Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: Canon, Consistency and of course, Inconsistencies!!!!!!!

  1. #41
    and her haircut. Nina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,298
    Thanks
    2,280
    Thanked 3,700 Times in 1,276 Posts

    Default

    Oh I'll have to dig up old threads, I just remember that my theory wasn't 100% fitting.
    But let's see what I still remember, perhaps that I'll add other stuff later when I remember/searched it up.

    My idea is that the soul (as the one Spike and Angel got back and Connor's soul influencing Darla) is a blanco something that functions as a moral compass. I don't think that the soul has anything to do with personality/essence of a person. Despite the huge influences on the behavior. Not sure if it's a moral compass only because of that huge influence, perhaps it has some more functions. By example I have the feeling that soulless vampires can't really grow as people.

    This is mostly based on the personality of the soulless vampires being a lot like their human/soulled counterpart. That it makes little to no sense that Angel (and later on also Spike) feel guilt for their crimes as soulless vampires if they aren't the same person, it also makes no sense that Darla wanted to become a vampire to prevent dying, if becoming a vampire means that your essence leaves your body anyway and of course her pregnancy where she felt human emotions and guilt because she shared a soul with Connor, but she obviously didn't become Connor-like.

    About the counter-arguments;

    I think the main trouble comes from the 'soul' being described as the essence of a person (Fred's soul being destroyed, Buffy's soul in heaven.) vs the blanco soul in the vampire mythology. It's like the Buffyverse is both dualist and monist at the same time. This could be fanwanked, by example; The Demon copies the personality of the soul and takes over in a vampire. But this is based on nothing. This confusion in combination with Angel and Angelus being treated as two different persons by the characters, this includes Angel who sometimes uses 'he'/'him' when he talks about Angelus, makes a case for people who do believe that the soul is the whole essence of a person and that in theory Angelus and Angel (also soulless Spike/Darla and soulled Spike/Darla.) are different people. Also it's hinted that everybody has a personal soul, the vampires get their soul back, which is pointless if the soul is blanco and thus impersonal.

    I can't really explain the monism/dualism combo, I often fanwank it with them using the same word for two different things (which is not allowed in logic.); that both the blanco moral compass and the spirit of a person are both called 'soul'. And Angel treating Angelus as a different person I fanwank with him doing that because his friends refuse to make the difference and he just goes with the flow despite knowing better. But again, it's a pretty weak fanwank because it's based on nothing.



    edit:
    Concerning Darla/Angelus and the difference between Ats and BtVS. My main issue is how they tried to underplay the relation in BtVS; Angel spend 150 years with Darla and there was no real connection. Angel staked her like she was random vampire #2, Darla came off as a pathetic ex thinking that it all meant more while Angel wasn't interested etc. Also the "Angelus doesn't care/love about anybody" stuff (vs Darla loving him) in season 2 rubbed me wrong. But like I said I've little problem ignoring BtVS season 1 when we're talking Darla and also Angel. Both characters didn't got to shine until Ats when Angel became the star of the show.
    Last edited by Nina; 12-01-13 at 06:39 PM.

  2. #42
    Scooby Gang Artea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    609
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 121 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nina View Post
    Concerning Darla/Angelus and the difference between Ats and BtVS. My main issue is how they tried to underplay the relation in BtVS; Angel spend 150 years with Darla and there was no real connection. Angel staked her like she was random vampire #2,
    No, he stakes her at the end of the episode, to prevent her from killing Buffy. If Darla was some random vamp, Angel would have staked her during one of their previous interactions (they interact several times throughout the episode prior to their last scene where Angel stakes her). And whatever connection Angel and Darla might have had totally doesn't trump the lives of innocent people (I'm looking at you, AtS!Angel).

    Darla came off as a pathetic ex thinking that it all meant more while Angel wasn't interested etc.
    Of course she comes across as a pathetic ex, she has no way of understanding what it means to have a soul. Still, I'm not really seeing the pathetic part all that much. When seduction doesn't work, she quickly starts to mess with Angel: first leaving Angel no choice by tricking Buffy into thinking he hurt Joyce and then literally with guns blazing. Then again, I'm probably biased since I can't stand the Darla of AtS whereas I enjoyed her on BtVS...

