PDA

View Full Version : Bangel is good on one show. It's bad when straddling two



ghoststar
31-12-18, 04:39 PM
It’s no secret that my only real OTP in the Buffyverse is Sprusilla. That said, I like plenty of the other ships, including Bangel… up until he dumps her and disappears, and Buffy remains obsessed with him.

I always find myself rooting for Bangel in seasons 2 and 3, for all the usual reasons: They’re star-crossed lovers, they have massive hurt/comfort potential, and I really want Buffy to get some before a demon kills her. I’m not super-crazy about Angel, but if being with him will make Buffy happy, I’m all for it. And I could see it working out, even with the curse and him leaving town, if he had remained committed. I’d be fine with a long-distance relationship where he respected her ability to choose her own boyfriend and trying to de-bug the ensoulment curse was a major background arc of his show.

What annoys me is that, instead, the writers had them break up without letting Buffy move on. Angel ditches her. Not only that, but he moves to a different city, specifically to put more distance between them. They don’t even remain close friends. I get his reasons; Buffy gets his reasons; it’s all very sad; and then I look forward to seeing Buffy exploring her options without constantly taking her ex into account.

Season 4 gets a pass here: Plenty of people go through a grieving period after the end of a major relationship, still hope they can restore it, etc. After that, it’s just weird.

In season 5′s “Forever,” Angel shows up after the death of her mother and comforts her by holding her in the cemetery. This would be touching, if we had any evidence that they had remained friends. Instead, they’ve pretty much instituted a bilateral stay-out-of-my-town rule. She doesn’t even know he’s coming; she just stays out in the hopes that he’ll show up. That shows a serious degree of desperation on Buffy’s part, which might have made sense post-resurrection, but requires some highly questionable writing for Buffy and the Scoobies in season 5.
Are we really supposed to believe that no one would invite her to spend the night with them, or ask if she wanted them to stay over, or check to make sure that their distracted Slayer made it home before the vampires came out? Further, Buffy herself doesn’t know until after the funeral that Dawn wants to sleep over at Willow and Tara’s. I have a hard time believing that Buffy would’ve sent Dawn home alone, on the day of their mother’s funeral, so that she could wait to see if her ex showed up to cuddle her at the graveyard; however, he clearly believes that she would.

It’s a bit more understandable that Buffy would need a non-Scooby confidant in season 6, when she says she needs to meet up with Angel between Sunnydale and L.A. (”Flooded”)– but she’s already spilled her secret to Spike (”After Life”), by this time a major source of emotional and physical support. Is a guy she talks to maybe a couple of times a year somehow an upgrade?

Most egregious in this regard is season 7. First, we have Buffy declaring that she loved Angel “more than I will ever love anything in this world” (”Selfless”). Really? More than she can even imagine loving another, future romantic interest? More than she loves Dawn?
Later, in “End of Days,” Angel makes a surprise visit to Sunnydale to help in the fight against the First Evil. This seems legit, but her first impulse is to start making out with him, even before he gets around to explaining the “why” of his presence. In fact, Buffy states that his reasons come second to the opportunity to kiss: “I just want to bask” (”Chosen”). That would be a normal reaction to seeing one’s current lover, not someone who broke up with them 4 years earlier, in high school, and has only maintained sporadic and sometimes vitriolic contact with them since.

The most charitable explanation for why the writers chose to have Buffy continue to pine for Angel is that they wanted us to view it as her longing less for Angel himself than for a time when she felt more romantic and hopeful. That would not paint Buffy in the most flattering light, but it would be consistent with her other actions (surrounding herself with childhood mementos, treating her later boyfriends as symbolic of various states of being, etc). Sadly, it doesn’t hold water: It doesn’t explain the baffling absence of emotional support between Buffy, Dawn, and the Scoobies in season 5, nor does it address why she needs to meet him alone in season 6.

