![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Periodically, I still involve myself with very old debates on TWoP with the same people I have overdebated things with for too long. And for all the times that I sometimes wonder why, there are just priceless quotes and moments that make it worth it...
In a discussion over how the group dynamics function, over the prominence of Buffy's role, and to what extent she listened to others, if too little... and so on. Generally the discussion over the Buffy-Xander argument dynamic between "Passion" and "Revelations"... After a point, I'd brought up The Jordan Rules. Namely that, when you have a performer of a certain superior caliber on your team - and you want that performer to still accept you as a teammate - then you may have to learn to tolerate a certain amount of prima donna BS that isn't particularly fair if you value overall success.
The result being the following quotation:
And do not get me started about Michael "overrated" Jordan. I was attending UNC when this guy left college to go pro, and you would have thought he was the second coming. I don't care if he's got a fifteen foot jump shot and an Olympic gold medal, there's a million ballplayers out there who have the potential to be just as good if not better. And none of them were in Space Jam.
A million ballplayers with the potential to be just as good, if not better, than Michael Jordan. I suppose, with a very fluid definition of "potential", this isn't a laughable statement. In the history of basketball, up to and including today, these are the players under seven feet tall that are or were "just as good, if not better" than MJ:
Magic Johnson
Oscar Robertson
That's it. That's the list. If there's another Jordan out there, trust me, David Stern is very interested in finding him. There isn't. MJ's excellence wasn't just physical skill - it was mentality - and only a tiny fraction of the population has it.
Someday, I'll write out the Buffy Summers-Michael Jordan parallel. Really I will. Okay, actually I won't. But I'd talk it out.
If you have an MJ (in his relative prime) on your team, you are an instant contender. And you win or lose, based upon how well MJ uses the rest of his team to maximize performance. And so what you've got to do, is sell MJ on that. And appease MJ. Because you can replace everybody else on the roster and still win - as long as MJ uses them. You can't replace him. Ergo, Jordan has the power.
And that's it, in the end. Xander can get pissed at Buffy and yell at her all he wants. But Buffy's not required to listen to him or anyone else, or be cowed or bullied. Because she can go out and make the plays nobody else can, and they live and die based upon how she performs, and how well she uses other people. And if yelling at her in anger is going to make her act defensively and lash out, rather than sway her, then it's stupid to do so. It's better to suck up the pride, accept her feelings, and find another way to move her.
And it might well mean looking out for the wellness of her state of mind more than you look toward your own ego.
It's not an exact comparison. Jordan was, in many ways, a terrible person to have to be on a team with. Unless you liked winning championships. The early Jordan was a selfish gunner, ran a coach out of town, and did not play well with teammates. The Jordan who won titles, made his teammates better and kept them involved. But he didn't do it with hugs, and he didn't do it with Kumbayas.
Jordan terrified people. He'd give you the ball, but you'd damn well not let him down. That's the secret. There may not be a single person on the planet more ruthlessly devoted to victory.
Now - watching BtVS, it was my own sense that Buffy's situation in Sunnydale would have been better for her (and most folks actually) if she had a little, or a lot, more Jordan. Her situation would have been bettered if the Scoobies had a Phil Jackson acting as Big Chief Triangle for them in S6. I think you'd have a very different and better Faith (and sooner) if Buffy had treated her as Jordan treated Pippen.
(Am now waiting for the BtVS NBA slashers on my FList to write Jordan/Rodman = Buffy/Spike RPS)
*Tumbleweeds*
As it worked out, in S7 it seemed like I got Buffy Summers as MJ the Washington Wizards years, but what can you do?
Oh, and Spurs in six.
In a discussion over how the group dynamics function, over the prominence of Buffy's role, and to what extent she listened to others, if too little... and so on. Generally the discussion over the Buffy-Xander argument dynamic between "Passion" and "Revelations"... After a point, I'd brought up The Jordan Rules. Namely that, when you have a performer of a certain superior caliber on your team - and you want that performer to still accept you as a teammate - then you may have to learn to tolerate a certain amount of prima donna BS that isn't particularly fair if you value overall success.