    Quote Originally Posted by vampmogs View Post
    Fans come up with their own interpretations anyway but canon is a guideline to what stories "really happened" and what stories didn't. Without it, discussions about the Buffyverse would be incredibly difficult and the characters would cease to exist as they do now. If I wrote a fanfic where Buffy is secretly anti-semitic she wouldn't be the same character as Joss wrote her, would she? But if no concept of canon existed then Buffy the Anti-Semite would be just as real as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And nobody could tell me I was wrong because "I wrote a story about her and in my story she hates Jews."
    Now THAT would be an interesting story. It even has in-built conflict with Willow.

    (Just kidding, obviously.)



  3. #43
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,297
    Thanks
    11,447
    Thanked 13,645 Times in 5,660 Posts

    Default

    The soul mythology isn't ever pinned down I agree. I don't agree with those who think that a vampire is pure demon and only gains the memories of the human so I suppose I would, like you, separate the soul from the essence of a person's personality etc. I think that Spikelus/Angelus were demons that inhabited with the essence of the original human still firmly in place. To me it makes no sense otherwise that they would care about their memories react to their families, tormentors etc. So yeah, soul does not equal person for me either.

    So I think working on the basis that something is missing which can be gained back makes sense and the obvious missing element tends to lead into areas of moral integrity. I find it hard to reconcile this still though as a determinant of worth, good v evil etc because Warren had no moral integrity. This is where I think the biggest gaps in the verse around the soul's relevancy lie. So I look to the actions of the person/demon for their right to survive. I don't think it is fair to say that Angelus should die and Warren should live as a comparative simply because Warren is human so I just accept that Warren falls into someone else's remit to judge. Even if he didn't, do I think he should die as that is how a demon would be treated? If we accept that the soul gives moral integrity and without it demons will choose to do evil eventually how can we reconcile seeing a demon choose to fight for a soul? How can we reconcile evil humans? For me it starts to seem wrong to condemn demons to death as an automatic. If humans are not the remit of the slayer then what of witches etc, those who are part of the supernatural and could take actions to destroy the world? Do you just need to see the error of your ways for that to be passed over? Or do you need to be friends with the slayer to get away with it? Is a vampire who has murdered thousands then stops killing by choice as we currently have in the new society still OK to dust? Is it any different to a vampire who has killed two and then stops? As it stands we simply assume that as they emerge from the grave they will have bloodlust and will choose to be killers. Mostly that is what we see, out of the grave followed by attacking and yet Holden stopped to have a philosophical discussion. There is no substantiated mythology on the merit of soul vs no soul I don't think. There isn't for me a valid, no holed argument to the role/actions of the slayer as we are constantly presented with exceptions. This side of the verse I don't think will ever make sense and we are supposed to just roll with the story accepting the general principle that demons are inherently bad and it is necessary to remove the potential threat to keep the world/innocent beings safe. It is unsatisfactory for me but I accept the truth that I shouldn't scrutinise because it won't hold up.
    Last edited by Stoney; 13-01-13 at 09:58 AM.

  4. #44
    and her haircut. Nina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,298
    Thanks
    2,280
    Thanked 3,700 Times in 1,276 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Artea View Post
    No, he stakes her at the end of the episode, to prevent her from killing Buffy. If Darla was some random vamp, Angel would have staked her during one of their previous interactions (they interact several times throughout the episode prior to their last scene where Angel stakes her). And whatever connection Angel and Darla might have had totally doesn't trump the lives of innocent people (I'm looking at you, AtS!Angel).
    I don't say that Angel should've let her kill Buffy, not even close. I meant that he could've shown some extra emotions, he is passive the whole episode. Not once you have the feeling that Darla meant anything to him. It's Darla who goes on and on about how much they meant to eachother and how much they loved eachother.