As it is, I’m left with the distinct impression that the writers subconsciously bought into the cult of female-virginity worship. In contrast to the male characters with women, and to some of the “bad” and morally ambiguous female characters, Buffy and Willow never truly move on to other men. (In an exception to the “bad girls” rule, Drusilla, described as a virgin before Angelus turned her, can’t seem to stop cheating on Spike with Angelus, for no obvious reason other than that she had had sex with Angelus before meeting Spike; see “Lie to Me,” “What’s My Line, Part 2,” “Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered,” and, on AtS, “Darla”.) By dating women, Willow, at least, is able to find relationships that aren’t defined by her new lovers’ not-Oz-ness. Buffy, whose canon relationships during the series are all with men, simply never connects to any of them the way she did to Angel. No matter whom she dates, she’s still carrying a torch for her first lover; he remains the ultimate comfort during times of stress (despite seldom being present); and she flat-out states that she will never love anyone else as much. It adds up to an unfortunate implication: That her first affair will always intrude on her future relationships, both platonic and romantic. She is damaged goods.

Like I said, I don’t believe that the writers sent this message intentionally. I think that they tried to think through Buffy’s characterization and write her as a resilient, strong, and lovable person. But how lovable can she be, if she can only ever really return Angel’s love? Their failure in this aspect says a great deal about the intense double standard even in the (relatively) modern West. The assumption that a woman’s perpetual devotion to her first lover is grand and romantic has long pervaded our culture, to the extent that people attempting, with great deliberation, to write a feminist text couldn’t see its flip side: That a woman’s inability to move on is not a “good” part of her character, but rather a weakness imposed by society. In her obsession with her first, now-former, lover, Buffy represents the negative aspect of what most writers of the 90s and early 00s considered a positive feminine trait.

TriBel
31-12-18, 05:53 PM
Most egregious in this regard is season 7. First, we have Buffy declaring that she loved Angel “more than I will ever love anything in this world” (”Selfless”). Really? More than she can even imagine loving another, future romantic interest? More than she loves Dawn? She says a similar thing about Joyce in Intervention "And now my mom is gone ... and I loved her more than anything". TBH, I think it's a cliche. IMO, S7 is about the inadequacy and unreliability of language, and how to transcend the spoken word (it's why I'm happy with the insistence that Spike's not her "boyfriend").


As it is, I’m left with the distinct impression that the writers subconsciously bought into the cult of female-virginity worship. I don't think it's unconscious - IMO, it's deliberately written in.

ghoststar
31-12-18, 07:02 PM
She says a similar thing about Joyce in Intervention "And now my mom is gone ... and I loved her more than anything". TBH, I think it's a cliche. IMO, S7 is about the inadequacy and unreliability of language, and how to transcend the spoken word (it's why I'm happy with the insistence that Spike's not her "boyfriend").

I don't think it's unconscious - IMO, it's deliberately written in.

That's a good point about language in S7, but I still find the case in "Selfless" striking, because we already saw Buffy face much the same choice as with Angel in "Becoming," only with Dawn in "The Weight of the World" and "The Gift"-- and she chose differently. That may have been because of where she was, emotionally and philosophically, in S5; after all, she does say in "LMPTM" that she would now sacrifice Dawn (albeit without explaining why her perspective has shifted again). However, since the situation hasn't arisen since "The Gift," we don't have anything except an untested line to erase the contrast.

I can't see any reason why the writers would deliberately set out to portray women as unable to "get over" their first lovers. The show's writers were self-consciously feminist, in attempt if not always execution; no one in their right mind would think it through the double standard and decide that upholding it was feminist. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they didn't think it through.

Skippcomet
01-01-19, 07:44 AM
The writers were never, ever as intellectually rigorous as you are pretending (or fooling yourselves into thinking, sorry) they were. If you suspect that they didn't think something through, assume that they didn't. One of the complaints I've seen made about Joss and his feminism, both on these forums and elsewhere, is that he was "only" a third-wave feminism who didn't "evolve" his feminism as the years went by.

This is probably going to piss some people off, but I honestly believe as time has gone by that newcomers to the show hear about how it is/was a "feminist" show and make the mistake of assuming that it is a rigorously feminist manifesto first and foremost, and further make the mistake that it is timelessly feminist, or that its approach to feminist issues applies equally to today's feminist issues or concerns as it did to those of 1996-2003 (the years it was in production, not just when it aired). Buffy was, first and foremost, a television show, and feminism was but one of its themes, not the only one, and there were times it wasn't even the most important one. Joss's existentialist world views, his self-proclaimed humanism and refusal to write off people no matter what their alleged 'crime' (be it murder, sexual assault, rape, trying to destroy the world, or just not being a very good boyfriend every single waking moment), his knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism, the idea that forgiveness is something that people need whether or not somebody thought they deserved it, and probably more than I can come up with at the top of my head.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the writer's room was full of conversations about how this or that plotline, or character choice, or relationship drama, etc., adhered to cutting edge feminist thought today, because it wasn't even about adhering to the cutting edge feminist thought of the late 90s and early 00's. Somebody with better google-fu than I could possibly find Joss's quotes about drama coming from pain, love, sex, etc. That approach to where and how to derive drama usually trumped most (later) concerns about sexual agency, consent, and the POV of characters being victims of other characters (whether it was Buffy as a victim of Spike's attack in Seeing Red, whether or not Faith sexually assaulted Riley and/or Buffy in Who Are You? or Xander in Consequences, or charges that Xander metaphorically raped all the women in town with the love spell in BB&B, again off the top of my head).