The result being the following quotation:
And do not get me started about Michael "overrated" Jordan. I was attending UNC when this guy left college to go pro, and you would have thought he was the second coming. I don't care if he's got a fifteen foot jump shot and an Olympic gold medal, there's a million ballplayers out there who have the potential to be just as good if not better. And none of them were in Space Jam.
A million ballplayers with the potential to be just as good, if not better, than Michael Jordan. I suppose, with a very fluid definition of "potential", this isn't a laughable statement. In the history of basketball, up to and including today, these are the players under seven feet tall that are or were "just as good, if not better" than MJ:
Magic Johnson
Oscar Robertson
That's it. That's the list. If there's another Jordan out there, trust me, David Stern is very interested in finding him. There isn't. MJ's excellence wasn't just physical skill - it was mentality - and only a tiny fraction of the population has it.
Someday, I'll write out the Buffy Summers-Michael Jordan parallel. Really I will. Okay, actually I won't. But I'd talk it out.
If you have an MJ (in his relative prime) on your team, you are an instant contender. And you win or lose, based upon how well MJ uses the rest of his team to maximize performance. And so what you've got to do, is sell MJ on that. And appease MJ. Because you can replace everybody else on the roster and still win - as long as MJ uses them. You can't replace him. Ergo, Jordan has the power.
And that's it, in the end. Xander can get pissed at Buffy and yell at her all he wants. But Buffy's not required to listen to him or anyone else, or be cowed or bullied. Because she can go out and make the plays nobody else can, and they live and die based upon how she performs, and how well she uses other people. And if yelling at her in anger is going to make her act defensively and lash out, rather than sway her, then it's stupid to do so. It's better to suck up the pride, accept her feelings, and find another way to move her.
And it might well mean looking out for the wellness of her state of mind more than you look toward your own ego.
It's not an exact comparison. Jordan was, in many ways, a terrible person to have to be on a team with. Unless you liked winning championships. The early Jordan was a selfish gunner, ran a coach out of town, and did not play well with teammates. The Jordan who won titles, made his teammates better and kept them involved. But he didn't do it with hugs, and he didn't do it with Kumbayas.
Jordan terrified people. He'd give you the ball, but you'd damn well not let him down. That's the secret. There may not be a single person on the planet more ruthlessly devoted to victory.
Now - watching BtVS, it was my own sense that Buffy's situation in Sunnydale would have been better for her (and most folks actually) if she had a little, or a lot, more Jordan. Her situation would have been bettered if the Scoobies had a Phil Jackson acting as Big Chief Triangle for them in S6. I think you'd have a very different and better Faith (and sooner) if Buffy had treated her as Jordan treated Pippen.
(Am now waiting for the BtVS NBA slashers on my FList to write Jordan/Rodman = Buffy/Spike RPS)
*Tumbleweeds*
As it worked out, in S7 it seemed like I got Buffy Summers as MJ the Washington Wizards years, but what can you do?
Oh, and Spurs in six.
no subject
no subject
In as much as Buffy is supposed to be, or trying to be, a leader... there's a point where a Xander has to stop yelling at her about what she's failing to do (as if Buffy doesn't already know that her failures have allowed Angelus to keep killing people) and just let her do her job. But inasmuch as Xander doesn't just shut up and defer, that reflects on her as a leader.
Scottie Pippen was the second best player on Jordan's team, and he had some serious character defects that could hurt a team he played on. But those traits didn't surface when he was on the court with MJ because he knew Michael would destroy him if they lost. After Jordan retired, Pippen returned to being the guy who quit on the team when the coach asked someone else to take the last shot instead of him.
