Season One, Retcons, and Souls. A Ponderment by Fender.

[fenderlove]

My thoughts are all a-flame over a conversation on the IDW Forum about souls in the Buffyverse. Can souls be involuntarily taken away? We saw Buffy get half of hers involuntarily sucked out in S4, and we know that the Mayor voluntarily sold his, but can the average Jane-or-Joe on the street have their soul taken away against their will in the 'verse?

How do you feel about Season One of BtVS? Do you ignore it? Is it okay to ignore it because of writer/director interviews? Because some stuff gets retconned later, do you pretend that those earlier instances didn't happen or do you find your own personal explanation? Do you have an explanation from a writer, actor, or director that you point to as how you explain particular retcons? Do you have a explanation from another fan (a fansplanation, if you will) that you use? Is it fair to argue that because a writer/director/actor says one thing that flies in the context of the show that one's explanation is somehow more correct than someone only using the show as a basis for their side of the discussion?

Is there really a concrete mythology of the Buffyverse? Or do you believe it can change when the writers/directors decide that it needs to change or it's convenient to change?

F**king magnets. How do they work?

Talk to me. Tell me what you think. :D

Comments

[kerry-220.livejournal.com]

I think one problem I see is that people are quick to say, "Well, obviously you didn't watch the same show I did" or "What show were you watching?" when they hear a different or weird opinion about the show.

Sorry, just jumping into your argument here. I don't believe that your opinion is at all unusual. Comments like that are just arrogant and intimidating and dead annoying. If I've read correctly, fans left the show when Spike got the soul. Was it the Redemptionistas (?) who avidly believed Spike was redeemable without the soul. I've read well thought out pieces that show how and believe that Spike was only given a soul in the end as an easy 'out' - giving their investment in Angel's story validity and allowing Spike to love and be loved. I think it was Barb who said that it was ironic that the soul was exactly the reason that this couldn't happen.

I think souled!Spike has been around so long now, that arguments against it are seen as contradictory to the mythology (and leading to such "What were you watching" comments.) I say hooray to Lynch and others for giving it a go - even if it isn't for long.

By the by, Mariah's "Spike is unique and his journey is not about Angel's" made me say "Oh Yeah!" It was a little embarrassing, but no-one saw :)

[fenderlove.livejournal.com]

I think once the "You didn't watch the show correctly" comments enter a debate it's all over from there.

If I've read correctly, fans left the show when Spike got the soul. Was it the Redemptionistas (?) who avidly believed Spike was redeemable without the soul.
I can't remember a lot of fans leaving about the soul at the time, but a lot of people left after Seeing Red. As far as Redemptionistas, there were a lot of different kinds, if I remember correctly- those that just wanted Spike redeemed no matter what, those that wanted him redeemed while unsouled, those that wanted him to have a soul, etc.

After Spike got souled, there were those who felt conflicted about it. For me, it was like once he had it, I didn't want him to lose it because it was what the Spike-haters wanted because they could use it as an excuse to dismiss every good thing he did, and yet I didn't want him to have the soul in the first place. I was so conflicted! XD

I'm glad that Mariah can recognize that both Angel and Spike have their own journeys that are unique to each fella. :D