Jumping through hoops for character bashing
carlyinrome wrote The following essay comparing Xander to Shakespeare's Iago. I strongly disagree with this essay and was more than a little offended by parts of it. Rather than have to post my reply on her LJ in little chunks, I'm just going to post it here:
Jumping through hoops for character bashing. A response to: Othello in 'Becoming II', or How Xander is Iago
Alternate title: Xander sucks, and I've had too much college.
I'm sorry, but I think this is one of the most ridiculous deconstructions of the Buffyverse that I've ever read, and I'm shocked that so many people seem to think otherwise.
Angel and Buffy both as Othello/Desdemona? Xander as Iago? The sheer number of hoops you have to jump through to make these connections is mind-boggling. I’ll do my best to go through them all. I apologize about the sometimes combative nature of this response, but honestly I was somewhat offended by some of the assertions you make.
Here we go:
Both Angel and Buffy, in this way, are put in Othello’s position; Angel is Other because he is a vampire,
Angel is a vampire. He’s not a moor. He’s not simply a member of another tribe or another land. He’s a murderous demon that feeds on human beings. Yes, he has a soul, but he is the only one of his kind to have this. Every single other member of his group is (rightly so) portrayed as being pure evil that one should kill without remorse.
Iago was a trusted friend of Othello’s. Xander, by contrast, never made any attempt whatsoever to disguise the fact that he disliked and (post soul-loss) actively despised Angel, soul or no soul. Angel and Xander’s relationship is therefore completely lacking the parallel of an Iago/Othello relationship in virtually every respect.
Does this make Angel the Desdemona to Xander’s Iago? If so, then that means that Buffy is the Othello. Only Buffy’s not an outsider that Xander is jealous of. Xander’s not afraid that his position was given to a Cassio character. He’s a friend and sometimes wanna-be love interest for Buffy.
Of course you have Buffy and Angel BOTH being Othello, switching back and forth as your premise demands it. I’ll continue:
and Buffy [is an outsider Othello character] because she is a woman.
I don’t know where to begin pointing out how ridiculous that is. Buffy is the star of the show. Buffy is the center around which her friends all gather. Buffy is a woman amongst many other female characters on the show: in the second season it’s almost a perfect 50/50 split, with Giles, Angel, and Xander on one side and Buffy, Willow, and Cordelia on the other. Buffy’s not an outsider because she’s a woman. At no point in the show is Buffy an outsider because of her gender, except maybe in the basic premise of “the blonde cheerleader chased by the monster who turns around and kills the monster.”
This isn’t the real world. Maybe in the real world, Buffy might (and that’s a big might) be considered an outsider simply because of her gender. In the Buffyverse? She’s just as accepted as anyone else in her group, and just as outcast from the rest of the school as anyone in her group. In no way is she othered from either the rest of the Scoobies or the rest of the school. Willow and Xander befriended (or tried to befriend) Buffy BEFORE they found out she was a Slayer, and all three of them, Buffy, Willow, and Xander, are social outcasts amongst the school, with Xander and Willow being outcasts before the show even began.
So that entire premise of othering is deeply flawed right off the bat. Then you go into a whole discussion about Angel and Buffy’s roles as the tacticians and warriors of the group, which is true to a degree, but continues to ignore the point about Angel being a member of an otherwise deadly and villainous group. It’s also mostly pointless in the discussion. When you get to Buffy, you start talking about her as being peers to the others but also having her position based on being a Slayer. This is true, but again: pointless. Simply being a powerful warrior does not make her Othello, nor does it make her similar to him as an outsider amongst her peer group. Buffy is not accepted merely because of her abilities, she’s accepted because of who she is, hence why Xander, Willow, and Jesse befriend her before finding out she’s a Slayer. Buffy’s the kind of person they like, so she’s their friend, with or without powers. She would not be cast out if she were powerless.
If Buffy were not the Slayer, how would the other members of the group - especially Xander and Giles - treat her? Would they treat her the way they do Cordelia?
Only if she acted like Cordelia, which upon her introduction into the show, she doesn’t. Now maybe her personality would not have changed if she’d never become a Slayer, but that has nothing to do with what you’re driving at here. Buffy is not self-centered, insulting, or cliqueish like Cordelia is, nor is she portrayed at all similarly to Cordelia.
were she not the Slayer, would she be straggling at the rear, the butt of the occasional, “ha ha, you dress like a whore” joke?
No, and shame on you for suggesting it. You’re trying to paint a picture of Buffy simply being Cordelia with superpowers, but that’s untrue and frankly stupid. You also seem to be trying to make some kind of inflammatory connection that the other members of the group “especially Xander and Giles” would treat Buffy like a sexual object or otherwise demean her due to her femininity if she weren’t the Slayer.
Just like how they’re both constantly telling Willow to shake her moneymakers whenever she walks into a room, right?
Maybe you’re not really trying to draw that parallel there, but if you are then I repeat: shame on you.
So Buffy and Angel are Othered, and they will, at turns, play Othello. Angel will sometimes also find himself in Cassio’s place.
And sometimes Xander will be Iago, but other times Xander is Cassio, and sometimes Xander is actually Desdemona but with just a hint of Othello thrown in, simmered for twenty minutes, and then mixed with just a dash of King Lear for extra spice.
if Angel is Othello, and Buffy is his lover, then Buffy becomes Desdemona. Similarly, if Buffy is Othello, and Angel is her lover, then Angel becomes Desdemona. Of course, since Buffy can also be the virgin, and the innocent, and can be seen simply for her sex...
Again you make the ridiculous assertion that Buffy can be seen only for her sex, despite no other female character on the show being treated that way at any time, not even the “brunt of whore jokes” Cordelia. This is one of the major failings of your entire premise, and honestly to me it seems a bit sexist. But I’m a guy, so maybe I can’t judge such things.
and Angel cannot, Buffy will be Desdemona more ably than Angel.
Angel as a man cannot be judged by his gender or for his sex, according to you. So Buffy is the Desdemona, even though it’s Buffy who winds up killing Angel based on “Iago/Xander’s” cruel lies, making her the Othello and Angel the Desdemona. Again, you’re having to force the characters back and forth into the roles in order to make this analogy fit, and it just doesn’t work.
And then there’s Xander. Xander is not Othered;
I beg your pardon? Xander is the most Othered character in the entire show. Like Buffy and Willow, he is ostracized by the rest of the school community. Unlike Buffy and Willow, he has no special abilities or unique assistance he can add to the group. He’s the useless addition in a group that is otherwise full of people with incredible abilities. Of everyone in the group, he is the one who is most often left out and left alone.
Xander is, when you think about it, kind of the poster boy for the majority. He’s white, he’s male, he’s “normal;” he has no pesky supernatural powers to differentiate him from the pack. Xander Harris is the majority; he is what Buffy and Angel are Othered from.
Again: this is truly ridiculous. In our society yes, on the surface being a white male might suggest that one is part of a majority. This is of course not always the case. Being a gay white male doesn’t mean you’re part of the majority. Being an atheist white male doesn’t mean you’re part of the majority. Being an evil racist white male doesn’t mean you’re part of the majority. White maleness does not, by itself, mean one cannot be an outsider.
