I assume because Andrew takes up space and screentime that could have gone to Xander; given the writers' lack of interest in Xander by that point I'm not sure it would have helped. (I do enjoy him in BY and Selfless but Andrew's not on the scene yet.)
Yep in a nutshell. Andrew more or less took over his role in some respects. Part of the reason Xander had less screen time and story was the actor's substance abuse issues (this came out later). It's also why he got paunchy. He was an alcoholic and it broke up his marriage and almost derailed his career.
It never occured to me until infinitewhale mentioned to me the other day that both Andrew and Spike tend to over-romanticize things. Once he mentioned that I could see the parallels between Fool For Love and Storyteller; they both build "personas" for themselves, telling the audience (Buffy) what they want people to believe of themselves. That's not to say that you're wrong, it's just an interesting interpretation.
Yes, that was the theory. They aren't wrong. But they failed to note how differently they did it. Also, the same thing could be said of Xander, Willow, Anya, Angel, and various others.
Spike, Angel, Willow and Andrew are all artists - they tell stories. All are commentaries on writing and film-making and storytelling. How a writer wants to control his story, and how he/she manipulates it.
Andrew was a "meta" character - a character that commented on the story and other characters. An insertion of the writer of himself into the text. The anti-Marty Stu or the Marty Stu as pathetic. (Writers either write themselves in as wonderful or pathetic...Whedon often picked pathetic.) He was also a meta commentary on fandom or being a fan...the fanboy who worships Spike - big meta on that.
I despised him in part because I find "meta" narratives a bit grating when they aren't subtle. Whedon was subtle abut meta until around Buffy S7, then...he went overboard. But he can be credited or blamed (depending on your pov) for creating the meta-narrative in film and tv. A popular narrative device in the 21st Century - which may be finally running its course.
no subject
Yep in a nutshell. Andrew more or less took over his role in some respects.
Part of the reason Xander had less screen time and story was the actor's substance abuse issues (this came out later). It's also why he got paunchy.
He was an alcoholic and it broke up his marriage and almost derailed his career.
It never occured to me until infinitewhale mentioned to me the other day that both Andrew and Spike tend to over-romanticize things. Once he mentioned that I could see the parallels between Fool For Love and Storyteller; they both build "personas" for themselves, telling the audience (Buffy) what they want people to believe of themselves. That's not to say that you're wrong, it's just an interesting interpretation.
Yes, that was the theory. They aren't wrong. But they failed to note how differently they did it. Also, the same thing could be said of Xander, Willow, Anya, Angel, and various others.
Spike, Angel, Willow and Andrew are all artists - they tell stories. All are commentaries on writing and film-making and storytelling. How a writer wants to control his story, and how he/she manipulates it.
Andrew was a "meta" character - a character that commented on the story and other characters. An insertion of the writer of himself into the text.
The anti-Marty Stu or the Marty Stu as pathetic. (Writers either write themselves in as wonderful or pathetic...Whedon often picked pathetic.)
He was also a meta commentary on fandom or being a fan...the fanboy who worships Spike - big meta on that.
I despised him in part because I find "meta" narratives a bit grating when they aren't subtle. Whedon was subtle abut meta until around Buffy S7, then...he went overboard. But he can be credited or blamed (depending on your pov) for creating the meta-narrative in film and tv. A popular narrative device in the 21st Century - which may be finally running its course.