Faith, Buffy, tactics and questions
Apr. 30th, 2003 05:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakCaille's superb review of "Empty Places" http://www.livejournal.com/users/caille/26605.html) has caused some additional thoughts on the relationship between Buffy and Faith. It has always fascinated me, which is why I'm glad we got Faith back on BTVS, not just on AtS. It's such a complex mixture of rivalry and instinctive understanding, of attraction and opposition. On the one hand, they need to define each other through simple contrasts: Buffy tells Giles in season 3 "I hate being the good one", Faith asks Buffy in "Dirty Girls" "Am I the good one now?" On the other hand, as you say, they always "got" each other; where Buffy's friends only saw the new cool Slayer in "Faith, Hope and Trick", Buffy noticed, despite her territorial issues and jealousy, that there was a desperate girl there beneath; she told Willow in "Doppelgangerland" (not coincidentally where good girl Willow met her own shadow self) that she could have been Faith with a couple of different choices. Faith used to concentrate on seeing what Buffy surpressed - the killer within, and maybe parts of her sexuality - but now she shows she's just as insightful about Buffy's other feelings:
Her guilty desperation about Xander (I loved how she helped Buffy out with Dawn), the pressure Buffy is under. They always got along best when they were on their own; which is why the final scene from "Empty Places" works.
They both instinctively know the other is sincere; Faith truly didn't want this, and Buffy truly means it when she asks Faith to lead and protect the others. (Incidentally, I stand by my claim that this is one of the best scenes with these two ever, and presents BOTH of them at their best, as human beings and as Slayers. )
Caille points out, as Melymbrosia did a couple of weeks ago, the parallels between Buffy's relationship with Faith and Spike. As she said, both have seen Buffy at her worst (and best); both have been seen BY Buffy at their worst. (And best.) All three have been through hell and back, sometimes because of each other; they all had a death and resurrection (Faith's coma is explicitly linked to death and rebirth from the grave through her dream in "This Year's Girl") and that's something which they simply can't share with any of the other Scoobies.
After browsing through other reviews, I noticed there seems to be the impression Buffy wanted to take everyone to the vineyard right there and then. Which wasn't my impression. She didn't get any further explaining how she wanted to proceed than "I say we take it from them". And she did say she was open to tactical suggestions; even in "Dirty Girls", she didn't go in with everyone at once. Obviously, Buffy's big mistake in "Dirty Girls" was not gathering intelligence on Caleb first. However, her tactis otherwise weren't stupid. She prepared for the possibility of this being another variation of the Angelus tactic of luring her away so someone could attack her friends by leaving the less experienced potentials protected by Willow (who had the power to keep them save) and Giles (whom they knew as an authority figure and presumably obeyed). Then, she divided everyone else in two groups, each with a Slayer, not leading everyone at once into the building but using the second group as reinforcement. Which worked. And the Potentials did hold their own with the Bringers. Had Caleb been a normally strong human being, no matter how good with a knife, they would have won.
The deciding factor was Caleb being able to take out Buffy, Faith and Spike. (And thus of course the Potentials.) Again, if Buffy had taken the time to gather intelligence on Caleb she might have found that out - this was her mistake, as I said. However, let's go through the following scenario: what if Caleb, as Buffy suspected, had held a Potential hostage, or had been torturing and killing her? Quick action could have saved this girl's life, and if Buffy had waited to do research, I'm sure she would have been bashed for coldly gambling with someone's life. All I'm saying here is that it wasn't a black and white situation.
So, was Buffy's second idea, that Caleb and the First wanted to divert her with the High School and the seal, right or wrong? I'd say it's fifty/fifty whether Caleb meant her to lead "them" back to the vineyard or the High School. But Buffy being correct (or wrong) about his intentions isn't really crucial. As I said in my earlier review, I could see where everyone was coming from during the confrontation in Buffy-and-Dawn's living room; I certainly don't think unquestioning obedience is a good idea. However, it's worth pointing out that there was a massive shirking of responsibility for the situation going on there as well. It was Giles who had initiated the distance between himself and Buffy, starting with evading Buffy's hug in "Bring On The Night", dumping the Potentials on her, telling her it was all on her shoulders and making no effort to take over some of the training of the Potentials. (For which he would have been much better qualified than Buffy, who was never meant to be a Watcher, let alone a Watcher for dozens of girls in addition to being a Slayer.) It was Giles who told her she had to act as a general and consider everyone as expendable, that she had to make the decisions, yet who refused to allow for the possibility she might actually have made the right one about Spike. (In other words - you have to make the decisions, but only those I agree with.)
In a similar irony it was Wood who told her, when she talked about doubting whether war was the right way to go, that she had to let the Potentials face battle - and who didn't seem to remember one bit of it in "Empty Places" where he suddenly found it "too much to ask". Methinks someone was still trying to get back at Buffy for "the mission is what matters". And here's a question: if Caleb had been no more than he seemed to be - i.e. a psycho with a knife but no supernatural powers - according to Shannon, or if Buffy had been correct about him holding a Potential, and the first vineyard expedition had resulted in this Potential's life being saved, or Caleb being defeated, would the Scoobies and the Potentials still have questioned Buffy's leadership? Her tactics wouldn't have been any different. Would success have validated them? And I'm not saying they shouldn't have questioned her in such a scenario.