But Buffy is trying to be both a friend, and a leader, and she's also a young woman in love - and she's not necessarily handling all of these things too well. There's a point where the complementary player has to play the complementary role, instead of bitching out the superior. And if he's going to be bitching, he should be talking to the coach (Giles) instead of Buffy. That's what Giles ought be there for.
no subject
Bring that concept over to Angel. The Angel/Gunn dynamic was in some ways almost a reversal of the Buffy/Xander dynamic. In TOGOM, Gunn admits that Angel wasn't his friend - but he believed in his mission and therefore was a loyal Fang Gang member. For all the occasional odds Angel and Gunn found themselves at, Gunn intuitively understood the concept of acceptance of leadership - and submitted to it. And Angel never doubted that he could count on Gunn to have his back as it pertained to the mission. This belief/acceptance of their roles (Angel leader, Fang Gang followers) was, after all, put to the ultimate test in Power Play and Not Fade Away, and unlike the Scooby Gang's challenge and subsequent removing Buffy from leadership/power in S7 (which they came to realize was a disastrous decision - lesson learned that they needed Buffy more than she needed them), Angel's gang did question him, but accepted his final decisions and game plan without the hassle of bringing personalities/making demains of personal loyalty/friendship into it. Because as it pertained *to the mission*, friendship is a convenience, not a necessity. (i.e. Wesley working with the gang though an 'outsider' in the beginning of S4.) And Angel as a leader was irreplacable within this dynamic because, credit it to his taking the lead (and occasional diva) tendencies or to his named role in the Shanshu prophecies or to just being a preternaturally powered creature who can physically accomplish more than a human can, but in the end he was the only leader whom the whole team responded to fully in that position. Wesley tried sitting in that seat and fell flat on his face (with a slit throat).
Okay, I may have gotten a *bit* off track from the subject. Shutting up now, lol.
no subject
It's not even that it's a dictatorship, because Buffy needs friends. But it means they have to fit themselves around her. Because Buffy needs friends, but that doesn't mean she has to rely on these friends. Practical reality, though, indicates, that she doesn't really have a lot of other options in terms of alternative support - so she mostly does have to rely on the scoobies. But, there's a hierarchy. Which has to come into play when they're "on the clock".
Your AtS example certainly fits into that.
no subject
It was a disastrous decision only due to one of the most godawful displays of writer fiat I've ever seen.
The Scoobies were, IMO, completely right to remove Buffy from leadership in S7. She was proposing that they attack exactly the same position, with exactly the same forces, with exactly the same plan (i.e., no plan at all) that got two Potentials killed and Xander's eye gouged out the first time around.
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Now, if Buffy had come up with a different plan to fight Caleb ("This time we'll bring Willow along and she'll use magic on Caleb," or, "Hey, I'll call up Riley and have him send over a few commandos with assault rifles,"), then the Scoobies should have listened. And they probably would have. But she didn't. Buffy was, by the above definition, insane when she said they should return to the vineyard, and so the Scoobies were, IMO, completely correct to remove her.
That everyone else later fell into a trap while Buffy was gone was not in any way a reflection on Buffy's leadership skills; rather, it was just a case of Joss playing "I told you so" with the script. IMO Joss was never interested in a serious examination of either Buffy's or Faith's leadership skills, he was just using Buffy being kicked out to make a completely different point ("Look! Buffy can only count on Spike! Spike's the only one who'll stick by her no matter what! Ooh, isn't it romantic?")
So, to go back to the sports analogy, Michael Jordan may be the star player on the team, but if he turns around and starts shooting for your own basket, it's time to call a time out and get him off the court.
no subject
In the beginning of S5, Xander is promoted up the chain at a job we've never seen him work, and when good work habits haven't really been his universal calling card. Some folks would call that writer fiat, too...
I am somewhat loathe to go to that argument - because everything is writer fiat. What happens on screen is what happens whether we like it or not.
