It's a line spoken by Susan Byun in Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P. D..
Ooo, I haven't seen that in a while, but that makes it even better! I wanted to pass the quote on to a friend of mine who likes to terrify his students.
we do not really know the slayer line ran through Faith, or only through Faith. That's the assumption the characters make
But do they? That was an issue a lot of people at TWoP had during season 6: the audience was told in interviews that the line went through Faith, but I don't think that the characters ever discuss it (although I certainly may have forgotten or missed something).
The line has to go through Faith. At the beginning of season 6, they discussed that a new Slayer wasn't called when Buffy died because Faith was already there.
The line has to go through Faith. At the beginning of season 6, they discussed that a new Slayer wasn't called when Buffy died because Faith was already there.
Right, but that assumes a reliable narrator.
Do you have any reason to think they're unreliable there? I mean, with the knowledge that that's what Joss thinks too, it seems a lot of work.
Right, but that assumes a reliable narrator.
why would you assume that the narrator is unreliable?
why would you assume that the narrator is unreliable?
Well, I can see why she'd assume The Narrator is unreliable, but I don't see what problem she has with the Scoobies.
Spike's sire.
Unless there's a link between Spike's sire and the Scoobies discussing slayer lines that I'm missing, that seems to be implying we should assume they're
always
unreliable. Do you?
Now, if you're assuming the writers are unreliable (which is the explanation of the sire thing, as far as I can tell), that's different.
If I'm asked why I would assume that the narrator is reliable, I answer that in the past, the narrator has proven to be unreliable. Spike said Angel was his sire. He wasn't. The reason was that Joss had a much better idea, and more power to him. Spike discussing his own sire is precisely as authoritative as the Scoobies discussing Slayer lineage, perhaps more so: if he doesn't know, who does?
But because that particular retcon happened, I reserve the right to assume that future retcons are not out of the question.
If I'm asked why I would assume that the narrator is reliable, I answer that in the past, the narrator has proven to be unreliable.
Do you always assume the narrators are unreliable? Accepting that they can be is a far cry from saying they always are. If they aren't always, then there needs to be a better reason to think they are in this one instance -- what separates it from the others (your disbelief of the point stated is
not
admissible)?