Long story short: neither the show, nor its writers and producers, was as intellectually rigorous in its approach to feminism (and probably other themes) as fans today like to think it was.

vampmogs
01-01-19, 08:29 AM
The writers were never, ever as intellectually rigorous as you are pretending (or fooling yourselves into thinking, sorry) they were. If you suspect that they didn't think something through, assume that they didn't. One of the complaints I've seen made about Joss and his feminism, both on these forums and elsewhere, is that he was "only" a third-wave feminism who didn't "evolve" his feminism as the years went by.

This is probably going to piss some people off, but I honestly believe as time has gone by that newcomers to the show hear about how it is/was a "feminist" show and make the mistake of assuming that it is a rigorously feminist manifesto first and foremost, and further make the mistake that it is timelessly feminist, or that its approach to feminist issues applies equally to today's feminist issues or concerns as it did to those of 1996-2003 (the years it was in production, not just when it aired). Buffy was, first and foremost, a television show, and feminism was but one of its themes, not the only one, and there were times it wasn't even the most important one. Joss's existentialist world views, his self-proclaimed humanism and refusal to write off people no matter what their alleged 'crime' (be it murder, sexual assault, rape, trying to destroy the world, or just not being a very good boyfriend every single waking moment), his knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism, the idea that forgiveness is something that people need whether or not somebody thought they deserved it, and probably more than I can come up with at the top of my head.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the writer's room was full of conversations about how this or that plotline, or character choice, or relationship drama, etc., adhered to cutting edge feminist thought today, because it wasn't even about adhering to the cutting edge feminist thought of the late 90s and early 00's. Somebody with better google-fu than I could possibly find Joss's quotes about drama coming from pain, love, sex, etc. That approach to where and how to derive drama usually trumped most (later) concerns about sexual agency, consent, and the POV of characters being victims of other characters (whether it was Buffy as a victim of Spike's attack in Seeing Red, whether or not Faith sexually assaulted Riley and/or Buffy in Who Are You? or Xander in Consequences, or charges that Xander metaphorically raped all the women in town with the love spell in BB&B, again off the top of my head).

Long story short: the show, nor its writers and producers, wasn't as intellectually rigorous in its approach to feminism (and probably other themes) as fans today like to think it was.

I agree with this. I mean, there's even episodes like I Only Have Eyes For You that feature Cordy planning to protest the girls having to ask the boys to the Sadie Hawking's dance and Xander saying that it must've been the idea of "some hairy-legged feminist." Now, I'm not saying characters should be written to only say politically correct things, but I never come away from that scene thinking that the show is critiquing either character for their ignorance the way you'd expect an ardent feminist text would. And it's not as if the series isn't rife with day-to-day casual misogyny ("Ok it's a big dumb girly thing but I love it" "It's not so girly. Ice is cool") or that some of the most memorable plots of the series are particularly feminist, as you say.

I do try and hold Buffy to a certain standard because the writers (mainly Whedon) have happily profited from the series being labelled as such for a good two decades now. But I agree with you that in the writer's room, "feminism" wouldn't have been this huge priority that fans seem to think it was. In fact, one of the strangest things I ever remember Whedon saying is that his other shows (I can't recall if he was talking about Firefly or Dollhouse) weren't ever intended to be "feminist." It always struck me as odd because if one considers themselves a feminist then I'd assume that most things they'd write would include feminism. It always stood out to me and made me realise that whilst I do believe Joss believes in equality in his daily life that "feminism" was simply one of many themes he liked to explore but not something he intended to be the driving force in any of his stories.