    Of course she comes across as a pathetic ex, she has no way of understanding what it means to have a soul. Still, I'm not really seeing the pathetic part all that much. When seduction doesn't work, she quickly starts to mess with Angel: first leaving Angel no choice by tricking Buffy into thinking he hurt Joyce and then literally with guns blazing. Then again, I'm probably biased since I can't stand the Darla of AtS whereas I enjoyed her on BtVS...
    The whole little girl schtick is something I find pathetic and nothing like the Darla we know from the flahbacks or Ats. Not only the clothes but mostly her behavior with the Master, she is an adult woman who will soon be older than 400 years old and she dresses and behaves like she is 10. Also Darla knows what a soul means, she already gave Angel a chance and she is the one who left him because of it. But BtVS really plays with the idea that Darla loves Angelus and Angelus loves nobody (see: BtVS season 2). And it's always sad when one person gives a relation a lot of status while the other doesn't rate the relation nearly as high. Especially because Darla had so much time to figure it all out and move on. But she still waits for this guy who doesn't really care about her.

    In Ats it all looks different; the relation meant a lot to the both of them. Actually it's one of the rare relations in the Buffyverse where you have the feeling that both people are equals. There is not one who cares more about the other, or one that is more important in the relation. And in this 'version' it's not as pathetic that she went back to the Master and lived as a widow for a century, because she still mourns the love of her life. At least she mourns a true and good (well in their own way) relation now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    So I think working on the basis that something is missing which can be gained back makes sense and the obvious missing element tends to lead into areas of moral integrity. I find it hard to reconcile this still though as a determinant of worth, good v evil etc because Warren had no moral integrity. This is where I think the biggest gaps in the verse around the soul's relevancy lie. So I look to the actions of the person/demon for their right to survive. I don't think it is fair to say that Angelus should die and Warren should live as a comparative simply because Warren is human so I just accept that Warren falls into someone else's remit to judge. Even if he didn't, do I think he should die as that is how a demon would be treated? If we accept that the soul gives moral integrity and without it demons will choose to do evil eventually how can we reconcile seeing a demon choose to fight for a soul? How can we reconcile evil humans? For me it starts to seem wrong to condemn demons to death as an automatic. If humans are not the remit of the slayer then what of witches etc, those who are part of the supernatural and could take actions to destroy the world? Do you just need to see the error of your ways for that to be passed over? Or do you need to be friends with the slayer to get away with it? Is a vampire who has murdered thousands then stops killing by choice as we currently have in the new society still OK to dust? Is it any different to a vampire who has killed two and then stops? As it stands we simply assume that as they emerge from the grave they will have bloodlust and will choose to be killers. Mostly that is what we see, out of the grave followed by attacking and yet Holden stopped to have a philosophical discussion. There is no substantiated mythology on the merit of soul vs no soul I don't think. There isn't for me a valid, no holed argument to the role/actions of the slayer as we are constantly presented with exceptions. This side of the verse I don't think will ever make sense and we are supposed to just roll with the story accepting the general principle that demons are inherently bad and it is necessary to remove the potential threat to keep the world/innocent beings safe. It is unsatisfactory for me but I accept the truth that I shouldn't scrutinise because it won't hold up.
    You really should start Ats. Angel struggles with this the whole time because he deals with W&H employees. Some horrible people work there and Angel has to deal with those quite often; evil lawyers (I mean really evil lawyers, people who don't care if they kill some innocent kids or plan an apocalypse.) who can't be judged by the law because they are too sneaky and most of their crimes are not acknowledged by human society. But because they are human he is not allowed to get rid of them. Ats blurs the lines between demons and humans anyway, we meet quite some good demons in Ats. Some are even better than any human could be (Groo). So it's less black & white.

