, because we see what was possible between them, at the same time the strength of the myth arc and its sense that there is some indefinable bond between these two is further strengthened. For those, like me, with a taste for paradox this is heady stuff. We get a renewed sense of two people trapped by forces beyond their control yet, especially in Angel's case, behaving almost heroically even when tested to the limits.



And Change

But this was "moving on" in only one sense. as I have already said, this was at one and the same time a re-affirmation of the bond between vampire and slayer as well as being a (perhaps temporary) end to their relationship. But at the same time, they were now on different shows facing character developments that could not but help change who they were and who they saw themselves and it would be idle to pretend that such developments would not have implications for their relationship. And this is an issue that arose in the second "cross-over" event of BtVS season 4 and Angel season 1.

In "Sanctuary" what matters for Angel is his sense of mission. He now believes he can understand Faith. He believes he can reach her and if he reaches her be believes he can persuade her to save herself. By extension, therefore, he believes in Faith, believes that there is in her someone who wants to be redeemed and is prepared to try. That is why Angel was saying to Buffy - "trust me. I know what I am doing". And she couldn't or wouldn't. That, and not her inability to trust Faith, was the really significant part of "Sanctuary" from Buffy's point of view. But why? It seems to me that there is only one explanation for Buffy's attitude. Buffy continues to think of Angel as her boyfriend - former - from Sunnydale. She still defines him as he was then; someone who was dependent upon her for his sense of identity and who saw in their relationship his possibility of salvation. In other words she cannot trust him in the way I have just described. But worse even than that was the fact that in "Sanctuary" her cozy little picture of the relationship between the two of them is blown unceremoniously sky high. Sure, Angel has fought with her before. But she has always shown him who was boss, even if it meant a little "physical" coercion - for his own good of course. He could always be persuaded to see things her way. Not now. Now, not only is he refusing to do what she wants, he is actually taking the moral high ground with her, the slayer. That I why I think she reminds him of his murderous past. On the face of it, it is simply a cheap shot. But it reflects her inner confusion about their new positions relative to one another. She is saying to him remember you are the one trying to redeem himself - don't come all high and mighty with me.

So, with her the same tendency to put the personal side of her life (meaning her relationship with Angel) above all other considerations persisted. As it was with the failure to kill Angelus in “Innocence” and with forcing Angel to feed off her in GD2, so it was with her inability to see past Faith’s impact on her relationship with Angel. And when Angel was more concerned with Faith’s redemption than her hurt she regarded that as a personal betrayal. That is why she could not put her own doubts aside and trust Angel to deal with Faith on his own terms. There is only one right way to do so and that is Buffy’s. And if there is no other way to establish this she willingly resorts to violence to get her own way. But instead of seeing her take control of a situation her actions only led to Angel proving once and for all that he would not be controlled any more. Instead his reaction was to hit her back. The whole new dynamic between Buffy and Angel is, I think, summed up in her exchange with him at the end when he said:

"Buffy, this wasn't about you. This was about saving somebody's soul. That's what I do here, and you're not a part of it. That was your idea, remember? e stay away from each other."

So, not only was there a clear gap in understanding between them but she had lost the ability she once took for granted to resolve their differences in her favor. He had indeed truly become independent of her, a fact that was reinforced when he somewhat peremptorily ordered her out of LA, leaving him to continue his mission as he saw fit. The point about "Sanctuary" was not, therefore, that Buffy and Angel had stopped caring about one another. Essentially it was about how much Angel had developed from the character Buffy had known and also about the difficulty Buffy had in adjusting to this new character. That is what led to her angry reaction to him and, in particular, to her casting Riley into face. In fact the bitterness that passed between them was an indication of just how much they still cared about one another. Otherwise there would have been no reason to fight.

And that is where the writers were apparently content to leave things. So, really the follow up Angel's visit to Sunnydale in "The Yoko Factor" served no useful purpose except to reinforce the message that was really more than adequately driven home by "Sanctuary"

Angel, of course, driven on by his new sense of mission and with the true zeal of all converts had been harsh to Buffy, just as he had also been harsh to Wesley. Perhaps he regretted this. He must have realized that it was unnecessary. So, it is natural that when he went to Sunnydale it was to clear up the sense of personal bitterness that this final conversation in LA had left behind. Buffy's reaction to his visit, however, was interesting.

Buffy: " You thought of something else *really* hurtful to say and you couldn't tell me on the phone because the funniest part is that look on my face..."

This shows as clearly as anything can the way she still saw the events in “Sanctuary” and Angel’s actions through the prism of her own personal agenda. Her sense of grievance remains as sharp as ever and it is really only Angel’s apology that defuses her anger. Even the concession she made to his apology was half hearted:

"Look, you weren't entirely wrong with what you said in LA.”