As for the topic of the thread, I'm not all that bothered by Buffy being unable to get over Angel because I think it makes logical sense within the story. More so, would the story be any more "feminist" if by Season 7 it had Buffy overcome her first love/Angel and then, what, partner up with Spike? I mean, talking about jumping from the frying pan straight into the fire. Neither relationship exactly passes the "feminist" test with flying colours :lol: If we were truly after a feminist relationship then Buffy would really have to be starting with a blank slate. I think first and foremost the writers were more interested in telling interesting stories and given Whedon's penchant for dysfunction, drama, darkness and pain, that was often antithetical to depicting what most would consider a healthy "feminist" relationship.

flow
01-01-19, 11:50 AM
ghoststar:
In season 5′s “Forever,” Angel shows up after the death of her mother and comforts her by holding her in the cemetery. This would be touching, if we had any evidence that they had remained friends.

I actually view this scene as the first proof of how much both Buffy and Angel have moved on and become estranged from one another. I agree, that it is a bit pathetic, how she stays back for hours at Joyce`s grave, waiting for him. I always assumed, that someone must have called him - maybe Willow? -, that he confirmed he would be driving to Sunnydale and that Willow had told Buffy so. Otherwise it would simply not make sense for her to stand in the cemetary and wait for him.

In this scene, Buffy says something like "It´s tomorrow, I am afraid of." and Angel asks "What is tomorrow?". When I first saw that scene, I nearly dropped of the sofa. I looked at the screen, compeltely baffled and shouted at Angel "What? Are you seriously asking her that, Dude?" It shows, how detached he has become from her.

When she leaves to meet him in season 6 she is excited. Almost happy. When she returns, she is more depressed than ever. You could see that as her being depressed, because they had to seperate once again after a happy reunion. I don`t. I think, she was depressed, because the meeting did not meet up to her expectations. At all. Probably because she hardly knows him anymore and he hardly knows her anymore. She realizes, that it´s over. One more thing, she has lost.

Yes, it is true, that it takes a long time. But she is only eighteen, when they break up. It`s an age, where we are not yet used to loosing someone we love. We feel it is the end of the world. We don`t know yet, that we will love again and loose again. Therefore I can understand, that she can never completely let go of the love she has felt for Angel and the importance he had in her life. I don`t think, it means, she can`t move on or does not move on. Parker might be a rebound guy and one of the many strains on her realtionship with Riley was probably the fact that she hadn`t completely let go of her feelings for Angel back when they started dating. But she seems to be free of the burden of the everlasting, true and grand love in season 5 and I believe her to be genuine, when she says to Riley, that she gave him her heart, body and soul.

flow

vampmogs
01-01-19, 12:18 PM
Wait. Why are people assuming that Buffy waited for Angel "hoping" he'd come or that Willow called him? Why not assume that Buffy called Angel and she was in fact waiting for him because they'd agreed to meet? Isn't that the far more logical and obvious conclusion to make? I don't get it? :headscratch:

I mean, Buffy isn't at all surprised that Angel appears behind her. She simply clasps her hand around his. Angel then apologises that he couldn't get there sooner. Later, Buffy tells Angel that she's "grateful" he came because "she didn't think she'd last the night." All of this points to Buffy phoning up Angel and asking him to be with her. I'm drawing a total blank at how people would interpret it differently or why people would think Willow called Angel and not Buffy herself? :blink:



When she leaves to meet him in season 6 she is excited. Almost happy. When she returns, she is more depressed than ever. You could see that as her being depressed, because they had to seperate once again after a happy reunion. I don`t. I think, she was depressed, because the meeting did not meet up to her expectations. At all. Probably because she hardly knows him anymore and he hardly knows her anymore. She realizes, that it´s over. One more thing, she has lost.

This doesn't really fit with this moment from All the Way, though;

(From the Shooting Script)

ANYA
I know. I'm the luckiest ex-demon in
the world. To be able to find the
one person in all dimensions that I
was meant to be with... and have
everything work out just the way I
dreamed. How often does the universe
allow that to happen?

She hugs Xander close, not seeing how her words have hit Buffy right in the Angel parallel. Buffy and Xander eye each other, both feeling the need to escape.

According to the script, Buffy is so bummed out by Anya's words because she still considers Angel "the one person in all dimensions she was meant to be with" but, in her case, the universe didn't "allow that to happen." And that's two episodes after her reunion with Angel.