It's easy to go against a leader in the case of defeat. It takes more courage to do so in the face of victory. To talk to someone who pulls it off about his or her leadership style. I guess I would be more inclined to sympathize with the Scoobies et al if, in addition to seeing where they are coming from, I wouldn't have the suspicion that they would have continued to support Buffy if the first vineyard raid would have been successful.
As it is, in the balance of things, a bit more of my sympathy goes out to Buffy. Who does need, to quote Faith, a siesta, but isn't likely to get one as long as she's the Slayer (Faith as leader notwithstanding).
Her guilty desperation about Xander (I loved how she helped Buffy out with Dawn), the pressure Buffy is under. They always got along best when they were on their own; which is why the final scene from "Empty Places" works.
They both instinctively know the other is sincere; Faith truly didn't want this, and Buffy truly means it when she asks Faith to lead and protect the others. (Incidentally, I stand by my claim that this is one of the best scenes with these two ever, and presents BOTH of them at their best, as human beings and as Slayers. )
Caille points out, as Melymbrosia did a couple of weeks ago, the parallels between Buffy's relationship with Faith and Spike. As she said, both have seen Buffy at her worst (and best); both have been seen BY Buffy at their worst. (And best.) All three have been through hell and back, sometimes because of each other; they all had a death and resurrection (Faith's coma is explicitly linked to death and rebirth from the grave through her dream in "This Year's Girl") and that's something which they simply can't share with any of the other Scoobies.
After browsing through other reviews, I noticed there seems to be the impression Buffy wanted to take everyone to the vineyard right there and then. Which wasn't my impression. She didn't get any further explaining how she wanted to proceed than "I say we take it from them". And she did say she was open to tactical suggestions; even in "Dirty Girls", she didn't go in with everyone at once. Obviously, Buffy's big mistake in "Dirty Girls" was not gathering intelligence on Caleb first. However, her tactis otherwise weren't stupid. She prepared for the possibility of this being another variation of the Angelus tactic of luring her away so someone could attack her friends by leaving the less experienced potentials protected by Willow (who had the power to keep them save) and Giles (whom they knew as an authority figure and presumably obeyed). Then, she divided everyone else in two groups, each with a Slayer, not leading everyone at once into the building but using the second group as reinforcement. Which worked. And the Potentials did hold their own with the Bringers. Had Caleb been a normally strong human being, no matter how good with a knife, they would have won.
The deciding factor was Caleb being able to take out Buffy, Faith and Spike. (And thus of course the Potentials.) Again, if Buffy had taken the time to gather intelligence on Caleb she might have found that out - this was her mistake, as I said. However, let's go through the following scenario: what if Caleb, as Buffy suspected, had held a Potential hostage, or had been torturing and killing her? Quick action could have saved this girl's life, and if Buffy had waited to do research, I'm sure she would have been bashed for coldly gambling with someone's life. All I'm saying here is that it wasn't a black and white situation.
So, was Buffy's second idea, that Caleb and the First wanted to divert her with the High School and the seal, right or wrong? I'd say it's fifty/fifty whether Caleb meant her to lead "them" back to the vineyard or the High School. But Buffy being correct (or wrong) about his intentions isn't really crucial. As I said in my earlier review, I could see where everyone was coming from during the confrontation in Buffy-and-Dawn's living room; I certainly don't think unquestioning obedience is a good idea. However, it's worth pointing out that there was a massive shirking of responsibility for the situation going on there as well. It was Giles who had initiated the distance between himself and Buffy, starting with evading Buffy's hug in "Bring On The Night", dumping the Potentials on her, telling her it was all on her shoulders and making no effort to take over some of the training of the Potentials. (For which he would have been much better qualified than Buffy, who was never meant to be a Watcher, let alone a Watcher for dozens of girls in addition to being a Slayer.) It was Giles who told her she had to act as a general and consider everyone as expendable, that she had to make the decisions, yet who refused to allow for the possibility she might actually have made the right one about Spike. (In other words - you have to make the decisions, but only those I agree with.)
In a similar irony it was Wood who told her, when she talked about doubting whether war was the right way to go, that she had to let the Potentials face battle - and who didn't seem to remember one bit of it in "Empty Places" where he suddenly found it "too much to ask". Methinks someone was still trying to get back at Buffy for "the mission is what matters". And here's a question: if Caleb had been no more than he seemed to be - i.e. a psycho with a knife but no supernatural powers - according to Shannon, or if Buffy had been correct about him holding a Potential, and the first vineyard expedition had resulted in this Potential's life being saved, or Caleb being defeated, would the Scoobies and the Potentials still have questioned Buffy's leadership? Her tactics wouldn't have been any different. Would success have validated them? And I'm not saying they shouldn't have questioned her in such a scenario.
It's easy to go against a leader in the case of defeat. It takes more courage to do so in the face of victory. To talk to someone who pulls it off about his or her leadership style. I guess I would be more inclined to sympathize with the Scoobies et al if, in addition to seeing where they are coming from, I wouldn't have the suspicion that they would have continued to support Buffy if the first vineyard raid would have been successful.
As it is, in the balance of things, a bit more of my sympathy goes out to Buffy. Who does need, to quote Faith, a siesta, but isn't likely to get one as long as she's the Slayer (Faith as leader notwithstanding).