Especially since: THIS ISN’T THE REAL WORLD! This is a fictional realm of evil, demons, vampires, and other incredible things. This is a guy who is surrounded by a Watcher, a Witch, a Slayer, a Vampire, a “Technopagan,” and a Werewolf. In fact, the only character without a particular superpower or important asset they can use for the group is Cordelia, who is the most accepted person in the entire school!
So that is also one of the major points of your premise that just kind of falls apart “when you think about it.”
But being in the majority is not enough to make Xander Iago. He also needs the implicit trust of the group, despite his ulterior, self-serving motives.
The ulterior, self-serving motives that we’re simply taking your word for? Cause I don’t recall any self-serving motives on Xander’s behalf. I recall group-serving motives mixed with human anger and bad decision making, but I don’t recall self-serving motives.
You then talk ab out how the group trusts Xander and is almost never questioned (except of course, for when he is. But we’ll pretend those times don’t exist.) Then we come to this, where we’ll learn about Xander’s unpure motives and his apparently rampant misogyny.
Xander Iagos Buffy. He lies and manipulates in order to get things he wants, things he feels, as the majority, he deserves. What is interesting about Xander’s Iagoing of Buffy is that it is made complicated because it is defined by her Otherness; Xander would not have the same aim were Buffy not a woman.
Ah, but would Xander have the same aim if he were not a man? Ah ha! Clearly this logic has bested you! And what if Angel were a woman while Xander was a man and Buffy was a man! That, clearly, would show us all...
What exactly?
Yes, Buffy is a woman. Yes, Xander did at one time (and possibly continued to for the course of the series, that’s debatable) “covet” Buffy. Yes, he was hurt and upset that she chose Angel instead of him, and said a few mean things about it when he was rejected. That’s what people do, male or female.
Xander’s line of “guy has to be dead [to be with Buffy]” is not some grand foreshadowing to the dark plot he’s going to hatch to rid the world of Angel. It’s a teenaged boy lashing out because the girl he likes has rejected him. Ooh. Sinister!
So Xander’s aim is not only to best Angel/Cassio, who Buffy/Othello chose instead, it is to “win” Buffy; Buffy herself is the prize that Xander hopes to redeem through his deception.
Okay, hold on while I figure out who is who again. Xander is Iago. Buffy is Othello. Angel is Cassio. Who’s Desdemona? Oh, right, Angel. Except Angel is also Cassio. And sometimes Othello. when he’s not Desdemona, of course.
Okay, let’s see some of this deception! I can’t wait to see Xander’s sinister scheme unfold before us. You give us a little summary of what Iago does to Desdemona’s father, running to him to warn him about Othello “stupping your white ewe.”
Then you decide to make this crazy leap:
Which brings us away from “Becoming II,” which we haven’t actually gotten to yet, my bad, to “Revelations.” Xander happens upon Angel, recently back from the dead, locking lips with Buffy. What does Xander do? He convenes Giles, Willow, and Cordelia to sit trial on Buffy, an “intervention,” as she calls it.
Ah yes, I see how Xander warning the group that the guy who killed Giles’s girlfriend, nearly killed Willow, tortured Giles, plotted a scheme that broke Xander’s arm and led to Kendra’s death, and nearly took over the world was back is EXACTLY like Iago telling Desdemona’s father she was having sex with a black guy. That’s eerie how similar those two events are.
Without consulting her, he has told everyone not only that she has been “harboring a vicious killer” and lying to all of them, but that she and Angel were kissing, which, were his concern really, “Oh my God, that guy that killed a bunch of our friends is back!” should have been toward the bottom of the list of outrages.
Yeah, except for that whole “Angel has sex with Buffy and he turns into a murderous psychopath who kills their friends” part. Hence the worry over Buffy kissing him. Xander is understandably horrified that Buffy would actually kiss the guy, because (and I know, this is shocking) kissing often leads to sexual relations. And as I mentioned: Angel and Buffy sex = murderous rampage.
But no, you’d rather believe this was all part of Xander’s evil-man scheme.
But Xander not only informs the group of Buffy’s romantic indiscretions, he uses her sexuality against her. “What [were you waiting for]? For Angel to go psycho again the next time you give him a happy?” Poor Buffy is just a woman; she cannot be trusted with her own sexuality. Especially when she does that with it.
If what she’s doing with it leads to people dying, then yes, she cannot be trusted with it! Or at the very least you can understand why Xander would think that way. It’s got nothing to do with her being a woman (again: shame on you for this foolish bit of hand waving), it’s got to do with her repeating actions that might lead to Angel killing them all.
Is Xander out of line for not trusting Buffy to stop things before they go too far? That is definitely debatable. I would say he probably is out of line, myself, at least in how he presents it. But he’s not presenting it as the scheming Iago coldly trying to get revenge. He’s presenting it as the angry and scared teenager that he is. He’s outraged, and he has good reason to be outraged. Buffy’s been hiding the fact that someone who killed two of their friends is back, and she’s been hiding that she’s been repeating many of the same actions that led to his massacre in the first place.
But hey, you can just ignore all that stuff, because Xander is a man and Buffy is a woman. Therefore: Xander thinks Buffy is a slut. I guess. I’m not really sure what kind of point you’re making beyond that.
Also, um, you realize that these events happened after Becoming, the scene in which your Buffy/Othello/Desdemona kills her Angel/Desdemona/Othello/Cassio?
Ah, but I see. The first thing that Iago does is the last thing that Xander does! It’s brilliant!
Then you get into how only Othello (who is Buffy? Angel? I can’t keep track) ever listens to Desdemona’s side of the story. Then you say this:
Similarly, the only person who seems interested in Buffy’s thoughts and feelings when the subject is love is Angel, and even he doesn’t do that great a job some of the time, making decisions about their relationship for her (“The Prom”). Anytime the topic is broached with anyone else, their reaction is to tell Buffy that “when it comes to Angel, you can’t see straight,” and “we’re here to help you [make the correct decision]”
We the viewers know the motivations behind Buffy continuing to be with Angel, with her hiding him from the others, and her insistence that she can be with him without going too far. The other characters do not, and to them it looks very much like Buffy has discounted their worries and fears in order to make her own decision.
Giles’s girlfriend was killed by Angelus. Giles was tortured by him. Willow was put into a coma thanks to his minions. It’s not as if they’re talking out of turn. Buffy being with Angel is not just her business, it’s the business of the entire group. They are concerned -- and rightly so -- that Buffy will make a mistake with Angel that leads to more death and destruction.
This isn’t out of any kind of “she’s just a foolish woman, who cares what she thinks?” philosophy. This is because Buffy had been shown to have a hard time making difficult decisions where Angel was concerned. This is all very understandable and makes her a very sympathetic character, but it’s still the truth. They’re afraid she’s not thinking straight, and they’re not out of line in suggesting it.
Xander is the worst one with this, again and again, from his constant demonization of Angel
Angel is a demon! Yes, he’s a demon with a soul (which doesn’t stop him from not attempting to help Buffy in Prophecy Girl, something which very much cements his personality in Xander’s mind as someone not to be trusted), but beyond that he’s a demon without a soul if Buffy makes him feel too good.
Now we as the audience understand, especially later, that what makes Angel change is perfect happiness, not simply physical relations with Buffy. But most of the group doesn’t understand that at this point, so of course Xander is going to demonize the guy.
to his telling Buffy that she is “acting like a crazy person” by “treating Riley like the rebound guy” (“Into the Woods”).
