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.
Do I wish I was somebody else right now. Somebody not... married, not madly in love with a beautiful woman who can kill me with her pinkie!
Wash ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
The Minearverse 4: Support Group for Clumsy People
[NAFDA] "There will be an occasional happy, so that it might be crushed under the boot of the writer." From Zorro to Angel (including Wonderfalls and The Inside), this is where Buffistas come to anoint themselves in the bloodbath.
§ ita § - Sep 23, 2005 6:41:30 am PDT #4119 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Vortex - Sep 23, 2005 6:47:34 am PDT #4120 of 10001
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman
Right, but that assumes a reliable narrator.
why would you assume that the narrator is unreliable?
§ ita § - Sep 23, 2005 6:49:51 am PDT #4121 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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.
Betsy HP - Sep 23, 2005 7:14:31 am PDT #4122 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
why would you assume that the narrator is unreliable?
Spike's sire.
§ ita § - Sep 23, 2005 7:18:58 am PDT #4123 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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.
Betsy HP - Sep 23, 2005 7:39:33 am PDT #4124 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
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.
§ ita § - Sep 23, 2005 7:57:53 am PDT #4125 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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)?
Betsy HP - Sep 23, 2005 8:01:19 am PDT #4126 of 10001
If I only had a brain...
If they aren't always, then there needs to be a better reason to think they are in this one instance -
You're making my statement more global than I intended. The statement I meant to make (and failed) was that given that at least one statement in authorial voice was later falsified, all other authorial statements must be taken as falsifiable; NOT that all other statements must be false.
In particular, the Scooby statements that Faith is the slayer line can easily be voided should Joss have a better idea.
Narrator - Sep 23, 2005 8:02:09 am PDT #4127 of 10001
The evil is this way?
Well, I can see why she'd assume The Narrator is unreliable, but I don't see what problem she has with the Scoobies.
Standing. Right. Here.
§ ita § - Sep 23, 2005 8:05:15 am PDT #4128 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
at least one statement in authorial voice was later falsified, all other authorial statements must be taken as falsifiable
Well, that statement wasn't falsified so much as recast, but there's a difference between assuming an unreliable narrator (that was the quote you used) and assuming a narrator can be unreliable. The latter is clear in the Whedonverse, and general. The former seems to be about them being unreliable right then.
Standing. Right. Here.
That's what you say.