    I think the difference between a human and a soulless demon is that a human has the chance to redeem himself/herself, they do have the quality to learn of their horrible mistakes and become better people. A soulless demon does not, what Spike did was so unique (everything just clicked; his personality in combination with his love for Buffy, her refusing him in 'Seeing Red', the chip in his head which seperated him from his normal life and having the example of Angel as a soulled vampire.) that we can't take soulless vampires doing something good just to be good, as a serious option. They have the freedom to make choices, but lack the morality to make the right choice. So like Harmony showed, vampires always fall back in evil behavior, even if they were trying not to.

    But I do agree that some cases are just frustrating, I wouldn't even call Warren one because he can go to jail. He shot people, the police can arrest him. But a Lilah (who does care about her mother by example, so she can love.) or a Holland are extremely bad people who get away with their horrific crimes and don't ever change, that is frustrating.
    Last edited by Nina; 13-01-13 at 05:41 PM.

  5. #45
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,297
    Thanks
    11,447
    Thanked 13,645 Times in 5,660 Posts

    Default

    I must say on the Darla/Angel side I am really interested in seeing AtS because it wasn't until I joined the board and heard people talking about them as a couple that I really took any note of them as mattering much to each other. I went back and rewatched S1 of BtVS to see if he even mentioned her as his sire because I hadn't noticed particularly that he was bothered about her when I first ever watched it. The very little bits that I know of the Angel/Darla/Connor storyline shows that isn't true and the bits I saw in flashbacks too so I agree, BtVS 1/2 made it look like Angel didn't really care one way or the other about Darla. And yeah, the schoolgirl outfit was just creepy and weird, even the schoolgirls didn't dress like that.

    The circumstances that built up to lead Spike seeking and fighting for his soul I'm sure you are right are unlikely to be seen again and we are supposed to see it as extraordinary/unique. Harmony manipulates situations to suit herself, as she is doing currently, so I again see your point with what we see in her story she lends weight to the argument that a soulless demon will become evil again when it suits them.

    How then do we balance what happened with Willow post her murdering Warren? I understand that she was too powerful to be contained by prison, but so arguably was Faith. Is what happened with Willow equal to Angel/Spike being left to redeem themselves whilst living with their crimes? Surely that is then a situation where we have to raise our hands and point out/admit to accepting plot armour/protagonist privilege-esque favouritism to keep three of our main characters in the story but give them the depth of dealing with what they have done? What about Buffy chasing down and stabbing Faith? Purely plot armour there as she is never held accountable at all really for doing that with her shiny Chosen One soul intact.

  6. #46
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,724
    Thanks
    236
    Thanked 3,942 Times in 1,852 Posts

    Default

    I agree that, in hindsight, Angel killed Darla in Season 1 just a bit too cavalierly. I mean, I don't mind that he didn't hesitate -- compare "Lineage", for instance, and I bet Darla meant more to Angel overall than Roger meant to Wesley, or at least as much -- but I'd have liked that he had reacted more strongly afterwards.

    I don't have a problem with Darla's behavior in Season 1 once you accept that it is clearly all an affectation. Look, after 400 years, you probably need to fill the hours a bit, and I figure her private schoolgirl bit was just a way to keep the hunt fresh, and her approach was very "method".

    Don't get me started on the "soul" mechanics of demons, vampires, and humans in the Buffyverse. Particularly the vampire bit, where all the problems come from. It was a bad idea from the start. They gave Angel a curse and a soul for the same reason that vampires exploded into dust -- to skip the inconvenience of having to deal with tough questions about Angel's motivations. The only character through whom they actually raised some really interesting questions about "soul" or "no soul" was Lawson, and they a) killed him off in one episode, b) without having actually answered any of them. Vampire souls were a bad idea.
    Last edited by KingofCretins; 13-01-13 at 04:46 PM.