We can go back to the case of Kathy or Ted, where Buffy early on has instincts telling her that these people are "problematic". Her motivation seems to be off, and her behavior is erratic. But she's right. Whether it's a case of "fiat" or a case of an erratic person with good insight is a MMV thing. Much of S7 is something I find hard to debate on a detail level, because the quality of the writing is just so poor.
Although, it can be well documented that I have had very strong criticisms of Buffy's leadership and performance in her job in S7. Taken as a whole, though, particularly looking back on early seasons...
THere's a big difference even between how Riley is treated by his subordinates and how Buffy is treated by hers. Xander mouths off to her in a way that would be simply unacceptable to Riley coming from one of his subordinates. Much of that, though, is because Buffy doesn't establish dominance in her hierarchy in the way Riley is dominant over his. Does she not seek to dominate because of gender issues, and do people not look to obey and conform because of gender... those are questions
no subject
And maybe it was, but this was hardly a major plot point, no?
I am somewhat loathe to go to that argument - because everything is writer fiat. What happens on screen is what happens whether we like it or not.
Okay, let's put it another way. The only reason the Scoobies kicking Buffy out turned out to be a bad decision was because of pure, dumb luck. We have no reason to believe that Buffy wouldn't have fallen into exactly the same trap that Faith did. The only reason she didn't is because she wasn't around when they found out about it.
In fact, there's further evidence that kicking Buffy out turned out to be the right decision. When she goes back to face Caleb alone, she's able to get past him and get to the Scythe. That's something she probably couldn't have done if she'd been worried about keeping a bunch of Potentials alive.
But none of that changes the fact that Buffy's original "plan" to go back to the vineyard was pure insanity.
Xander mouths off to her in a way that would be simply unacceptable to Riley coming from one of his subordinates.
First of all, Riley and his subordinates are soldiers. Buffy and Xander are not.
But beyond that, I'll repeat what I said over in
I don't think a case like "Revealations" (and I've said before on my journal that I think this was one of Xander's worst moments (and also note that this was another case where everyone else agreed with him)) really counts as him quesitoning her leadership, because Buffy didn't make the decision to hide Angel's return as a leader. She made it as a teenage girl who was, at the time, ruled by her feelings.
no subject
I'll get back to my feeling that much of S7 is rendered very difficult to discuss because the writing is terrible. It looks like dumb luck. Is it supposed to look like dumb luck? It's possible that we're supposed to see the returning Buffy as having learnt something, and having a better approach - except that it was written so badly as to fail to communicate that message. The execution doesn't really work (as it didn't work for me in the small example of promoting Xander) but we just have to let it go.
Given her leadership performance, there's certainly a case to axe her as a leader, and a case that indicates she's better off once she's freed from having to worry about carrying the group in the manner she was trying to do.
Buffy didn't make the decision to hide Angel's return as a leader. She made it as a teenage girl who was, at the time, ruled by her feelings.
She's got a dual role - she's both a leader and a teenaged girl. And I think her decision to keep Angel's return a secret, early on when he is unable to defend himself anyway, is the correct choice. And defensible on leadership grounds. Regardless of whether she acts as Girl or Soldier, I do think there's a certain requirement to trust those instincts or at least allow her to make a case.
no subject
Well, I guess the problem I'm having is that you're making it sound like Xander was constantly in Buffy's face about her leadership decisions, and that just wasn't the case. I can think of maybe three or four instances of this happening over the entire seven year run of the show, and that's if I stretch. The vast majority of the time, Buffy comes up with a plan and Xander goes along with it. He supports her, and so do the rest of her friends.
no subject
It's really not for Horace Grant to get in MJ's face about how the team plays. That's Phil Jackson's role. So if you're Horace, you go to Phil and you let Phil talk to Michael and sell things. In a unit situation, that serves a purpose. If Buffy is having that discussion with Giles behind closed doors, she isn't having it out with the people she really needs to follow her.