I do not think this is unrealistic; nor do I think that it is unfair. Certainly we did not see her at her best. But what we did see was, I think, entirely understandable and in character for her. First of all it was obvious from the beginning that Buffy could not get past how Faith had affected her personally. Buffy has always had some difficulty in setting aside her personal feelings in favor of her wider mission. And indeed in this case she had a lot to be angry about. Then there was, I think, an element of personal jealousy. Faith may have envied Buffy but the latter had her own fair share of insecurities when it came to Faith, especially as far as Angel was concerned. When Buffy entered Angel's apartment she saw them together in a very compromising position. So, when there was a confrontation between Faith and Buffy, Angel was only conscious of the need to prevent his work with Faith being undone. His mission to redeem Faith was the key and for that he set aside personal concerns, both his and Buffy's. To Buffy, however, it was the personal history with Faith that was important. So, to her it looked as though Angel had simply chosen Faith's side against her. None of this makes Buffy a shrew. What it does make her is a slightly immature 19 year old with still some growing to do. So the fact that she dwelt on her hurt feelings should not have been too surprising.

But I have much more difficulty with the idea that Angel was content to leave it at that. What separated them in LA was much more fundamental than a few harsh words. It represented a new direction in Angel’s life and if they were ever going to re-establish a relationship was something she had to come to terms with. And by the logic of both "Sanctuary" and "The Yoko Factor" it was still important that she did so. I have already observed that Buffy's reaction in "Sanctuary" suggested strongly that things were not over between these two. And, if anything, “The Yoko Factor” confirms the impression. If they were then Angel's reaction to Riley is bizarre. First of all we have Riley overhearing on the radio that the Initiative team had been attacked by someone who came “out of nowhere”. Angel for his part says that he “got jumped by some soldiers”. However these two statements are very difficult to reconcile. Even if Angel did attack the soldiers that is a flimsy basis on which Riley could conclude that he had lost his soul. Angel, for his part, blames Riley for the welcoming committee. But how precisely was Riley to know Angel was coming to Sunnydale? He didn’t even know what Angel looked like until they met. In other words the writers present a scenario where it is simply impossible to accept their rationalization of the set up. The only conclusion that you can draw from this is that Angel and Riley are spoiling for a fight with each other over Buffy.

Equally, unless there were very strong feelings left for him Buffy’s still smoldering sense of grievance would be inexplicable. Take the accusation she threw at Angel

“Okay. I come to see you, to help you and you treat me like I'm just your ex."

So she still doesn’t think of him as just her ex. And the fact that Angel was prepared to apologize to Buffy even though he knew deep down he was right and she was wrong speaks volumes about how he still feels about her. Most intriguing of all was the parting exchange between them about Riley. Angel’s "I don't like him." Was met by an enigmatic “Thank you”. Thank you, for what? For being honest? For caring enough still to be jealous? I think that this does reinforce the idea that Angel and Buffy are now apart because of circumstances and not because anything fundamental has changed in the way they feel about one another.

Citation :

Chapter IV:
Parting of the Ways

Life Without Buffy

At this point it seems to me we had an Angel whose feeling for Buffy remain unchanged but who was, in every other respect, an entirely different person to the one Buffy first took under her wing in BtVS season 2. Likewise Buffy’s love for Angel remained unchanged. Emotionally, however, Buffy herself has moved on very little if at all. This did not mean that she and Angel can never be together again. But it did mean that they can never be together as the couple they once were – slayer and boyfriend. If they are ever to get together again it will only be as equals and in order for them to be equals it is Buffy who must do the growing. There was a remarkable inversion of the BUFFY season 1 to 3 dynamic between them. But as the momentum of the two different series developed so too did this dynamic. Cross-overs stopped, at least as far as the principal characters were concerned. And season 3 of ANGEL saw two developments that seemed quite deliberately to put a distance not only between the two shows but, in particular, their principal characters.

The first came in "Heartthrob". This episode came after Angel learnt of Buffy's supposed death in "the Gift" and its major theme is what love means to us and how it affects us. This theme is explored principally through the ways that Angel and James respectively react to the loss of the great loves of their life. When James lost Elizabeth, life held no meaning for him. All he wanted was revenge, even though it would cost him his own life. Angel has obviously also just lost the love of his life. And we are reminded of that fact several times throughout this episode. But his reaction is more low key, less dramatic.

James: “You loved someone? With all your heart?”

Angel: “Yes.”

James: “No. You didn't. If you had you wouldn't be standing here playing games with me. You wouldn't be able to, because when she died - or when some bastard killed her - it would have killed everything in you.”