TriBel
01-01-19, 12:50 PM
I can't see any reason why the writers would deliberately set out to portray women as unable to "get over" their first lovers. The show's writers were self-consciously feminist, in attempt if not always execution; no one in their right mind would think it through the double standard and decide that upholding it was feminist. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they didn't think it through.

I meant, IMO it's deliberately written in as a critique of the psycho-social.


The show's writers were self-consciously feminist I agree (or at least I think I do - I don't know them well enough - I'm just working with the text :D) but the idea of "getting over the first love" means something completely different depending on whether you're reading from a position of liberal feminism or a post-structural / postmodern feminism (a broad term I'm using to refer to ideas that bridge the French feminists, post-structuralism and psychoanalysis. I have problems with the term "feminism" and prefer to use it in the plural because some feminist discourses are antithetical to others). From the perspective of the latter, the child's first love is the mother (damn...and it now makes perfect sense that she'd use the same phrase to describe her love for Joyce as she does for Angel :rolling:). In effect, there are two "first loves" - getting over her love for Angel is (as flow's pointed out) difficult. Getting over "the desire of and for the mother" is almost impossible. What's important (to me) is not what each character is in and of themselves but what each represent in terms of fundamental symbolic/imaginary structures - the realms of the masculine and the feminine. I think Spike's function is to bridge the two realms. I've found BtVS remarkably consistent in this.

Actually, I wasn't responding to the whole argument but to this line specifically:
As it is, I’m left with the distinct impression that the writers subconsciously bought into the cult of female-virginity worship.

I think it's deliberately written into her relationship with both vampires (though perhaps not in the sense you mean it) because both relationships are (IMO) grounded in "pre-turning" (in some ways pre-historic) relationships. Angel's with his father and his sister. Spike's with his mother. What we see in A11 is Angel recovering repressed knowledge of both his father and his sister: knowledge that hinges on key terms such as "Remember Me" and "Innocence". In light of this knowledge, his relationships with Buffy and Frillyria makes perfect sense (though it's inferable prior to A11). With regards to Spike, it's probably more complex but perhaps we can see some of it in this explanation of one of Kristeva's (a "French Feminist") key ideas: "The mother's body represents a threat, and in her essay Stabat Mater Kristeva demonstrates how the threat of the mother is brought under control, domesticated in the myth of the Holy Virgin, Mother of Christ. She argues that the Christian virginal representation of the maternal satisfies the aims of the (phallocentric) Symbolic Order because the Virgin is the impossible ideal up to which all women are held, and serves as mother, daughter and wife to the Holy Son". https://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/61009.pdf

Do I think that the presence of a Madonna and Child icon in the Church and in the Mission is a coincidence? In short, no. Isn't the message about the scythe hidden behind a statue of the Madonna (I forget)? Similarly, I don't think the (ambivalent) reappearance of Joyce in S7 is a coincidence and we know (from LMPTM) how Spike deals with both the threat to, and the threat of, his mother's body. Isn't Anne "mother, daughter (he cares for her) and wife (I'm not alluding to actual incest but the absence of a father). Doesn't Dru also fit this paradigm?

Much of what I think hinges on the concept of the abject and abjection. The following essays make a feature of it (I've only read the Cover essay).

"Im/Material Girl: Abjection, Penetration, and the Postmodern Body on Buffy the Vampire Slayer" Jasmine Yong Hall http://www.whedonstudies.tv/uploads/2/6/2/8/26288593/hall.pdf

"Actualizing Abjection: Drusilla, the Whedonverses’ Queen of Queerness" Anthony Stepniak http://www.whedonstudies.tv/uploads/2/6/2/8/26288593/2.stepniak_-_slayage_15.2.pdf

(Re)Cognising the Body: Performativity, Embodiment and Abject Selves in Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Rob Cover http://www.aesthethika.org/IMG/pdf/Coverv2n1.pdf


More so, would the story be any more "feminist" if by Season 7 it had Buffy overcome her first love/Angel and then, what, partner up with Spike? I mean, talking about jumping from the frying pan straight into the fire. Neither relationship exactly passes the "feminist" test with flying colours

You could argue that something similar happens in S7 - and yes, for me, there's a "feminist" agenda" - the recovery of the mother's body. I think the way it's done is really clever.