I recognize that there are a limited set of instances to discuss - but again - the reference is a bit hierarchy based and it's of a questionable degree to which they truly do compare.
Part of the issue is that my argument sprung from interaction with individuals who were a bit more absolutist and so I'm a bit farther off than I should be.
no subject
Sure he lets his feelings get the better of him occasionally. But he's a human being; that's par for the course.
no subject
The Scoobies were, IMO, completely right to remove Buffy from leadership in S7.
That everyone else later fell into a trap while Buffy was gone was not in any way a reflection on Buffy's leadership skills; rather, it was just a case of Joss playing "I told you so" with the script.
Perhaps I should explain my "disastrous decision" comment, because I agree with a lot of what you said. At the time the ep aired, I remember my first response to the scene where the Scooby gang threw her out to be very torn. Basically, I thought that both sides were right and both sides were wrong. I also got the feeling that Joss meant us the audience to see that both sides has some validity for their feelings and how they acted on them. But the bottom line, now that the story has been finished out and we know what happens, is that a) we got a case of lazy writing (something we agree on); and b) Whether or not the writers really *proved* Buffy to be completely in the right and the Scoobies in the wrong in our eyes is irrelevent in context of my previous comment. Because their *intention* certainly seems to be that Buffy was right and the Scoobies were wrong to toss her. So my remark about the Scoobies "disastrous decision" was not meant to be judging Faith's leadership skills (I think she did the best she could under a difficult set of circumstances, frankly, and has nothing to be ashamed of) OR a personal opinion of whether I feel Buffy was completely right, etc. Because the writers felt she was right, and although they lazily resorted to deus ex machina to "prove" their point, the message they seem to intend for us to get was that while Buffy was an imperfect leader, she was a good leader. Their execution of the message was crappy.
As far as Buffy's "insanity" of trying the exact same plan... I'd have to say that we'll never know if you're right about that or not. I seem to remember Buffy saying that she was open to discussing ways and means of executing that plan. The Scooby gang rejected everything about the plan. She also was making her decision to try this plan based on NEW information, information that we'll never know how it would have affected her strategy in trying the "same" fight over again. Because anytime you fight a fight, your agenda always affects your choices in executing that fight. The first time, she and the others were going after Caleb. This time, she was trying to go after whatever was hidden there. I choose not to judge whether she would have gone there the "exact" same way because we never got a chance to find out. The gang rejected the very idea of the plan, thinking that she was a bit insane and needed a break/rest. Again, both sides had very understandable reasons for feeling the way they did, so I'm not even going to try arguing merits of either side.
IMO Joss was never interested in a serious examination of either Buffy's or Faith's leadership skills, he was just using Buffy being kicked out to make a completely different point ("Look! Buffy can only count on Spike! Spike's the only one who'll stick by her no matter what! Ooh, isn't it romantic?")
Unfortunately, I agree with this 100%. There was some potential with the direction of challenging Buffy's leadership, but instead we got a cop-out.
no subject
I have no idea why I'm arguing or even what I'm arguing. I think you're right, actually. :)
no subject
2. Buffy is better when she has friends and allies. But that doest not mean that her friends and allies necessarily have to be these friends and allies. Jordan won six titles (91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98) and in the second run, the only holdover from the first was Scottie Pippen.
which means
3. For the team to work, it relies on fitting the scoobies around Buffy - not on Buffy conforming herself to the scoobies. It means acknowledging that there's a hierarchy.
no subject
no subject
And there's that part of me that feels that, when Xander is telling Buffy that to do her job she can't be that girl who is in love with Angel... that's the moment where he's got to be ready understand that she can't be that girl who is friends with Xander...