Holy crap. Did you watch that scene? The Into the Woods monologue is Xander almost begging Buffy to go be with another guy other than himself. She can’t be with Angel by both her and Angel’s admission, and she was treating Riley very unfairly at the time. Xander (that evil, scheming, misogynistic bastard who clearly only wants Buffy for himself) has to spell out to Buffy that she’s got something great with Riley and that she needs to go after that.
Jesus, that alone makes your entire argument fall apart. By season 5 at least, Xander is actively participating in Buffy having a successful relationship with someone other than himself. The difference being that Riley is a good guy who has never shown anything but the greatest concern for Buffy, whereas Angel was a vampire who could flip out and kill everyone, and even when he was souled he could still remain indifferent to Buffy’s suffering or imminent death.
Majority Xander does not act as though Buffy’s sexuality belongs to her. Think of his yay, Angel is leaving forever! fantasy in “Surprise”: Xander gleefully imagines Buffy - who is a “Denny’s waitress by day, Slayer by night,” as though Xander doesn’t gift her with enough intelligence or agency to have an actual career - crying gratefully when rich and powerful Xander - “fly[ing] into town in [his] private jet;” apparently, Xander gives himself all the intelligence and agency he’ll need - sweeps her off her feet, and out of Angel’s arms.
Stop it. You don’t really believe that an idle “I’m the wonderful hero compared to everyone else’s patheticness” fantasy is actually what Xander wants, or what he thinks could someday happen. It’s a momentary power-fantasy to show us that Xander dislikes Angel and thinks he’s wrong for Buffy. Buffy would be a waitress because “that’s the kind of life she would have with Angel,” not because she’s mentally deficient in some way. He’s the brilliant and rich hero because it’s a foolish power fantasy in which he is everything that’s wonderful Angel is the evil and despicable rival who is all wrong for Buffy.
It’s got nothing to do with how Xander views Buffy and much more to do with how Xander views himself. He knows he’s not the brilliant and rich hero. He knows that Angel can give Buffy more than he can give her. He doesn’t want that to be true because he doesn’t like Angel, so he has this humorous fantasy to reveal that.
If you’re really using that as an example of Xander’s evil scheming, then you’re stretching things so thin they’re practically transparent.
Why wouldn’t Buffy be grateful to be rescued from the life she’s made for herself? I mean, a poor woman, being rescued by Majority Man? A dream come true.
You can continue to call Xander “Majority Man,” but that doesn’t actually make your assertions that Xander is the status quo make any more sense. Xander is the quintessential outsider in the Buffyverse group, and your attempts to make it appear otherwise don’t really work.
As season two progresses, Buffy and Angel become more and more removed from the group. And they begin, as Othello does toward the end of the play, to Other themselves.
Ah! Back to season two! Good, I can’t wait to see what Xander/Iago’s nefarious time-travelling plan will accomplish next. From Season 3 to Season 5 and back to Season 2! He’s like Marty McFly...IF HE WERE EVIL!
Angelus takes pains to distinguish himself from any scrap of humanity. “Your boyfriend is dead” (“Innocence”). Buffy often finds herself separate from her friends, who all have happy, normal lives with happy, normal relationships, and in the end, she chooses her duties as a Slayer over her family, her normal life.
I don’t know that you can say she chooses her duties over her normal life. If she hadn’t chosen her duties, there would be no normal life. The world would have ended. She decided to fight for the world despite how her own life had fallen apart, a truly noble and heroic act.
Also: Willow is dating a werewolf, Xander (the school outcast) is dating Cordelia (the school queen), and Giles’s girlfriend was murdered by Angelus.
Yes, happy, normal relationships, all.
Then you continue on with Angelus becoming “Othered” even further. By, you know...trying to destroy the world. Just like how Othello was so ostracized by his peers because of how he tried to open up a gateway to hell with a blood sacrifice. Shakespeare’s finest moment, if I do say so myself.
So Angel/Othello is completely Othered now. And as you say “There’s only Iago to contend with.”
Yes, here comes evil Iago to spoil Othello’s world-destroying plans!
In “Becoming II,” as Xander leaves to assist Buffy in her storming of Angel’s mansion, Willow tells him to let Buffy know that she and Oz will be attempting to restore Angel’s soul. When Xander arrives, however, he instead tells Buffy that Willow says to, “kick [Angel’s] ass.”
Is Xander’s lie morally justifiable? Yes and no. It’s an understandable thing that he did, and it’s morally gray as well. Is it evil? Of course not.
Willow just woke up from a coma. Giles was AT THAT VERY MOMENT being tortured by Angelus and Drusilla. Buffy had shown several times in the past that she was hesitant to kill Angelus because of her relationship with Angel. Now she is finally showing the desire to kill Angelus, who has nearly destroyed the group and was responsible (directly and indirectly) for the deaths of two of their friends, Kendra and Jenny Calendar.
So Xander doesn’t tell her that Willow is going to try and restore Angel’s soul. OMG TEH EVOL!
What a truly despicable and Machiavellian turn of events on our evil Xander/Iago’s part. His twisted machinations and seeds of doubt have finally borne fruit as he finally twists the knife to...
Make sure Buffy doesn’t hesitate to kill the bad guy and save the world?
Now I don’t pretend that Xander doesn’t have ulterior motives to holding back Willow’s information. There is a part of him, possibly a major part of him, that simply wants to see Angel dead. Not because Angel is his rival for Buffy, but because Angel KILLED THEIR FRIENDS, NEARLY KILLED WILLOW, AND STILL HAS GILES IN CAPTIVITY.
Just like Othello had kidnapped Iago’s father and almost killed his best friend. My God. You’re so right! They’re exactly the same!
Then you bring up the question of what Buffy would have done with that information. You admit that there’s no way to know what might happen. I agree with you on that, although I do point out that it would be just as likely that Buffy would:
1. Try to stall and fail, leading to her own death. Angelus then may or may not be restored in time to stop Acathla.
2. Try to stall and succeed, keeping Angelus from freeing Acathla. Hooray!
3. Try to stall and fail, leading to pretty much the same events as what happened on the show.
That’s about it.
However, we can guess the answer to a more interesting question: the question of intent. What was Xander’s intent in omitting Willow’s true message, and instead submitting his own agenda? An argument can be made that he was afraid, if Buffy had hope that Angel could be saved, she would immediately become a weak and helpless girl in love instead of the warrior she really needed to be.
I don’t know what kind of strawman idiot would try to make such an argument. Buffy was shown to be unable to bring herself to kill Angelus on any number of occasions. It’s got nothing to do with her being a weak and helpless girl in love (there you go again with the implied sexism), and much more to do with her being a PERSON IN LOVE.
Girl, boy, it doesn’t matter. Buffy loved Angel. Killing him would be extremely difficult no matter what her gender, and she struggled with it in the past. Xander knows this. The world is on the brink of destruction. His friends have almost been killed, some of his friends have already been killed. Buffy appears to be in a place where she can finally stop Angelus’s murderous rampage. Why would he give her a moment of doubt that could risk the entire world?
However. To me it seems much more likely that Xander’s motives are, as usual, purely selfish: Xander does not want Angel to make it out alive
Of course he doesn’t! Angel being alive means he might end the world! He might hurt Willow even further! He might kill Giles! He might kill Buffy or even himself! Why wouldn’t he “selfishly” want to see Angel be dead at this point?
