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?


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.