But it's ultimately a really painful situation, because you have a set of opposing virtues in play. Which, IMHO, is what brings out great drama.
no subject
I understand your points, completely, but I think reading stuff like this just has the opposite effect that it should- it makes me feel *worse* for Xander, because ultimately, he's meaningless isn't he? He's allowed to be Buffy's friend only inasmuch as he provides grounding for the slayer, and is allowed no other function; so he's basically just a tool, in more ways than one.
no subject
Isn't that what "Faster Pussycat" speech in Passion is all about. Isn't that what his "I just think you want your boyfriend back" comment is all about.
it makes me feel *worse* for Xander, because ultimately, he's meaningless isn't he? He's allowed to be Buffy's friend only inasmuch as he provides grounding for the slayer, and is allowed no other function; so he's basically just a tool, in more ways than one.
They're all tools, depending upon perspective. Buffy can try to be a friend and a loving person all she wants, but there are times when she's expected to become a monster-killing robot. Which is exactly the point we get from Xander - that Buffy doesn't get to be a person with feelings of her own - she has to be the Hero.
The thing that frustrates Xander - is that he doesn't have the power. If Buffy can't bring herself to fight Angelus, that's all there is. Because Xander doesn't have the power to do it himself. So he feels impotent, and reduced to agitating however he can to get Buffy to do the thing he wants done. Which may or may not be the right thing in this case (there are realy strong Machiavellian and moral arguments in favor of resouling Angel in Becoming) but is not the right thing in Revelations.
no subject
"I just think you want your boyfriend back" is a response to members of the gang wanting to re-ensoul Angel. His stance is that Angel should not be re-ensouled and all forgiven, but that Angel should be killed. I see his point. I don't agree with him completely, but I still don't think he's accusing Buffy of shirking responsibility so much as saying "No, Angel shouldn't get his soul back, Angel deserves to die." It's a moral stance. Buffy was acting as though she was ready to kill Angel and that it was time for her to do it and Xander stood behind that decision, but when this new option came along Xander said "No, I disapprove of this option, I think we should stick with the original plan." Ok, he used more words and was a dick about it (no argument there) but I still don't think he was saying "You're not entitled to your feelings because you have to be the Hero" so much as "Right now all of your feelings are clouding your judgment." I have argued with friends whom I felt were making decisions with their hearts instead of their heads, but it wasn't because I expected them to magically be able to suppress their feelings, it was simply that I was trying to get them to see reason. (I have just checked a transcript of that scene, and he never even says to her "You need to kill Angel." He says to the group that Angel needs to die, that that is what their plan should be, rather than re-ensoulment. Anyway, in the end he's outvoted isn't he, and he helps with the spell.)
In Revelations, Xander's anger is over Buffy hiding her relationship with Angel, and carrying on with him again despite what happened after the last time. He implies he'd like to see Angel hurt, but he never says to Buffy "You should kill him, and you're being irresponsible by not doing so." (And obviously I mean that this is not in the *subtext* of his words either, for those who seem to think I want characters to say things outright.) He's just not crazy about the hiding and the smoochies. His decision to go after Angel with Faith was completely wrong though. Thank goodness the attack on Giles made him stop and see reason himself.
no subject
But he's directing it at Buffy. It's hard for me not to see the implication of "this is what you are supposed to be doing Buffy"... After all, generally, it's not Giles' job to go take vampires head on, and generally Giles gets knocked out when he tries.
no subject
Of course, the nature of their universe being what it is, the prophesised-about will always end up being the pivotal figures, the lynch-pins holding together the team. Perhaps that's really the key point when we're talking about who gets to be Jordon -- or has no choice except to take on the Jordon role.
no subject
But as a whole, AtS is more fluid. Because while Angel can deliver a big success that the other's can't - he's also seen as a risk for a disastrous wrong turn. (By himself and others) And that huge negative hangs over him, in a way it doesn't really with Buffy. And the nature of the challenges they face is such that he doesn't have that clearly dominant, natural role, that Buffy had early on in Sunnydale.