He does not want Buffy and Angel back together; even though he is, at the moment, in a relationship of his own with Cordelia, he is still not happy about the thought of Buffy with another man, especially Angel, his challenger
Oh please. Setting aside the Into the Woods piece which you yourself brought up, in which Xander actively attempts to make sure Buffy is happy with another man, the idea that his sole motivation at this point is to eliminate his romantic rival is PATENTLY ABSURD.
Again, I will point out:
Willow: Just got out of a coma due to Angelus's minions
Giles: in captivity and being tortured, possibly dead as far as Xander or Buffy knows.
Angelus: about to destroy THE ENTIRE WORLD by sucking it into hell.
Kendra: Dead because of Angelus sending Drusilla to attack them.
Xander: Broken arm because of Angelus sending minions after them.
Buffy: systematically been psychologically tortured by Angelus for months, and only now seems in a place where she can put an end to this.
Yeah, clearly he’s thinking with his dick at this point. As a man, I know that in the face of impending death, as well as the death and torture of my closest friends, I can’t think of anything but the next time I’m going to get laid and how quickly I can bash in the skull of the nearest male to threaten anyone I desire sexually.
Again, this is just absolutely absurd thinking, and it appears to be where your Xander-as-Iago idea came from. Xander told a lie that led to Buffy killing her lover. Right?
Except Xander’s lie didn’t lead to Buffy killing her lover. Angelus trying to DESTROY THE WHOLE WORLD led to Buffy killing her lover. At best, Xander’s lie kept Buffy from stalling him, which by your own admission may or may not have helped, and certainly would not have kept Buffy from killing Angelus if he managed to pull out the sword before Willow could re-ensoul him.
His Cassio. Iago’s aim in Othello, remember, is not only to rise to Cassio’s rank; in the process, he wants to punish Cassio, who has taken his place, and Othello, who passed him over. And he does both.
Okay, role call time again.
Cassio is Angel. But Angel is also Desdemona. So Xander-Iago tricks Buffy-Othello into killing Angel-Cassio-Desdemona for the sole purpose of taking Angel-Cassio’s place and punishing Buffy-Othello, who is also Buffy-Desdemona.
That seems reasonable.
Since Buffy is both the goal of Xander’s deception, and the object/originator (read: Othello)
Thank God you told me that was supposed to be Othello. Seriously. You could have saved a lot of time by writing a post like this:
Xander (read: Iago)
Buffy (read: Othello)
Angel (read: Desdemona)
And just left it at that. It would make just as much sense as the rest of this.
Xander’s desire to punish Buffy is at constant odds with his desire to own her, which accounts for Xander’s mercurial moods toward her.
Riiiight. It’s so obvious.
At one turn, he is joking and flirting with her
Actually, at one turn he is joking with her. At others, mostly before he’s ever with Cordelia, he is flirting with her. One is not the same as the other, as Xander continues to joke with Buffy in many of the same ways throughout the entire series, and it’s unlikely he’s flirting with her every time.
the next, he is puffed up full of righteous indignation, putting the blood of all Angelus’s victims on her hands (“Revelations”) or telling her that he’ll kill her (“When She Was Bad”)
In Revelations Xander is justifiably upset about Buffy’s deception over Angel, and in his anger he suggests that Buffy would be to blame if anything happened, and that if she did let anything happen she would pretty much be spitting in the faces of all the people Angelus hurt the last time. He has a legitimate gripe, although he very obviously vents the gripe with anger, insults, and attacks. His indignation is, to a certain degree, righteous. Buffy kept the potential of Angelus’s return from the gang for weeks. They did have a right to know if he was back: Giles especially.
In When She Was Bad, Buffy, after treating Xander and just about everyone else like dirt, indirectly leads to Willow getting kidnapped. Xander threatens to kill Buffy if anything happens to Willow as a result of her inaction: very similar to his anger and his inability to trust Buffy’s ability to take the correct (and very difficult) course of action when it comes to Angelus.
Unless you’re seriously suggesting Xander threatened to kill Buffy because he was mad at her for spurning his advances, in which case I’m just going to sit here being all baffled.
So what is the outcome of Xander/Iago’s deception? As it is in the book: Xander’s lie results in Buffy/Othello killing her lover, and then, in her grief, removing herself from the city.
When in the book does Desdemona try to open up a gateway to hell?
Also I again point out the fallacy in your assertion that Xander’s lie directly results in Buffy killing Angel. That’s just flat out wrong. Angelus’s actions result in Buffy killing Angel. At best, Xander’s actions keep Buffy from POSSIBLY figuring out a way to avoid killing him, but there is absolutely no way to know that for sure, and just as much of a possibility that Angelus could kill Buffy if she held back.
So what is the outcome of Xander/Iago’s deception? As it is in the book: Xander’s lie results in Buffy/Othello killing her lover, and then, in her grief, removing herself from the city. Now in the play, Othello doesn’t hop a Greyhound as Buffy does; he kills himself, too. Perhaps it is Buffy’s survival that changes Xander/Iago’s fate. In the play, Iago is found out (too late, but much sooner than Xander is), and then dragged off to be tortured and, presumably, killed for treason. His last line is a vow to never speak again. But Xander is never punished for his deceptions. Even when his lie is revealed (five seasons later, in “Selfless”), it goes completely unnoticed. Xander is never punished for his deception, and he never gives up his speech, so he is free to continue deceiving.
Uh, what other deceptions? You didn’t even accurately show that he committed the one deception you’re using an example. You can’t just make stuff up and pretend it’s true, you know.
Xander is not punished for his “deception” (singular) because it’s not the huge deal that fandom has made it out to be. It’s a dark moment between Buffy and Xander, but it’s not this horrible Machiavellian plot you’ve concocted in your head. It’s a spur of the moment bit of understandable coldness from one flawed character to another.
Which begs the question: do the writers of Buffy sympathize with Iago
No, it really doesn’t beg that question, because Xander is pretty much as far removed from Iago as a character can get. Just like Buffy is as far removed from Othello/Desdemona as you can get, and Angel is as far removed from Othello/Desdemona/Cassio/the-entire-cast-of-Hamlet as you can get as well.
Do they condone Xander’s manipulation of his friends? Why else would he continue on, uncensored and unpunished, unless Joss was trying to tell us something?
Maybe it’s because Joss didn’t think it was a capital crime that deserved a response of Xander being tortured to death. But that’s crazy talk, I know.
Hey, here’s a question. How come Joss seems to be advocating child molestation in the relationship between Fred and Wesley? The parallels to Lolita are undeniable! What secret motives might he have had in that relationship? And Faith/Buffy! That’s so clearly Buffy in the role of Gepetto/Pinnochio with Faith as the Blue-Fairy/Pinnochio/Gepetto! My god. Joss is trying to tell us that Buffy is Faith’s creator even as Faith is Buffy’s creator-life-giver-son-father!
It’s all so clear.
After that you go into a lot more stuff about how women were traditionally considered “Others” in Shakesperean times. After some irrelevant discussion about the role of women in such times, you end with this bit of insanity:
And, to follow up on the king and god bit, Xander is a character-insertion of the show’s creator, Joss Whedon, who is white, middle-class, and a man. He represents the same majority Xander does. And in this universe, he is God. It’s only fitting that God’s will be done.