But this I think is to miss the point. You cannot assume that the only way to gage love lies in the violence of the reactions to its loss. In this respect James’ concept of love for Elizabeth isn’t set up as some sort of ideal. Far from it. It is quite clearly shown as obsessional to the point of being unhealthy. Nor is there any suggestion in the episode that Angel’s love for Buffy is in any being trivialized. That love is so deeply embedded into the canon of the show that the writers don’t need to show breast-beating. That is the point. The writers trust that the audience will accept without question that it is there. So they can use Angel’s quiet and understated acceptance of Buffy’s death and his willingness to move on to counterpoint not the difference between the love he and James felt but rather to counterpoint the individuals they were and what they had to live for.

Before he dies James says:

“You think you won 'cause you're still alive? I lived, you just existed.”

But Cordelia has the perfect answer to that:

“If you were a loser, if you were a sick obsessed vampire, you'd go to a Snod demon or whatever and get your heart cut out. But you're not. You're a living, breathing - well a living, anyway - good guy who's still fighting and trying to help people. That's not betraying her, that's honoring her.”

It’s not that Buffy’s “death” didn’t hurt. The important point though is that he was dealing with them. This episode, therefore, episode serves as a clear illustration of how far Angel has moved on. At one point he muses to himself:

“In all those years no one ever mattered, not like she did. And now she's gone. Forever.”

In the years between his encounter with Whistler in Mew York 1996 and his departure from Sunnydale in 1999, everything he did was for Buffy. Here too it was more a case of nothing else mattered, not just no-one else. Even the aftermath of “Sanctuary” (when he did what he thought was right even though it hurt her) served to illustrate the hold she still had on him. He was the one who went to Sunnydale to make peace with her and he was the one who effectively conceded to her. The fact that Angel was prepared to apologize to Buffy even though he knew deep down he was right and she was wrong speaks volumes about how important she still was to him. So what we see in “Hearthrob” is how Angel as a character is now forced to stand completely on his own feet. Not only does this reflect the new relationship between Angel and Buffy as characters; it also now seems to me to reflect the reality of the relationship between the ANGEL and BtVS as shows. In concept and theme they were different from day one but both shows were about one single individual and the nature of the ties between the eponymous heroes was such that they could not help but continue to be connected. Obviously someone felt that connection must now be interrupted if not severed completely. And by showing in "Hearthrob" not so much that Angel moves on but why he can move on the writers successfully achieved that.


The End of the Affair

It seems to me, however, that "Hearthrob" was merely laying the groundwork for what was to come because in retrospect the most important development in season 3 lay in the developing relationship between Angel and Cordelia. And in many ways the crucial episode here was "Waiting in the Wings". Now an examination of this relationship is outside the scope of this essay. But there are a few parallels between it and Angel's relationship with Buffy as well as one striking difference and it is this difference that is central to the thesis put forward by "Waiting in the Wings". As we have seen, what doomed Angel's earlier relationship was his dual nature – as a human and as a vampire. As a human he has the capacity to love and be loved. As a vampire he has a capacity to destroy. I have already written about the seemingly inexorable working of fate in bringing together such an ill-matched pair as Angel and Buffy. It seemed from the very start that they were doomed to be brought together against their will and forced apart also against their will. Indeed their mutual attraction not only almost destroyed each other. It almost ended the world. Having distanced himself from Buffy, Angel was now afraid of history repeating itself only this time with Cordelia. But "Waiting in the Wings" is about the power of people to control their own destiny and above all it is about the power of love to find a way. The ballet dancer in that episode had a choice, a genuine choice and she could have abandoned being a dancer and run away with her lover. She chose not to because being a dance meant more to her. And it was only because she chose the dance that she placed control over her own life in the power of someone who had control over the dance. But the power to control your own life is something that cannot be denied to anyone and Angel sees this. He convinces the ballerina that she can change the dance and so take back control of her own destiny and free herself form the destructive circle that someone else had apparently decreed for her.

And this is a lesson that is not lost on Angel. He is afraid that if he were to begin a romance with Cordelia he too would be doomed to repeat the same steps that he took with Buffy, including that near fatal slip. Now he realizes that he too can change things like the ballerina. And so, having understood his own attraction to Cordelia from the beginning of the episode, he now realizes that he can and should do something about it. But the implication of this decision for Angel's relationship with Buffy was pretty clear. As I have already stressed, central to the Buffy/Angel dynamic was the tension between her nature as slayer and his as vampire, albeit an ensouled one. That tension is not irreconcilable but only if you assume that, as rational beings, Buffy and Angel can choose their paths. If, on the other hand, their destinies were in the hand of fate, then disaster was almost inevitable. Now having finally resolved this conflict by asserting his own free will, for Angel his relationship with Buffy and in particular the barriers that stood in the way of that relationship simply become irrelevant. If he really is now free of the fear of the past, if he has now decided that love will find a way then there is only one reason why he does not go back to Sunnydale. That reason is that he now loves Cordelia and not Buffy. And I have to say I find that less than satisfactory. The issues explored by the writers in season 2 were serious ones, seriously treated. But when you so casually discard the context in which they were posed and instead resolve them in an entirely different one, one which had none of the carefully created history of the Buffy/Angel story, then you are undermining theme as well as story.

