why would you assume that the narrator is unreliable?

Spike's sire.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

Well, unreliable narrators aren't always unreliable, or else, you know, we'd be able to rely on their lies.

The point about the line being through Faith is backed up by more than Scooby speech, though; it's backed up by the fact that no new Slayer was called when Buffy bit it. Of course, reality in the Jossverse can be an unreliable narrator too.

Well, I can see why she'd assume The Narrator is unreliable, but I don't see what problem she has with the Scoobies.

Hey, The Narrator is extremely reliable, unless we're talking the BBS, in which case she is WRONG, and delusional (hi elusio).

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.

why would you assume that the narrator is unreliable?

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?

I know this last was to Betsy, but when I used the term, I just meant that I think their reliability isn't 100% (or even 80%, truly). Unreliable means just that. It doesn't mean they're always wrong. It means it is not 100% predictable.

I feel like I'm getting all repeato gal, but I'll try to explain the other stuff, again. I first of all don't have a lot of canonical reason to think the Scoobies, including Giles, are always correct. They've made enough mistaken judgments, errors in interpreting prophecy, etc., that there's wiggle room.

The Scoobies are generally truthful characters, and they've been written so that we're clear when they're telling what they believe to be the truth, and we're clear when they're lying. But there have been sufficient times that what they've thought and said has not turned out to be correct in the end, and no lying was involved, on their part, that I do not feel bound by canon to assume they are reliable, either.

Again, I do think it is easy to read (from the canon) that the line runs through Faith. It doesn't explain some things, like why the Run-Lola-Run girl at the beginning of Beneath You was slayerific.

Still, we know the Council has *not* informed Buffy and Giles of other slayers in the past--we know about Kendra and Faith only because they came to Sunnydale, so just because we never knew another slayer had been called when Buffy died, doesn't mean one wasn't. Faith came on her own, but Kendra came on her Watcher's instruction, and yet Buffy didn't know ahead of time. And even then, maybe it's possible for a slayer to be activated, without the council knowing ahead of time. And if the line only goes through Faith, I'm still left wondering why the the balance between good and evil is out of whack enough to let the FE act up so much.

It doesn't explain some things, like why the Run-Lola-Run girl at the beginning of Beneath You was slayerific.

Was she more slayeriffic than the other potentials?

I'm a fan of Occam. What they said is true if nothing on or offscreen contradicts it.

It can be made untrue later, but "unreliable narrator" isn't evidence. It's possibility. If this whole discussion has been about "well, it doesn't have to stay true" I apologise for prolonging it. So I ask "Do you believe the slayer line runs through Faith? If not, what is your evidence?"