I’ll let that speak for itself.
Jumping through hoops for character bashing. A response to: Othello in 'Becoming II', or How Xander is Iago
Alternate title: Xander sucks, and I've had too much college.
I'm sorry, but I think this is one of the most ridiculous deconstructions of the Buffyverse that I've ever read, and I'm shocked that so many people seem to think otherwise.
Angel and Buffy both as Othello/Desdemona? Xander as Iago? The sheer number of hoops you have to jump through to make these connections is mind-boggling. I’ll do my best to go through them all. I apologize about the sometimes combative nature of this response, but honestly I was somewhat offended by some of the assertions you make.
Here we go:
Both Angel and Buffy, in this way, are put in Othello’s position; Angel is Other because he is a vampire,
Angel is a vampire. He’s not a moor. He’s not simply a member of another tribe or another land. He’s a murderous demon that feeds on human beings. Yes, he has a soul, but he is the only one of his kind to have this. Every single other member of his group is (rightly so) portrayed as being pure evil that one should kill without remorse.
Iago was a trusted friend of Othello’s. Xander, by contrast, never made any attempt whatsoever to disguise the fact that he disliked and (post soul-loss) actively despised Angel, soul or no soul. Angel and Xander’s relationship is therefore completely lacking the parallel of an Iago/Othello relationship in virtually every respect.
Does this make Angel the Desdemona to Xander’s Iago? If so, then that means that Buffy is the Othello. Only Buffy’s not an outsider that Xander is jealous of. Xander’s not afraid that his position was given to a Cassio character. He’s a friend and sometimes wanna-be love interest for Buffy.
Of course you have Buffy and Angel BOTH being Othello, switching back and forth as your premise demands it. I’ll continue:
and Buffy [is an outsider Othello character] because she is a woman.
I don’t know where to begin pointing out how ridiculous that is. Buffy is the star of the show. Buffy is the center around which her friends all gather. Buffy is a woman amongst many other female characters on the show: in the second season it’s almost a perfect 50/50 split, with Giles, Angel, and Xander on one side and Buffy, Willow, and Cordelia on the other. Buffy’s not an outsider because she’s a woman. At no point in the show is Buffy an outsider because of her gender, except maybe in the basic premise of “the blonde cheerleader chased by the monster who turns around and kills the monster.”
This isn’t the real world. Maybe in the real world, Buffy might (and that’s a big might) be considered an outsider simply because of her gender. In the Buffyverse? She’s just as accepted as anyone else in her group, and just as outcast from the rest of the school as anyone in her group. In no way is she othered from either the rest of the Scoobies or the rest of the school. Willow and Xander befriended (or tried to befriend) Buffy BEFORE they found out she was a Slayer, and all three of them, Buffy, Willow, and Xander, are social outcasts amongst the school, with Xander and Willow being outcasts before the show even began.
So that entire premise of othering is deeply flawed right off the bat. Then you go into a whole discussion about Angel and Buffy’s roles as the tacticians and warriors of the group, which is true to a degree, but continues to ignore the point about Angel being a member of an otherwise deadly and villainous group. It’s also mostly pointless in the discussion. When you get to Buffy, you start talking about her as being peers to the others but also having her position based on being a Slayer. This is true, but again: pointless. Simply being a powerful warrior does not make her Othello, nor does it make her similar to him as an outsider amongst her peer group. Buffy is not accepted merely because of her abilities, she’s accepted because of who she is, hence why Xander, Willow, and Jesse befriend her before finding out she’s a Slayer. Buffy’s the kind of person they like, so she’s their friend, with or without powers. She would not be cast out if she were powerless.
If Buffy were not the Slayer, how would the other members of the group - especially Xander and Giles - treat her? Would they treat her the way they do Cordelia?
Only if she acted like Cordelia, which upon her introduction into the show, she doesn’t. Now maybe her personality would not have changed if she’d never become a Slayer, but that has nothing to do with what you’re driving at here. Buffy is not self-centered, insulting, or cliqueish like Cordelia is, nor is she portrayed at all similarly to Cordelia.
were she not the Slayer, would she be straggling at the rear, the butt of the occasional, “ha ha, you dress like a whore” joke?
No, and shame on you for suggesting it. You’re trying to paint a picture of Buffy simply being Cordelia with superpowers, but that’s untrue and frankly stupid. You also seem to be trying to make some kind of inflammatory connection that the other members of the group “especially Xander and Giles” would treat Buffy like a sexual object or otherwise demean her due to her femininity if she weren’t the Slayer.
Just like how they’re both constantly telling Willow to shake her moneymakers whenever she walks into a room, right?
Maybe you’re not really trying to draw that parallel there, but if you are then I repeat: shame on you.
So Buffy and Angel are Othered, and they will, at turns, play Othello. Angel will sometimes also find himself in Cassio’s place.
And sometimes Xander will be Iago, but other times Xander is Cassio, and sometimes Xander is actually Desdemona but with just a hint of Othello thrown in, simmered for twenty minutes, and then mixed with just a dash of King Lear for extra spice.
if Angel is Othello, and Buffy is his lover, then Buffy becomes Desdemona. Similarly, if Buffy is Othello, and Angel is her lover, then Angel becomes Desdemona. Of course, since Buffy can also be the virgin, and the innocent, and can be seen simply for her sex...
Again you make the ridiculous assertion that Buffy can be seen only for her sex, despite no other female character on the show being treated that way at any time, not even the “brunt of whore jokes” Cordelia. This is one of the major failings of your entire premise, and honestly to me it seems a bit sexist. But I’m a guy, so maybe I can’t judge such things.
and Angel cannot, Buffy will be Desdemona more ably than Angel.
Angel as a man cannot be judged by his gender or for his sex, according to you. So Buffy is the Desdemona, even though it’s Buffy who winds up killing Angel based on “Iago/Xander’s” cruel lies, making her the Othello and Angel the Desdemona. Again, you’re having to force the characters back and forth into the roles in order to make this analogy fit, and it just doesn’t work.
And then there’s Xander. Xander is not Othered;
I beg your pardon? Xander is the most Othered character in the entire show. Like Buffy and Willow, he is ostracized by the rest of the school community. Unlike Buffy and Willow, he has no special abilities or unique assistance he can add to the group. He’s the useless addition in a group that is otherwise full of people with incredible abilities. Of everyone in the group, he is the one who is most often left out and left alone.
Xander is, when you think about it, kind of the poster boy for the majority. He’s white, he’s male, he’s “normal;” he has no pesky supernatural powers to differentiate him from the pack. Xander Harris is the majority; he is what Buffy and Angel are Othered from.
Again: this is truly ridiculous. In our society yes, on the surface being a white male might suggest that one is part of a majority. This is of course not always the case. Being a gay white male doesn’t mean you’re part of the majority. Being an atheist white male doesn’t mean you’re part of the majority. Being an evil racist white male doesn’t mean you’re part of the majority. White maleness does not, by itself, mean one cannot be an outsider.
Especially since: THIS ISN’T THE REAL WORLD! This is a fictional realm of evil, demons, vampires, and other incredible things. This is a guy who is surrounded by a Watcher, a Witch, a Slayer, a Vampire, a “Technopagan,” and a Werewolf. In fact, the only character without a particular superpower or important asset they can use for the group is Cordelia, who is the most accepted person in the entire school!