I think first and foremost the writers were more interested in telling interesting stories and given Whedon's penchant for dysfunction, drama, darkness and pain, that was often antithetical to depicting what most would consider a healthy "feminist" relationship.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Again, it depends on your definition of "feminism". I was at University in the early 90s. I know what critical texts were influential at the time - one of them was Barbara Creed's The Monstrous Feminine. Creed's (now canonical) text deals with the following: Archaic Mother in Alien (1979). Possessed Monster in The Exorcist (1973). Monstrous Womb in The Brood (1979). Vampire in The Hunger (1983). Witch in Carrie (1976). Femme Castratrice in I Spit on Your Grave (1978) and Sisters (1973). Castrating Mother in Psycho (1960). These motifs abound in BtVS (sometimes it accepts them without question, sometimes it deconstructs them). That the writers were aware of film criticism is there in the naming of Robin Wood. There's every reason to believe they were aware of feminist film criticism.

flow
01-01-19, 12:53 PM
vampmogs
According to the script, Buffy is so bummed out by Anya's words because she still considers Angel "the one person in all dimensions she was meant to be with" but, in her case, the universe didn't "allow that to happen." And that's two episodes after her reunion with Angel.

No, according to the script, Buffy is bummed out by the Angel parallel. Your interpretation is, that the part about Angel being the one person for her is the parallel. My interpretion is, that the part about "it didn`t work out that way" is the parallel.

flow

TriBel
01-01-19, 12:58 PM
I know. I'm the luckiest ex-demon in the world. To be able to find the one person in all dimensions that I was meant to be with... and have everything work out just the way I dreamed. How often does the universe allow that to happen?

a) it doesn't happen. b) I'm always suspect of "the one" (with one, at one implies completion. Buffy describes being dead as "feeling complete) and c) it's a fantasy (I dreamed. That would probably be my parallel).

vampmogs
01-01-19, 01:01 PM
vampmogs

No, according to the script, Buffy is bummed out by the Angel parallel. Your interpretation is, that the part about Angel being the one person for her is the parallel. My interpretion is, that the part about "it didn`t work out that way" is the parallel.

flow

... you can't have one without the other. The universe "not allowing that to happen", if that's all that was said, is generic and could make Buffy think of absolutely anyone. But that's not all Anya says, is it? Anya specifically refers to "the one person in all dimensions she is meant to be with" and Buffy specifically thinks of one of person - Angel. Not Riley, not Scott Hope, not Parker. Thus, it's obvious that Buffy therefore must think of Angel as "the one person in all dimensions she was meant to be with" otherwise why does the script specifically state it's an "Angel parallel?" Why not a "Riley parallel"? That relationship didn't work out either and yet, Buffy doesn't think of Riley when Anya talks about the person she was "meant to be with." Buffy's had several failed relationships by this point - but the script only specifies Angel.

flow
01-01-19, 01:23 PM
Yes. Does not contradict, what I am saying though.

flow

vampmogs
01-01-19, 01:32 PM
Also, this;


Further, Buffy herself doesn’t know until after the funeral that Dawn wants to sleep over at Willow and Tara’s.

is not correct. Dawn tells Buffy prior to the funeral that she wants to spend the night at Willow and Tara's;

DAWN
What are we going to do - after?
I mean, we're not just coming back
here are we?

BUFFY
I guess. I don't know. How about "At
the request of the family, there will be
no wake following the burial?"

XANDER
Good. It's got flow.

DAWN
I don't want to come back here.

Dawn's last comment goes unnoticed as Willow returns from the kitchen and Xander moves to Buffy, who's looking at the program lay out.

BUFFY
Where do I put it? On top, here?
Or on the bottom?

DAWN
(to Willow)
Maybe I could go to your place tomorrow?

WILLOW
Tomorrow?

DAWN
Yeah. After everything? I don't want
to come back to the house and stuff.
I don't want to be here.

WILLOW
But maybe you and Buffy should… It's
sort of a question for your sister. It's
fine with me.

DAWN
(to Buffy)
Can I?

Buffy and Xander are engrossed in the program lay out.

BUFFY
Humm?

DAWN
Can I go to Willow's tomorrow
after the service?

Buffy's a little thrown by the question.

BUFFY
If you want. I guess so…

Dawn doesn't wait for her to change her mind. Eager for something to do, she starts out of the room.

DAWN
I'll get my sleeping bag out of the attic.


Which is why it makes sense that Buffy would call Angel to be with her as she already knew from the previous day that she'd be spending the night without Dawn after the funeral.