    Banner by LRae12

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to KingofCretins For This Useful Post:

    Lostsoul666 (05-02-13)

  8. #47
    and her haircut. Nina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,298
    Thanks
    2,280
    Thanked 3,700 Times in 1,276 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    How then do we balance what happened with Willow post her murdering Warren? I understand that she was too powerful to be contained by prison, but so arguably was Faith. Is what happened with Willow equal to Angel/Spike being left to redeem themselves whilst living with their crimes? Surely that is then a situation where we have to raise our hands and point out/admit to accepting plot armour/protagonist privilege-esque favouritism to keep three of our main characters in the story but give them the depth of dealing with what they have done? What about Buffy chasing down and stabbing Faith? Purely plot armour there as she is never held accountable at all really for doing that with her shiny Chosen One soul intact.
    Your questions are valid questions IMO and I wish the writers did spend a bit more time working on moral codes and were slightly more consistant. (Although I can understand that having 80% of your cast redeeming themselves can get tiresome. So only some characters get those kind of storylines. With Faith and Angel as the two with redemption as their main storyarc.) But I would say that while all these characters are flawed and did some bad things (in some cases really bad things), most of their crimes were understandable or even slightly justified when you look at the big picture. And when you look at each of these characters, you see characters who risk their wellbeing on a daily basis to help people, fight evil and save the world. They are good people, and build up credit because they show their goodness on a daily basis.

    Doesn't mean that they should all get away with the stuff some of them get away with perhaps, but it makes it understandable why friends and allies sometimes look the other way or give a second or third chance. And why the fans don't ask for their heads.

    The only big exception is Anya to me; there is no reason to believe she didn't have a soul while she killed all those innocent people she killed. And most of the time she doesn't care or is even kind of proud/misses those days. She also goes back to that life after a break up, showing us she barely learned anything about being a good person. At least not until that one episode where she did feel bad.
    Last edited by Nina; 13-01-13 at 05:53 PM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Nina For This Useful Post:

    Lostsoul666 (05-02-13)

  10. #48
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,297
    Thanks
    11,447
    Thanked 13,645 Times in 5,660 Posts

    Default

    Anya's attitude showed no remorse for a very long time but then to be repulsed by returning to her previous life was a very stark reality for her. I was never comfortable with her attitude towards Buffy in S7 though, I assume there was a great deal of resentment mixed in there.

    The demons in society of S9 has done far more damage to the soul mythology than either souled vamp ever did. To a degree Angel could be put to one side because of the curse and the jumble of circumstances with Spike, which as you rightly say includes as a major factor his personality, is put forward as being so unique that this could also be turned away from. The example of Harmony being evil eventually also helps right the premise of potential good somewhat. Some demons are shown as being mostly harmless, Clem for example, in the same way that some vamps are shown as being less of a threat to the general populace, vamp whores, so we also accept some prioritising and logical practicalities. But then they tried a Pratchett black ribboners operating within society affair and I so wish they hadn't. They are showing demons as capable of living alongside humans, trying to earn an honest living and even showing Buffy as bigoted on a couple of occasions. Unless the whole idea dramatically crumbles, and how can it in a way that covers enough of the accepted demons/vamps, there will always be a greater side of disquiet for me now as such a large portion have been shown as able and willing. I hope that when, and yes I am assuming when, magic is returned the whole idea falls in a rush of chaos that sets Angel and Spike apart again as our exceptions and reaffirms the right of the Chosen One in her gut instincts and the 'see vamp dust vamp' principle as the morally correct way to protect society.
    Last edited by Stoney; 13-01-13 at 07:50 PM.

  11. #49
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,724
    Thanks
    236
    Thanked 3,942 Times in 1,852 Posts

    Default

    Well, I personally find it easiest to deal with these things if you accept the premise that "soul" is not a mythological term of art. There is really no reason at all to assume that, canonically, mythologically, the word "soul" refers to one specific thing in every context in which it is used. It clears up a lot of problems to just assume coming in that what "soul" means when D'Hoffyrn talks about it or Spike and Angel talk about it or when Kathy the demon wants Buffy's, etc, that they might not all be talking about the same thing as such.