Cordelia first tried to attract Angel’s attention in season 1 of BtVS. But then her interest in him was pretty superficial and he had no interest in her at all. It was really only from “Parting Gifts” onwards that they began to know each other as individuals and a friendship did develop. But there is little to explain why, after such a long history, Angel and Cordelia suddenly become romantically involved. As we have seen it’s not physical attraction. Of course, especially since “To Shanshu in LA” Cordelia has grown as an individual and the implication in the references to “kyrumption” is that it is this which accounts for brining them together. I would be very surprised indeed if, on Pylea, kyrumption had any sexual connotations at all – or we going to see Angel and Groo making eyes at one another? And we can hardly maintain that the difference between Buffy and Cordelia was that the latter was heroic and the former wasn’t. Equally a central theme of BtVS - the relationship between slayer and ensouled vampire - is simply jettisoned without a thought. This was a theme that was important enough that the writers labored long and hard over it to explain why Angel felt forced to move away from Sunnydale in the first place. It was an issue they felt they had to return to on ANGEL in IWRY. And if anything "Hearthrob" itself was all about just how important Buffy was to Angel. Both episodes were about moving on but in doing so they paid due respect to what had gone before. Now suddenly that isn't worth dealing with properly. Angel realizes he loves Cordelia and Buffy is just forgotten about. So, when at the end of season 3, Angel lost Cordelia, he lost his sense of identity. He has his friends, he has his son and he has his mission. But the mission in particular means nothing to him without Cordelia to provide meaning to it all for him. And when she does return. Almost immediately he finds himself in the middle of a fraught triangle with her and his own son and because of this his old feelings of insecurity and irresolution that return to haunt him. He forgets about his mission, cuts himself off from everyone else emotionally and casts himself once again in the role of the victim. Again thoughts of and feelings for Buffy are completely absent from this. I have no great attachment to the relationship but I found it disrespectful and untruthful. What happened in “Waiting in the Wings” has all the hallmarks of writers’ fiat: developments that, rather than growing naturally from the characters and the circumstances that they find themselves in, occur simply because the writers want to change things. Angel cannot be with Buffy because they are on different shows on different networks so this pair must now be split up and the most obvious way of doing so is have him fall in love with Cordelia, the female lead of the series.

And the absurdity of it all was shown by the very last appearance by Angel on BtVS - in the series finale "Chosen". We open with a reunion - Buffy and Angel kissing inside a tomb as Spike looks on from the shadows.

Angel says:

"Well, I guess that qualifies as a happy to see me."

He is there with the mystical amulet given to him by Lilah:

Angel: "I don't know everything. It's very powerful and probably very dangerous. It has a purifying power, a cleansing power, possibly scrubbing bubbles. The translation is, uh—anyway, it bestows strength to the right person who wears it.

Buffy: "And the right person is?

Angel: "Someone ensouled, but stronger than human. A champion. As in me."

Buffy: "Or me."

Angel: "No. I don't know nearly enough about this to risk you wearing it. "

Even at the level of soap opera, this gives me no sense at all of where Buffy and Angel are in their relationship. Are they simply concerned for one another as old friends would be? Are the considerations they raise purely practical ones? Or is there more to their feelings? And what about Spike and Cordelia? The latter at this stage is still alive, albeit in a coma. Her name is, however, notable by its absence. The realities of shows on different networks may have dictated a hiatus in the relationship but this speaks of carelessness, of lack of attention to detail. It is almost as if, with the two shows increasingly going their own way, the writers simply lost interest in the whole idea of the relationship between Buffy and Angel. And this is an impression that was brutally reinforced by the farce that was "The Girl in Question". Frankly this episode is not really worth discussing in detail in this context. In fact if someone had seen this episode without having seen season 2 of BtVS they would have found it impossible to guess what power and depth that latter had found in the relationship, they are so totally divorced from one another. Suffice to say this crude and forced parody treated not only the Buffy/Angel but also the Buffy/Spike relationship with scant respect and no seriousness. It is interesting indeed telling that, by contrast, in its treatment of the Buffy/Angel relationship as a yardstick against which Angel's growth could be measured ANGEL as a series has been fairly consistent and reasonable successful. From this was can I think infer that shift in focus towards a sustained meditation on the character and psychology of the eponymous protagonist of the piece as an individual. When, in "Sanctuary" and "Hearthtob" they wanted to make points that they did care about, they did take Angel's history with Buffy seriously and treated it with respect. When dealing with the relationship as such, however, they didn't really care. And even I who have limited interest in the soap opera element of ME's work, find that sad.