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

[shapinglight]

There is an interesting discussion on snickfic's LJ about Jossverse worldbuilding that might be relevant.

One person said she thought Joss doesn't really have a coherent mythology. He just changes it all the time to suit the demands of the plot. I agree with that. I think it's bad writing, but there it is.

[thespikeofit.livejournal.com]

I'd say Joss is hopeless at creating a mythology to begin with and then can't cope with staying within its confines. Having said that where I have no problem is with stuff that Giles expositioned as to demonology. I think the Watcher's had their own myths to explain things and were not without an agenda. So their emphasis on separating the vampire from the person seemed to be rather convenient as far as helping persuade slayers to think in those terms even if everything we say of Angel/Spike/Harmony showed it was wrong. Not that I think Joss actually planned that out - it's just a fortunate way to make sense of some of the mythology set up from the early seasons.

[kerry-220.livejournal.com]

In general I've never really had a problem with retconning and inconsistent canon. Some of the most entertaining debates I've ever read revolve around people trying to fit some of these inconsistencies into a logical sequence. The slayer's and vampire's ever altering powers, character's ages, vampire physiology, time frames, locations, prophecies, Heaven , Hell etc. Some fans are absolutely BRILLIANT at explaining away what is blatantly a goof.

It is, afterall a illusory universe and the writer can do whatever he pleases. I'd absolutely agree that the fundamentals deserve respect, but in most cases 'tweaking' doesn't strike me as much of a sin.

[kindredspirit75.livejournal.com]

It always pissed me off that, in School Hard, Angel is Spike's sire. Then Joss turns things topsy-turvy with Drusilla siring William, which then becomes canon.

[quinara]

(*pops in via Petzi* Hello!)

As far as a lot of the Buffyverse mythology is concerned, I know that a lot of things factually contradict each other, but I tend to treat it as, well, mythology, especially when it's said by someone. So there are several competing ideas/stories of how things work (especially for things like the Old Ones), without any real substantial 'proof'. Some people are more reliable than others - and I tend to build the vague chronology in my head around things like Illyria knowing what vampires are - but otherwise just take it as subjective opinion. When the Master talks about his soul, I just wonder whether I should believe him (even though we don't hear his reasons for re-labelling himself, that doesn't mean he didn't decide to rebel against humanocentric terminology in 1836 - nor that Darla doesn't think it's daft and only humours him as much as she needs to, while still thinking Angel is disgusting). Naturally vampires like to tell stories about themselves to make them seem like more than reanimated corpses, though why Angel (perhaps) didn't want to get the way of the prophecy saying Buffy would die - and so used not breathing to excuse himself from being the actual one to save her - is one of the more sinister questions of our times. And FFL doesn't have to be anything more than Spike's subjective memory, which he's been reasserting in his mind for so long it feels like the truth (though he forgets to stop calling Angelus his sire). Maybe Dru completely forgot the whole 'feeding him her own blood' bit and Angelus had to save the day...

Obviously, most of that's crap, because the real answer is that Joss couldn't be arsed. I tend to distinguish that sort of writerly stuff from my 'reading' the show, though, because I don't think there's any reason why the show has to be doing anything other than presenting all the contradictions and leaving you to sort it out - I don't think it has to be clear what's intentional contradiction and what's unintentional. And I don't think I have to listen to Joss. ;)

[ms-scarletibis.livejournal.com]

...but can the average Jane-or-Joe on the street have their soul taken away against their will in the 'verse?

Well, yes. I say that because I don't believe that Kathy knew that Buffy was the slayer or planned for the slayer to be her roommate. I think she would have slowly sucked the soul out of anyone who she bunked with, and that any human soul "would do."

Also, (and I have yet to read the other comments, so as to not taint my answer), that while it's true Gunn bargained his away to a demon casino owner to get the flatbed truck to hunt vampires and protect his group, when it came time to collect, it wasn't something he wanted to do (he didn't think the day would come or whatever). It was his soul and not his destiny, right?

I don't ignore s1 of BtVS. I don't think there was anything given that truly contradicts what's given later. I'd need to know specifically what was retconned...perhaps I have forgotten.

As for the "concrete mythology," s7 proves that's not true with the scythe and the guardian who happened to hang out in the crypt in Sunnydale...among other things (like Baljox's eye which made NO sense...). Also, not a fan of Maudlin's Noxious' thoughts. Nope.