In AtS1, he does, but less so as time passes.
no subject
I disagree that Angel doesn't have a clear-cut dominant role. Angel gave up the title but not the role. Even when he gives up leadership to Wesley, Angel still calls the shots when he wants to call the shots. He is the de facto leader. I clearly remember at least one scene when Angel calls out the game plan, and then everyone looks uncomfortably at Wes who stammers that yes, that would be his plan too. Angel thinks of himself as leader and the team, right down to Wes, also think of him as the leader even when on the surface they've taken away the title.
no subject
The interesting thing to me, though, is that I think Buffy could have gotten superstar treatment from the people around her if she'd demanded it. The council doesn't bend on Angel in S3, but two years later - when she demands Giles be re-hired and given back pay, they cave.
Buffy, if she'd wanted to, could have been MJ, or TO, or Van Halen demanding a bowl of M&Ms with the green ones all picked out. It's to her credit, the degree to which a Diva she doesn't rise... in a lot of ways, I think she might have been a bit more fulfilled in life had she. I think she would have gotten more out of some people had she been demanding.
Now - the issue of why she feels she isn't supposed to be demanding - that's a different one, and where ME's gender assumptions come in, IMHO.
no subject
Buffy could have been more demanding and seen results. But I wonder if the other characters could have been more accomadating of a less traditionally masculine leadership style. Why must she forced to become more "masculine" to assume power as leader? Buffy did take on more masculine leadership traits as the series progressed, and the more she conformed to these demands, the more everyone disliked her for not meeting their expectations.
Now I'm just randomly babbling.
no subject
And it's something I come to see differenly because of my engagement with sports. (Cue Bob Costas metaphor for life stuff...) And how odd it is for me to see a star athlete not be accorded the prerogatives that come with having that power. On a gender in sports level, it's sort of interesting to see cases where women are playing against men - such as Michelle Wie and Annika Sorenstam or Danica Patrick. And how different people handle it. But it'll be another manner entirely if we had women & men in team sports...
no subject
This is only in the very early days of Wesley as leader, though -- actually, I'd that scene you mention is unique to the episode "Belonging". By the time the Pylea arc is over and Season 3 starts up, we see Wes firmly in the leader role. He's the one who calls the shots when it comes to how they will conduct their investigations, and he even does a lot of the leading in battle. Sure, Angel may take point when they're in the heat of battle, but for most of Season 3 Wes is clearly (and comfortably) in charge.
I think that's one of the most interesting things about Angel versus Buffy -- the fluid nature of the team, of who is in charge and when and for what aspects of the mission. The Scoobies are, interestingly enough, much more hierarchical, their roles delineated much more clearly.
Having said that though, I do agree with you that if Angel had been determined to oust Wes as leader (not in late S2, cuz the gang was still wary of him, but later in S3 before Wesley's betrayal) he probably could've done it just on sheer "star power". He is the vampire with the soul, the one with the prophecies and the super strength. And Wes, as much as he felt he was doing a good job leading, would have deferred to Angel because he believes in Angel's specialness.
no subject
I would conditionally disagree. I agree that Wesley did indeed grow more comfortable in the leader role and Angel also grew more comfortable letting Wesley fill those shoes, but at the times in S3 when Angel *wanted* to call the shots... he called them. Not Wesley. Case in point: That Vision Thing Wesley disagreed with Angel's game plan of using the portal and freeing Billy, wanting to slow things down and find out more about what was really going on... Angel just said, "It's Cordy." and did things his way. Wesley even admitted that he couldn't make Angel obey him (Wesley) under this set of circumstances. Fast forward a couple of more eps. Wesley is still the leader and now we have a pregnant Darla on the scene. When the gang is trying to figure out what the baby is, and how to deal with it... it is *Angel* who says (I can't rememeber the exact quote, but this is the gist): There will be no flaming or chopping or [killing the baby], etc... Anyone not gonna help me with this can leave now."
Basically, when it was something that really mattered to Angel, he acted as alpha, no matter who else might nominally be boss.
no subject
no subject