So that is also one of the major points of your premise that just kind of falls apart “when you think about it.”
But being in the majority is not enough to make Xander Iago. He also needs the implicit trust of the group, despite his ulterior, self-serving motives.
The ulterior, self-serving motives that we’re simply taking your word for? Cause I don’t recall any self-serving motives on Xander’s behalf. I recall group-serving motives mixed with human anger and bad decision making, but I don’t recall self-serving motives.
You then talk ab out how the group trusts Xander and is almost never questioned (except of course, for when he is. But we’ll pretend those times don’t exist.) Then we come to this, where we’ll learn about Xander’s unpure motives and his apparently rampant misogyny.
Xander Iagos Buffy. He lies and manipulates in order to get things he wants, things he feels, as the majority, he deserves. What is interesting about Xander’s Iagoing of Buffy is that it is made complicated because it is defined by her Otherness; Xander would not have the same aim were Buffy not a woman.
Ah, but would Xander have the same aim if he were not a man? Ah ha! Clearly this logic has bested you! And what if Angel were a woman while Xander was a man and Buffy was a man! That, clearly, would show us all...
What exactly?
Yes, Buffy is a woman. Yes, Xander did at one time (and possibly continued to for the course of the series, that’s debatable) “covet” Buffy. Yes, he was hurt and upset that she chose Angel instead of him, and said a few mean things about it when he was rejected. That’s what people do, male or female.
Xander’s line of “guy has to be dead [to be with Buffy]” is not some grand foreshadowing to the dark plot he’s going to hatch to rid the world of Angel. It’s a teenaged boy lashing out because the girl he likes has rejected him. Ooh. Sinister!
So Xander’s aim is not only to best Angel/Cassio, who Buffy/Othello chose instead, it is to “win” Buffy; Buffy herself is the prize that Xander hopes to redeem through his deception.
Okay, hold on while I figure out who is who again. Xander is Iago. Buffy is Othello. Angel is Cassio. Who’s Desdemona? Oh, right, Angel. Except Angel is also Cassio. And sometimes Othello. when he’s not Desdemona, of course.
Okay, let’s see some of this deception! I can’t wait to see Xander’s sinister scheme unfold before us. You give us a little summary of what Iago does to Desdemona’s father, running to him to warn him about Othello “stupping your white ewe.”
Then you decide to make this crazy leap:
Which brings us away from “Becoming II,” which we haven’t actually gotten to yet, my bad, to “Revelations.” Xander happens upon Angel, recently back from the dead, locking lips with Buffy. What does Xander do? He convenes Giles, Willow, and Cordelia to sit trial on Buffy, an “intervention,” as she calls it.
Ah yes, I see how Xander warning the group that the guy who killed Giles’s girlfriend, nearly killed Willow, tortured Giles, plotted a scheme that broke Xander’s arm and led to Kendra’s death, and nearly took over the world was back is EXACTLY like Iago telling Desdemona’s father she was having sex with a black guy. That’s eerie how similar those two events are.
Without consulting her, he has told everyone not only that she has been “harboring a vicious killer” and lying to all of them, but that she and Angel were kissing, which, were his concern really, “Oh my God, that guy that killed a bunch of our friends is back!” should have been toward the bottom of the list of outrages.
Yeah, except for that whole “Angel has sex with Buffy and he turns into a murderous psychopath who kills their friends” part. Hence the worry over Buffy kissing him. Xander is understandably horrified that Buffy would actually kiss the guy, because (and I know, this is shocking) kissing often leads to sexual relations. And as I mentioned: Angel and Buffy sex = murderous rampage.
But no, you’d rather believe this was all part of Xander’s evil-man scheme.
But Xander not only informs the group of Buffy’s romantic indiscretions, he uses her sexuality against her. “What [were you waiting for]? For Angel to go psycho again the next time you give him a happy?” Poor Buffy is just a woman; she cannot be trusted with her own sexuality. Especially when she does that with it.
If what she’s doing with it leads to people dying, then yes, she cannot be trusted with it! Or at the very least you can understand why Xander would think that way. It’s got nothing to do with her being a woman (again: shame on you for this foolish bit of hand waving), it’s got to do with her repeating actions that might lead to Angel killing them all.
Is Xander out of line for not trusting Buffy to stop things before they go too far? That is definitely debatable. I would say he probably is out of line, myself, at least in how he presents it. But he’s not presenting it as the scheming Iago coldly trying to get revenge. He’s presenting it as the angry and scared teenager that he is. He’s outraged, and he has good reason to be outraged. Buffy’s been hiding the fact that someone who killed two of their friends is back, and she’s been hiding that she’s been repeating many of the same actions that led to his massacre in the first place.
But hey, you can just ignore all that stuff, because Xander is a man and Buffy is a woman. Therefore: Xander thinks Buffy is a slut. I guess. I’m not really sure what kind of point you’re making beyond that.
Also, um, you realize that these events happened after Becoming, the scene in which your Buffy/Othello/Desdemona kills her Angel/Desdemona/Othello/Cassio?
Ah, but I see. The first thing that Iago does is the last thing that Xander does! It’s brilliant!
Then you get into how only Othello (who is Buffy? Angel? I can’t keep track) ever listens to Desdemona’s side of the story. Then you say this:
Similarly, the only person who seems interested in Buffy’s thoughts and feelings when the subject is love is Angel, and even he doesn’t do that great a job some of the time, making decisions about their relationship for her (“The Prom”). Anytime the topic is broached with anyone else, their reaction is to tell Buffy that “when it comes to Angel, you can’t see straight,” and “we’re here to help you [make the correct decision]”
We the viewers know the motivations behind Buffy continuing to be with Angel, with her hiding him from the others, and her insistence that she can be with him without going too far. The other characters do not, and to them it looks very much like Buffy has discounted their worries and fears in order to make her own decision.
Giles’s girlfriend was killed by Angelus. Giles was tortured by him. Willow was put into a coma thanks to his minions. It’s not as if they’re talking out of turn. Buffy being with Angel is not just her business, it’s the business of the entire group. They are concerned -- and rightly so -- that Buffy will make a mistake with Angel that leads to more death and destruction.
This isn’t out of any kind of “she’s just a foolish woman, who cares what she thinks?” philosophy. This is because Buffy had been shown to have a hard time making difficult decisions where Angel was concerned. This is all very understandable and makes her a very sympathetic character, but it’s still the truth. They’re afraid she’s not thinking straight, and they’re not out of line in suggesting it.
Xander is the worst one with this, again and again, from his constant demonization of Angel
Angel is a demon! Yes, he’s a demon with a soul (which doesn’t stop him from not attempting to help Buffy in Prophecy Girl, something which very much cements his personality in Xander’s mind as someone not to be trusted), but beyond that he’s a demon without a soul if Buffy makes him feel too good.
Now we as the audience understand, especially later, that what makes Angel change is perfect happiness, not simply physical relations with Buffy. But most of the group doesn’t understand that at this point, so of course Xander is going to demonize the guy.
to his telling Buffy that she is “acting like a crazy person” by “treating Riley like the rebound guy” (“Into the Woods”).