    Banner by LRae12

  12. #50
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,297
    Thanks
    11,447
    Thanked 13,645 Times in 5,660 Posts

    Default

    But it is presented as this definable thing that is either there or not. The qualities that someone gains, what is enhanced through it, the individual strength of it if you will perhaps varies. Hence Warren's is a sh*tty soul that doesn't guide his actions. But then in this sense how can such great weight be put to the mere presence. They are not led by actions, leniency comes with the presence of a soul as if it fixes things and then they have a whole season where they show that it doesn't and yet the soulless creature seeks it as the means for improving himself. I don't think they have to be meaning different things when they use 'soul' as a thing to refer to because they never manage to explain what it is that is missing without it other than assumption something is but that 'something' doesn't work for some people who do have it. No logic.
    Last edited by Stoney; 13-01-13 at 11:45 PM.

  13. #51
    Angel's Therapist
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,095
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 119 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    Ok I'm not going to quote anyone because there are far too many responses, which of course is a good thing. .

    As for the soul issue, I think Nina more or less covered it. I attempted to address the inconsistencies here and I looked at it from a Watsonian perspective. In such instances, I push aside such issues and themes and writers intention, simply because I don't always think the writers gave it that much thought.

    As for the differences between the characterization of Angel and Darla on Btvs and Ats respectively? Well we have to be more specific. Of course both characters are explored in more depth on Ats but are there any stark inconsistencies that cannot be explained? Is Darla actually less powerful? Or did she simply have less impact on Buffy than she did on Angel? And what about Angel killing Darla without any apparent effect? Well from the Doylist perspective it's obvious, they perhaps didn't give it much thought, but perhaps it's because Btvs is played out more from Buffy's perspective than it is Angel's. On Ats we see things more from Angel's perspective. It's possible that Angel didn't let on to Buffy how killing Darla really affected him. It was lampshaded that Buffy never really knew what was going on in Angel's head more than once, so this can be justified. I've always took it that it was a huge deal that Angel killed Darla. He was destroying everything that represented his old life and embracing his new life, he didn't let on to Buffy how much Darla meant to him. I could definitely see him brooding about it by himself but then realising that Buffy was now his new destiny.

    Briefly going to back to humans vs demons thing? Well I actually enjoy looking at this from a Watsonian perspective, virtually killing the author with multiple gun shots lol. I don't think the rules are as hard and fast as it may initially seem, but even in the show such things are questioned. Is it always wrong to kill a human? Is it always ok to kill demons? These things are questioned and I don't remember there being a clear cut answer to these questions. Again, are these actually inconsistencies? Even in real life, people have different views and people mature in their world view. If say Buffy had a 'no killing humans' rule (except in self defense) but say Angel didn't, that's not a canon issue, that's simply a difference in character. Even people said that Angel didn't kill humans, but of course we know he did. Again, this is a character issue not an inconsistency. In fact, again, in real life, some people's morals are not necessarily as consistent as they may like to think.

  14. #52
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    12,727
    Thanks
    2,072
    Thanked 9,182 Times in 2,789 Posts

    Default

    I actually don't have a problem with Angel and Darla's characterisation in Angel at all. I just rewatched that episode and I thought they both acted very in line with how they appear in AtS. The only time I find Darla's characterisation really jarring is in Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest when she gets beat down by Buffy far too easily and seems quite afraid of Luke. The Master also threatens her which seems inconsistent with Darla being his favourite as said in Angel and shown in AtS.

    I love the moment when Angel dusts her and I thought it felt very significant. Yeah, they never mention it again in BtVS but in the actual scene it's clearly written to have a lot of gravitas and the shot of Angel looking at Buffy and slowly walking away is probably one of the nicest shots in the entire series.
    - "The earth is doomed" -


  15. #53
    Angel's Therapist
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,095
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 119 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vampmogs View Post
    I actually don't have a problem with Angel and Darla's characterisation in Angel at all. I just rewatched that episode and I thought they both acted very in line with how they appear in AtS. The only time I find Darla's characterisation really jarring is in Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest when she gets beat down by Buffy far too easily and seems quite afraid of Luke. The Master also threatens her which seems inconsistent with Darla being his favourite as said in Angel and shown in AtS.
    I'll have to rewatch I think, but I'm sure I liked Darla in the episode 'Angel' of Btvs, she seemed more confident.

