Francine - harvest
I Blame the Dutch mpoetess
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Mixed up vampires


TBQ and Keren both point out quite rightly that Angel(us) draws and paints; Spike wrote poetry when he was human. Having Angel write a poem to Spike or Spike sketching Angel lying naked in bed, doesn't work, and can make you look like, well...like you haven't been watching the show(s).

Though I can see it working in a situation where the author makes it obvious that she's aware of that fact -- for instance, Angel making fun of William's bad poetry, and modern-day Spike challenging him to do better -- or Spike repaying Angel's gift of a naked painting of the two of them together, with stick-figure porn.

Not what I was going to say. What I was going to say was, Joss sort of buggered up his own canon, and confused the newbies, on the drawing!Spike issue. Spike's little shrine to Buffy in the basement of his crypt includes several sketches of her -- so unless they were ones that Angel did, and Spike managed to steal them from Buffy, or rescue them from the mansion/factory-ruins, Spike can at least sketch.

Note that I'm not suggesting people should run with this -- I'm more pointing out that Joss and co. can be just as guilty of muddying their own continuity. Granted, they're allowed, because it's their continuity, or lack thereof -- but it still makes me want to grab somebody and say "Look, we have a group of about 20 diehard fans with eyes, memories, critical thinking skills and in some cases postgraduate degrees. We'll work for free. Please? Please?


mpoetess

2002-06-06 05:56 pm (UTC) (Link)

"True" happiness could happen very easily -- it's an indication of genuine feeling, unmarred by other negative ones. Angel seeing his son for the first time? True happiness. Come on, Joss.

"Perfect" happiness is a retcon, that allows them to do crap like Fred's little "But not perfectly happy, right?" "Perfect" happiness allows them to rate Angel's happy, so they can say "it's okay, because he wasn't *quite* as happy here as he was with Buffy"

kita0610

2002-06-06 06:04 pm (UTC) (Link)

I see what you're GETTING at, but I don't necessarily agree...k, like Angel seeing his son, for ex. They were VERY careful to be sure everyting else was totally fucked up at that moment. Darla, who Angel finally felt affection for, staking herself. Holtz with a CROSSBOW aimed at him. And later on, all the denizens of Hell wanting his kid dead.

And now, they've ensured he can never be truly/perfectly/wtf happy with Connor, because he wil always remember the years lost to Quortoth, not to mention hanging out with Sponge Bob at the bottom of the sea. So, I don't see the retcon in the changing of the word.

Now where I *would* see retcon is if they follow this A/C thing all the way thru, and then they have sex and he keeps his soul. Cause if he loves her, then...well, I dunno...

Unless one buys the argument (which actually, I do tend toward) that he isn't ever gonna lose his soul again because he's too damned worried about it happening to forget what he is. That to me rings true. Because the gypsy whatshisname said he "forgot to suffer" or something along those lines. I can't see him forgetting that again, least of all in a moment of passion.

But, if that's the case, the closet B/A shipper in me would say..HEY! Go back to Sunnydale! Ha.


mpoetess

2002-06-07 07:11 am (UTC) (Link)

I buy the argument (if made well) that he isn't gonna lose his soul again because he'll always be worried about it.

I think I muddied t hings up by adding "unmarred by other negative emotions" to my definition.

My real beef with "true" vs "perefct" is that "true" is a measure of validity; "perfect" is a measure of how good something is. From "Innocence" -- Uncle Enyos: "The curse. Angel is meant to suffer, not to live as human. One moment of true happiness, of contentment, one moment where the soul that we restored no longer plagues his thoughts, and that soul is taken from him."

As simple as one moment of contentment. Yeah, other shit was going down when he was looking at Connor after he was born, and he's always worried about Connor's life, afterwards, but he's had plenty of moments of content, of joy, looking at the baby, where other things might be troubling him, but it's not specifically his soul, or soul-guilt.

The "perfect" part is where it starts to make it easier for the writers "It's okay, because his happiness isn't pure, isn't as innocently blissful, yadda yadda." I don't buy that it was theoriginal meaning -- or at least, I don't buy that the original phrasing didn't leave a million opportunities for Angel to lose his soul, and the writers quietly started slipping the new phrasing in, which may represent waht they always meant but isn't what Enyos said.


byrne

2002-06-07 08:34 am (UTC) (Link)

So, does this change canon? When dealing with Joss's inconsistencies which version of his reality are we take as true? Spike's age, for example, was sort of cleared up in FFL, as was his turning.

Are we, as writers, to stick with "true" happiness or go with the now-Joss-says-it's-'perfect' version? Frankly, I feel that if Joss and co. are using "perfect" as an out, we can too. If we take care to explain it, of course.

mpoetess

2002-06-07 09:12 am (UTC) (Link)

Anything works when written well, and there's nothing fanonical about using the phrase "perfect happiness" since the characters themselves use it. But. My issue with using it to argue whether certain things would or would not set off Angel's curse, is this:

The only people to use the phrase "perfect happiness" are people who weren't the originators of the curse. Cordy says it, Fred says it, Angel says it. None of these people -- or even Jenny -- ever knew about the clause, previous to Enyos explaining it, and the only person left who *did* know about it was Enyos. (Or the rest of the tribe, but there's been no mention of them ever contacting the tribe for a fuller explanation of the specifics of the curse.) "Perfect happiness" is a term being used by characters who don't have the credibility to tell us whether it's accurate or not.

It's like Angel saying that an unsouled vampire can't love -- we could take that as canon, because it's stated on the series, but then what about Spike and Dru? James and Elizabeth? From Angel's POV, his statement may be true, but he's a fallible character, not the delphic oracle.

If, for instance, Cordy were to get a vision, or Lorne were to say definitively, "Angel, there's only one thing left that will ever set off your soul clause, and it's this," I'd buy that. Because it's not subjective to the characters; in coming from a higher source, it feels like a de facto statement from Joss.