Holy crap. Did you watch that scene? The Into the Woods monologue is Xander almost begging Buffy to go be with another guy other than himself. She can’t be with Angel by both her and Angel’s admission, and she was treating Riley very unfairly at the time. Xander (that evil, scheming, misogynistic bastard who clearly only wants Buffy for himself) has to spell out to Buffy that she’s got something great with Riley and that she needs to go after that.
Jesus, that alone makes your entire argument fall apart. By season 5 at least, Xander is actively participating in Buffy having a successful relationship with someone other than himself. The difference being that Riley is a good guy who has never shown anything but the greatest concern for Buffy, whereas Angel was a vampire who could flip out and kill everyone, and even when he was souled he could still remain indifferent to Buffy’s suffering or imminent death.
Majority Xander does not act as though Buffy’s sexuality belongs to her. Think of his yay, Angel is leaving forever! fantasy in “Surprise”: Xander gleefully imagines Buffy - who is a “Denny’s waitress by day, Slayer by night,” as though Xander doesn’t gift her with enough intelligence or agency to have an actual career - crying gratefully when rich and powerful Xander - “fly[ing] into town in [his] private jet;” apparently, Xander gives himself all the intelligence and agency he’ll need - sweeps her off her feet, and out of Angel’s arms.
Stop it. You don’t really believe that an idle “I’m the wonderful hero compared to everyone else’s patheticness” fantasy is actually what Xander wants, or what he thinks could someday happen. It’s a momentary power-fantasy to show us that Xander dislikes Angel and thinks he’s wrong for Buffy. Buffy would be a waitress because “that’s the kind of life she would have with Angel,” not because she’s mentally deficient in some way. He’s the brilliant and rich hero because it’s a foolish power fantasy in which he is everything that’s wonderful Angel is the evil and despicable rival who is all wrong for Buffy.
It’s got nothing to do with how Xander views Buffy and much more to do with how Xander views himself. He knows he’s not the brilliant and rich hero. He knows that Angel can give Buffy more than he can give her. He doesn’t want that to be true because he doesn’t like Angel, so he has this humorous fantasy to reveal that.
If you’re really using that as an example of Xander’s evil scheming, then you’re stretching things so thin they’re practically transparent.
Why wouldn’t Buffy be grateful to be rescued from the life she’s made for herself? I mean, a poor woman, being rescued by Majority Man? A dream come true.
You can continue to call Xander “Majority Man,” but that doesn’t actually make your assertions that Xander is the status quo make any more sense. Xander is the quintessential outsider in the Buffyverse group, and your attempts to make it appear otherwise don’t really work.
As season two progresses, Buffy and Angel become more and more removed from the group. And they begin, as Othello does toward the end of the play, to Other themselves.
Ah! Back to season two! Good, I can’t wait to see what Xander/Iago’s nefarious time-travelling plan will accomplish next. From Season 3 to Season 5 and back to Season 2! He’s like Marty McFly...IF HE WERE EVIL!
Angelus takes pains to distinguish himself from any scrap of humanity. “Your boyfriend is dead” (“Innocence”). Buffy often finds herself separate from her friends, who all have happy, normal lives with happy, normal relationships, and in the end, she chooses her duties as a Slayer over her family, her normal life.
I don’t know that you can say she chooses her duties over her normal life. If she hadn’t chosen her duties, there would be no normal life. The world would have ended. She decided to fight for the world despite how her own life had fallen apart, a truly noble and heroic act.
Also: Willow is dating a werewolf, Xander (the school outcast) is dating Cordelia (the school queen), and Giles’s girlfriend was murdered by Angelus.
Yes, happy, normal relationships, all.
Then you continue on with Angelus becoming “Othered” even further. By, you know...trying to destroy the world. Just like how Othello was so ostracized by his peers because of how he tried to open up a gateway to hell with a blood sacrifice. Shakespeare’s finest moment, if I do say so myself.
So Angel/Othello is completely Othered now. And as you say “There’s only Iago to contend with.”
Yes, here comes evil Iago to spoil Othello’s world-destroying plans!
In “Becoming II,” as Xander leaves to assist Buffy in her storming of Angel’s mansion, Willow tells him to let Buffy know that she and Oz will be attempting to restore Angel’s soul. When Xander arrives, however, he instead tells Buffy that Willow says to, “kick [Angel’s] ass.”
Is Xander’s lie morally justifiable? Yes and no. It’s an understandable thing that he did, and it’s morally gray as well. Is it evil? Of course not.
Willow just woke up from a coma. Giles was AT THAT VERY MOMENT being tortured by Angelus and Drusilla. Buffy had shown several times in the past that she was hesitant to kill Angelus because of her relationship with Angel. Now she is finally showing the desire to kill Angelus, who has nearly destroyed the group and was responsible (directly and indirectly) for the deaths of two of their friends, Kendra and Jenny Calendar.
So Xander doesn’t tell her that Willow is going to try and restore Angel’s soul. OMG TEH EVOL!
What a truly despicable and Machiavellian turn of events on our evil Xander/Iago’s part. His twisted machinations and seeds of doubt have finally borne fruit as he finally twists the knife to...
Make sure Buffy doesn’t hesitate to kill the bad guy and save the world?
Now I don’t pretend that Xander doesn’t have ulterior motives to holding back Willow’s information. There is a part of him, possibly a major part of him, that simply wants to see Angel dead. Not because Angel is his rival for Buffy, but because Angel KILLED THEIR FRIENDS, NEARLY KILLED WILLOW, AND STILL HAS GILES IN CAPTIVITY.
Just like Othello had kidnapped Iago’s father and almost killed his best friend. My God. You’re so right! They’re exactly the same!
Then you bring up the question of what Buffy would have done with that information. You admit that there’s no way to know what might happen. I agree with you on that, although I do point out that it would be just as likely that Buffy would:
1. Try to stall and fail, leading to her own death. Angelus then may or may not be restored in time to stop Acathla.
2. Try to stall and succeed, keeping Angelus from freeing Acathla. Hooray!
3. Try to stall and fail, leading to pretty much the same events as what happened on the show.
That’s about it.
However, we can guess the answer to a more interesting question: the question of intent. What was Xander’s intent in omitting Willow’s true message, and instead submitting his own agenda? An argument can be made that he was afraid, if Buffy had hope that Angel could be saved, she would immediately become a weak and helpless girl in love instead of the warrior she really needed to be.
I don’t know what kind of strawman idiot would try to make such an argument. Buffy was shown to be unable to bring herself to kill Angelus on any number of occasions. It’s got nothing to do with her being a weak and helpless girl in love (there you go again with the implied sexism), and much more to do with her being a PERSON IN LOVE.
Girl, boy, it doesn’t matter. Buffy loved Angel. Killing him would be extremely difficult no matter what her gender, and she struggled with it in the past. Xander knows this. The world is on the brink of destruction. His friends have almost been killed, some of his friends have already been killed. Buffy appears to be in a place where she can finally stop Angelus’s murderous rampage. Why would he give her a moment of doubt that could risk the entire world?
However. To me it seems much more likely that Xander’s motives are, as usual, purely selfish: Xander does not want Angel to make it out alive
Of course he doesn’t! Angel being alive means he might end the world! He might hurt Willow even further! He might kill Giles! He might kill Buffy or even himself! Why wouldn’t he “selfishly” want to see Angel be dead at this point?