    I've never really had an issue with Darla's power, because, by nature she's not an 'aggressive' vampire, she's relies more on seduction anyway, but yeah, getting her ass handed to her that easily by Buffy was quite jarring.

  16. #54
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,297
    Thanks
    11,447
    Thanked 13,645 Times in 5,660 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vampmogs View Post
    Great stuff! It's a pity you couldn't get it in store but hopefully it doesn't take too long to arrive
    Crank up that rewatch thread, Angel has arrived!!!!!!! I'll watch episode one either today or tomorrow. (OK, perhaps a step too far in the excitement level there... )

  17. #55
    Angel's Therapist
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,095
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 119 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    OK, so far we've looked at writers intent, fanwanking and in general trying to make sense of the Verse.

    I think a few people have brought up the excellent point about trying to make a fictitious world consistent, the creator of which admitted is inconsistent, is pretty pointless. It seems mindless to try and talk about what is factually true when we are dealing with a world that is made up.

    The other extreme can also be true though. If virtually every explanation for anything in the 'Verse is given to 'production reasons' can we really have a satisfying discussion or debate?

    Admittedly, my own position hasn't been too consistent, but I will actually default to a Watsonian perspective, when dealing with such things as characterization and morality. If we take morality for example, I tend to lean towards scrutinizing the Scoobies or the Fang Gang, etc, whether it puts them in a morally comfortable position or not. I've noticed not all posters to do this and I had to ask myself: "Why?"

    I cannot speak for everyone, but I suppose many of us have an emotional investment in the show, at least in varying degrees. So if a question arises about say for example Buffy's moral position, people may dip outside of the show for their explanation to keep her from falling into the moral chasm, lest she becomes anything less than the hero. People may go as far as to say "But this must be an inconsistency, because Buffy is meant to be the hero". I remember this in particular when discussing the Scoobies' varying attitudes towards vampires, although to be fair, posters may use both a Doylist and Watsonian argument for this. In such situations I find the Watsonian perspective satisfying enough because in real life, people's moral attitudes actually aren't all that consistent anyway.

    I'll end this particular post by saying this: I think sometimes many of us, myself included can become 'full of ourselves' when talking about the so-called rules of play, but I'd still defend some kind of framework when analyzing the 'Verse, because it makes for a more meaningful discussion. If we have a playing field without any structure, where anything goes, the discussion quickly goes nowhere and it descends either into a boring conversation with little debate or a shouting match, where few are heard in amongst the din of confused opinion and the distinct lack of focus.

    Trying to find an elusive 'truth' in a fictitious world is a ridiculous contradiction in terms. Attempting to find a relatively consistent platform whereby we discuss topics meaningfully is a noble aim, in my opinion, because it really comes to down to art of discussion and the skill of debate. Where such conflict arises, the real trick is justifying one's position. For example stating why sometimes looking at things from a Doylist perspective is necessary or arguing that sometimes a Watsonian argument is not only satisfying enough but on occasions more satisfying than merely reducing most discussions to "She did it, because the writers told her to"

    Just my two pennies worth...

  18. #56
    Slayer MikeB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, Calif.
    Posts
    2,514
    Thanks
    3,437
    Thanked 594 Times in 351 Posts

    Default

    All caught up

    ________

    A lot of topics were discussed that are already being discussed in other threads. If one wants to make a “What is canon in the Buffyverse” that’s fine. But I decided I didn’t want to debate a lot of stuff that’s already being debated and discussed in other threads.





    * For the Buffyverse, canon is simply what happened in the Buffyverse and/or what is fact in the Buffyverse.


    * In terms of who is the arbiter of canon, Joss Whedon is the only guaranteed one.

    I put weight to Marti Noxon saying that Angel didn’t have sex with Drusilla in 1998 because she was Joss’s Number 2 in the Buffyverse and it was never even said – or really even implied – that Dru had sex with Angel in 1998.

