But the narrative didn't require Giles leave. Didn't he only leave because of meta reasons?

ASH left for meta reasons.

Let me make the distinction in the narrative. There's the plot portion of the story as it exists in Buffy's world. But there's also the metaphorical narrative which is different, and has to clear a space in the story for Buffy to grow without her mentor.

My complaint is that these two narrative elements are not well reconciled. The plotty reasons for Giles to leave are ill-conceived compared to the fact that Buffy has risen from the dead and lost her mother and has to take on the adult responsibility of raising her sister.

But saying Giles "had to leave" for any narrative reason is mis-stating things. Was there any intention for him to leave if ASH hadn't?

To his credit, Dumbledore does suffer grievously as he tries to eliminate the horcruxes, first taking the curse into his hand which is fatal,

Wasn't it revealed in the last book that his hand was destroyed not as part of an effort to destroy the horcrux, but because he believes the ring was the resurrection stone and was so tempted by that power that he put it on? Then Snape saved him by confining the destruction to only the hand that had worn the ring.

Yes, he did sacrifice himself with the basin potion and the inferi...which just struck me as martyring himself in Harry's eyes because he already knew the curse of the ring was killing him. He could have done far more to earn Harry's love and loyalty. It pissed me off royally that he with held so much vital information.

But saying Giles "had to leave" for any narrative reason is mis-stating things.

I don't think so. In the classic "hero's journey" the hero must separate from their mentor. This is the metaphorical aspect of the narrative, and I do think that even if ASH didn't leave then his role would have to be diminished for Buffy to emerge. So that she's not taking orders from him.

Was there any intention for him to leave if ASH hadn't?

I don't know.

Anyone here through A Storm of Swords? Ye gods, my head is about to explode.

but because he believes the ring was the resurrection stone and was so tempted by that power that he put it on?

That's true, but I found that weakness endearing, since he wanted to see his sister and, I suspect, ask her forgiveness.

I'm only about 20% into Storm of Swords. These books are so addicting! And horribly, horribly bleak!

I'm just now starting the first one. But I am ready for bleak!

I'll try to not be spoilery, but i'm loving how Book 2 separates so many characters, and then in Book 3 they start coming back together. And the bleak horrors. I did have to just stop and walk away for a few hours after one chapter. But then i went back. These books are an abusive lover.

More Snape: halfway through Goblet of Fire, Snape makes an entirely unwarranted and terribly cruel comment about Hermione's teeth. I'm back to the "People like this guy?" question.

In other news, I'd forgotten how completely isolated Harry gets in this one, because even Ron has turned on him. It's really kind of painful to hear. But you can see the kids getting older, too--they're much more adolescents in this book, even without the minor angst about crush-objects sprinkled through the book. (And I'd forgotten that Ron had a crush on Fleur first, who ends up with his brother Bill.)

The other bad side of audiobooks, of course, is that I cannot flip back easily to the part where Ron & Harry make up fortunes for themselves to see how many of them really come true. I'm thinking rather a lot.