He does not want Buffy and Angel back together; even though he is, at the moment, in a relationship of his own with Cordelia, he is still not happy about the thought of Buffy with another man, especially Angel, his challenger
Oh please. Setting aside the Into the Woods piece which you yourself brought up, in which Xander actively attempts to make sure Buffy is happy with another man, the idea that his sole motivation at this point is to eliminate his romantic rival is PATENTLY ABSURD.
Again, I will point out:
Willow: Just got out of a coma due to Angelus's minions
Giles: in captivity and being tortured, possibly dead as far as Xander or Buffy knows.
Angelus: about to destroy THE ENTIRE WORLD by sucking it into hell.
Kendra: Dead because of Angelus sending Drusilla to attack them.
Xander: Broken arm because of Angelus sending minions after them.
Buffy: systematically been psychologically tortured by Angelus for months, and only now seems in a place where she can put an end to this.
Yeah, clearly he’s thinking with his dick at this point. As a man, I know that in the face of impending death, as well as the death and torture of my closest friends, I can’t think of anything but the next time I’m going to get laid and how quickly I can bash in the skull of the nearest male to threaten anyone I desire sexually.
Again, this is just absolutely absurd thinking, and it appears to be where your Xander-as-Iago idea came from. Xander told a lie that led to Buffy killing her lover. Right?
Except Xander’s lie didn’t lead to Buffy killing her lover. Angelus trying to DESTROY THE WHOLE WORLD led to Buffy killing her lover. At best, Xander’s lie kept Buffy from stalling him, which by your own admission may or may not have helped, and certainly would not have kept Buffy from killing Angelus if he managed to pull out the sword before Willow could re-ensoul him.
His Cassio. Iago’s aim in Othello, remember, is not only to rise to Cassio’s rank; in the process, he wants to punish Cassio, who has taken his place, and Othello, who passed him over. And he does both.
Okay, role call time again.
Cassio is Angel. But Angel is also Desdemona. So Xander-Iago tricks Buffy-Othello into killing Angel-Cassio-Desdemona for the sole purpose of taking Angel-Cassio’s place and punishing Buffy-Othello, who is also Buffy-Desdemona.
That seems reasonable.
Since Buffy is both the goal of Xander’s deception, and the object/originator (read: Othello)
Thank God you told me that was supposed to be Othello. Seriously. You could have saved a lot of time by writing a post like this:
Xander (read: Iago)
Buffy (read: Othello)
Angel (read: Desdemona)
And just left it at that. It would make just as much sense as the rest of this.
Xander’s desire to punish Buffy is at constant odds with his desire to own her, which accounts for Xander’s mercurial moods toward her.
Riiiight. It’s so obvious.
At one turn, he is joking and flirting with her
Actually, at one turn he is joking with her. At others, mostly before he’s ever with Cordelia, he is flirting with her. One is not the same as the other, as Xander continues to joke with Buffy in many of the same ways throughout the entire series, and it’s unlikely he’s flirting with her every time.
the next, he is puffed up full of righteous indignation, putting the blood of all Angelus’s victims on her hands (“Revelations”) or telling her that he’ll kill her (“When She Was Bad”)
In Revelations Xander is justifiably upset about Buffy’s deception over Angel, and in his anger he suggests that Buffy would be to blame if anything happened, and that if she did let anything happen she would pretty much be spitting in the faces of all the people Angelus hurt the last time. He has a legitimate gripe, although he very obviously vents the gripe with anger, insults, and attacks. His indignation is, to a certain degree, righteous. Buffy kept the potential of Angelus’s return from the gang for weeks. They did have a right to know if he was back: Giles especially.
In When She Was Bad, Buffy, after treating Xander and just about everyone else like dirt, indirectly leads to Willow getting kidnapped. Xander threatens to kill Buffy if anything happens to Willow as a result of her inaction: very similar to his anger and his inability to trust Buffy’s ability to take the correct (and very difficult) course of action when it comes to Angelus.
Unless you’re seriously suggesting Xander threatened to kill Buffy because he was mad at her for spurning his advances, in which case I’m just going to sit here being all baffled.
So what is the outcome of Xander/Iago’s deception? As it is in the book: Xander’s lie results in Buffy/Othello killing her lover, and then, in her grief, removing herself from the city.
When in the book does Desdemona try to open up a gateway to hell?
Also I again point out the fallacy in your assertion that Xander’s lie directly results in Buffy killing Angel. That’s just flat out wrong. Angelus’s actions result in Buffy killing Angel. At best, Xander’s actions keep Buffy from POSSIBLY figuring out a way to avoid killing him, but there is absolutely no way to know that for sure, and just as much of a possibility that Angelus could kill Buffy if she held back.
So what is the outcome of Xander/Iago’s deception? As it is in the book: Xander’s lie results in Buffy/Othello killing her lover, and then, in her grief, removing herself from the city. Now in the play, Othello doesn’t hop a Greyhound as Buffy does; he kills himself, too. Perhaps it is Buffy’s survival that changes Xander/Iago’s fate. In the play, Iago is found out (too late, but much sooner than Xander is), and then dragged off to be tortured and, presumably, killed for treason. His last line is a vow to never speak again. But Xander is never punished for his deceptions. Even when his lie is revealed (five seasons later, in “Selfless”), it goes completely unnoticed. Xander is never punished for his deception, and he never gives up his speech, so he is free to continue deceiving.
Uh, what other deceptions? You didn’t even accurately show that he committed the one deception you’re using an example. You can’t just make stuff up and pretend it’s true, you know.
Xander is not punished for his “deception” (singular) because it’s not the huge deal that fandom has made it out to be. It’s a dark moment between Buffy and Xander, but it’s not this horrible Machiavellian plot you’ve concocted in your head. It’s a spur of the moment bit of understandable coldness from one flawed character to another.
Which begs the question: do the writers of Buffy sympathize with Iago
No, it really doesn’t beg that question, because Xander is pretty much as far removed from Iago as a character can get. Just like Buffy is as far removed from Othello/Desdemona as you can get, and Angel is as far removed from Othello/Desdemona/Cassio/the-entire-cast-of-Hamlet as you can get as well.
Do they condone Xander’s manipulation of his friends? Why else would he continue on, uncensored and unpunished, unless Joss was trying to tell us something?
Maybe it’s because Joss didn’t think it was a capital crime that deserved a response of Xander being tortured to death. But that’s crazy talk, I know.
Hey, here’s a question. How come Joss seems to be advocating child molestation in the relationship between Fred and Wesley? The parallels to Lolita are undeniable! What secret motives might he have had in that relationship? And Faith/Buffy! That’s so clearly Buffy in the role of Gepetto/Pinnochio with Faith as the Blue-Fairy/Pinnochio/Gepetto! My god. Joss is trying to tell us that Buffy is Faith’s creator even as Faith is Buffy’s creator-life-giver-son-father!
It’s all so clear.
After that you go into a lot more stuff about how women were traditionally considered “Others” in Shakesperean times. After some irrelevant discussion about the role of women in such times, you end with this bit of insanity:
And, to follow up on the king and god bit, Xander is a character-insertion of the show’s creator, Joss Whedon, who is white, middle-class, and a man. He represents the same majority Xander does. And in this universe, he is God. It’s only fitting that God’s will be done.
I’ll let that speak for itself.