    I put weight to Marti Noxon saying that Angel’s early AtS sunlight resistance isn’t canon because she was Joss’s Number 2 in the Buffyverse and in later AtS Angel is literally deathly afraid to be in sunlight for a second or so that he was walking willy nilly in in AtS s1.

    The other writers’ opinions on things are merely that: opinions.

    ________

    * Now, I consider this thread seems to be more about ‘What is canon in terms of debating the Buffyverse?’. In that sense, “canon” defines what shouldn’t be debatable.

    Everything that isn’t included in “This is canon.” is inherently ambiguous and therefore is debatable.


    * In terms of debating the Buffyverse, “production reasons” (including “plot armor” and “protagonist privilege”) should never be used.

    Why? Because we are debating what happened in the Buffyverse, not outside reasons for why things happened.

    Also, using “the point of the episode is _____________; therefore ____________ is the reason ___________ happened” is rather silly since posters will simply determine what the point of the episode to fit their determination of why something is the reason something happened.

    Another silly thing is saying, “The point of the writer was ______________; therefore, that is what is actually canon” as this is also mostly used only when what one thinks that writer’s point was fits with one’s own determination of what one wants to believe is canon.

    Another silly thing is using, “the original idea was ____________ so __________ must be true.” Again, this is mostly only used when the “original idea” of something fits with a poster’s determination for something. And, obviously later episodes apply to earlier ones.


    * In terms of debating the Buffyverse, I like to come up with reasonable explanations for why things happened instead of saying, “Well, it makes no sense why that happened that way, but we just have to accept it.” or “This is simply an inconsistency.”


    * A forum is not a random sampling of the Buffyverse and multiple posters disagreeing with one poster doesn’t automatically mean that one poster is incorrect.

    _________________

    There is a Spike/Dru thread: http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=17099



    kana

    There was a thread about canon not long ago.
    There was?

    Seriously though, what is canon? Well rather than simply trying to define it, I'll attempt to talk about it's importance in the fandom.
    Fandom consists of anyone who likes BtVS. I assume that’s over 10 million people worldwide. There are probably less than hundreds of regular posters on Buffyverse Boards.

    Most fans consider Seasons 1 through to 9 as canon in terms of Btvs whatever the medium.
    Most fans probably don’t consider BtVS S8 and everything after to be canon. Probably more people consider The Origin , Fray , Tales of the Slayers , and Tales of the Vampires to be canon than the BtVS S8 and BtVS S9 stuff.

    ________________________________________________

    Originally Posted by Joss Whedon
    “The Xander betrayal issue... hasn't come up with us, and here's why. Xander made a decision. Like a general going into battle, he had to keep Buffy's fighting spirit strong and he felt telling her the truth would blunt it. And Angel needed to be stopped. It was a tough decision, and an unpopular one, but I'm not sure it wasn't the right one. I'm on the fence, and that's what makes it FUN! So there!”

    That doesn't sound like someone saying "My word is God".
    He merely says he’s “one the fence” over whether Xander’s decision to do the Big Lie was the right one. Nowhere in that quote does he say or imply, “My opinion on the subject doesn’t matter.” If anything, it says he’s still not sure if Xander’s doing the Big Lie wasn’t even an okay thing for Xander to do.

    ________________________________________________

    I wouldn't say anyone should be forced to accept anything they don't like about the mythology
    In terms of debating the Buffyverse, posters should be forced to accept canon as being canon. And posters shouldn’t be allowed to make up their own canon such as “in the Buffyverse, older vampire automatically means stronger and more powerful vampire.”



    Stoney

    [Spike’s] ability or inability to survive sunlight never plays a plot point and has no significance outside of the scenes that require setting.
    Simply untrue. You may as well have said that necrotinting and/or black-out windows have no plot significance as well.



    norwie

    "Canon"/"mythology" in fictional works is mostly a product of the "nerd" audience, living out a narcissistic need for escapism.
    I don’t even know what you mean by “a narcissistic need for escapism”. If anything, discussing canon can be tedious and frustrating.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •