?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
29 December 2006 @ 10:49 pm
Two issues with Angel canon  

This evening, Mike (my co-writer on a lot of my fanfiction pieces and pretty much my closest male friend online) and I were discussing Buffy and Angel canon as we tend to do about once a week. We write fanfiction, we role-play in ‘verse groups, canon is something that is very important to us. You could call us canon purists or canon whores, whatever you want.

In addition to this, there is also a very interesting discussion going on at Stranger Things, which I know most of my Flist is members of. These are just some basic random thoughts, things that just stick in my craw, so to speak. They are completely up for discussion, debate, disagreement.

The first thing that Mike and I discussed was the fact that no one can seem to agree, on the shows, if Angel is on human blood or off it. Now, admittedly, we both know Angel canon better than Buffy canon so that is what I am going to primarily be referring to.

Going chronologically, we do see in Are You Now or Have You Ever Been that Angel was drinking human blood at the time. I am not sure how many people are familiar with hospital protocol and operations back then but human blood did come in jars. That knowledge comes from having a doctor for a mother.

Moving forward, thanks to Orpheus, one can assume that Angel is off the human since drinking from the dead clerk causes him to basically go all underground. It snaps something in him so he goes to living on rats. I don’t think it is wrong to assume that this is because he drank human blood.

So that is all done as a sort of retconning, of course. But even in Buffy, as one fanfiction author pointed out to me, Angel is shown to have blood PACKETS. Butcher’s blood does not come in packets. It comes in containers, much like you might buy deli salads in.

Another point for the human blood is in Eternity when Angel pours the blood packet down Rebecca’s throat. But that contradicts Expecting when Cordy, pregnant with demon spawn, is drinking out of...you guessed it, a butcher’s container of blood.

Then there is the rather large to-do at Wolfram and Hart about how all vampires need to be off human. It is amazing how much a few years can change a guy, huh?

But that really wasn’t the only inconsistent sticky point that came up in our discussion. Now, clearly from the listing of the fics that we write, we enjoy Angel and Cordelia but for this discussion, I am going to ignore any sort of romantic subtext and focus just on the friendship angle and what was shown, quite plainly in the show.

I doubt that most could argue that Angel seemed to do whatever he could to help Cordelia out. From the simple act of allowing her to work with him (because basically, she told him she was working with him) to letting her come to stay with him to catching her every time she had a vision. These were small things. But the majority of our discussion focused on three major points.

The first being the Pylea arc. Now, a lot of people point to the whole giving Cordy clothes to gain forgiveness as a huge block in the foundation of their friendship. But I think it is a lot more telling that Angel was willing to risk almost anything to find Cordelia and get her out of Pylea. Now whether or not you like Cordelia or like Angel or like their friendship, you have to admit that it was fairly risky for Angel to go headlong into a dimension he was unfamiliar with. There was a good chance (as we saw) that it could have been daylight there and he could have been one crispy critter.

Then in That Vision Thing, we see that not only was Angel willing to go to a very dark place within himself, he was willing to release someone from a hellish prison just to save Cordelia. And while Angel was big on killing demons and vampires, I think very few deaths in the series were as violent or carried as much weight as when he threw the piece of rebar through the Shaman’s head.

Lastly, is probably one of the most important ones, and that is in Birthday. Angel is pratically willing to kill Lorne or have Lorne killed in order to get to the Conduit to speak with it about Cordelia. He is so worked up, clearly, about the fact that she is dying, that he goes into "hand talking" mode.

So that is great, Seasons One through Three, we have these two people who are friends and co-workers, a boss who is willing to do just about anything for what, for all intents and purposes appears to be, his first real best friend. Then...comes Seasons 4 and 5.

Is the audience really suppose to believe that Angel, who could sense when Wesley had sex with a bleached blonde, couldn’t tell that Cordelia was different? (Another HUGE inconsistency in canon but that is for another discussion. This is already getting really long). This is the person that he moved heaven and hell for on no less than three occassions pointed out here and he was more than willing to just chop her head off instead of finding another way?

And the audience is suppose to believe that this manpire, who was ready to race headlong into places unknown, would be content to allow his friend to wallow away in a coma? That he wouldn’t do everything within his power, as he had done before on countless occasions, to get her out of that mystical coma? Sure, Lilah said they were taking care of Coma!Cordy but Angel trusts Lilah now?!

Then comes the biggest damn inconsistency of all. Cordelia’s reunion with the Fang Gang and her subsequent death. The gang gathers around and the fact that Cordelia has woken from a mystical coma is treated with all the fanfare that one would expect when opening a can of peanuts. And her death is treated in much the same fashion. It just seems a wholly different Angel than the one that was presented in Seasons 1-3. This is the manpire who took three months off to mourn Buffy but he doesn’t even take two minutes to mourn his friend? Someone who he has known longer, worked with, and basically saved from numerous jams?

That isn’t character development. Why? There is no reason for the complete 180. I am sure plenty of people could wank on how it was and how there were reasons but in the canon, what reasons were given? Did Angel ever say "I can’t mourn Cordy because well, I am just too damn busy?" or "Well, Cordy never staked me when I was Angelus and I know I did everything to save her life before, but this time, let’s cut off her head!" Please, tell me, I want to find that spot on my DVDs. LOL

It boils down to bad writing. Now, do I want to hazard a guess at WHY it was bad writing? I think most people who know me well enough know why I feel it was. And this really wasn’t suppose to be the time or the place for those kind of issues. It was more of just a little pointing out inconsistencies. It is very difficult to be a canon whore when your canon has more holes than swiss cheese and more twists than a churro.

This was added by Mike via AIM when I let him proof the rant: Well, in closing you might say something like...This is what happens when actors on a series are given little to no voice in the characters they play sometimes up to 14 hours a day...something along that line because you and I know on shows where actors have a say in the character this crap rarely happens

 
 
 
diseased_inside: smoking rosesdiseased_inside on December 30th, 2006 03:01 am (UTC)
I likes it all ranty.
Kelly: Hipsxlivvielockex on December 30th, 2006 04:14 am (UTC)
That is not all you like! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more. Say, your wife, is she a go'er...does she...go?
samsomsamsom on December 30th, 2006 03:38 am (UTC)
I'm like you, I try very hard to stick to canon, and I try very hard to explain a character's actions or inactions within the context of the storyline.

But I cannot explain S4&5 within context of the story. You have to break the fourth wall to explain why Angel never knew Cordy wasn't 'at the wheel' in S4 (CC was pregnant and it somehow paralyzed the AtS writers into ineptitude), or why he didn't do everything he could to wake her up in S5 (Charisma wasn't part of the cast, so she was 'out of sight, out of mind').

Heck, until you mentioned it, I never noticed the difference in blood containers. It's been my assumption that he's been off human since the Bad Hair Days of the '70's and the unfortunate diner worker. I think that was probably an inattention to detail on the part of the crew. One of Angel's ways of self-flagellation is self-denial. He's not going to drink human blood because it's what he wants most. Pig's blood is a way to punish himself. I think during AtS, the only times he's had human blood was Kate in s2, and Wesley in s3. And Connor's, but he didn't know it at the time.
Kelly: Cheerleadersxlivvielockex on December 30th, 2006 04:13 am (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am one of the people in this world that cannot forgive bad writing because 1. a writer left or 2. an actor left. As someone who grew up on soaps, which are usually seen as the cesspools of entertainment, I have seen how many times, writers were forced to write arcs without an actor. And let's face it, they have such a huge turn over in writers, it is amazing. Now granted, they don't always get it right but there are some major characters like Erica Kane, Dorian Lord, Vicki Buchanan, Sonny Corinthos, that despite the flood of new writers coming in, have always managed to stay true to their basic characterization. And that is coming from decades upon decades of writing in some cases. There is no excuse, what so ever, for changing characterization so greatly in my mind. Especially without any sort of explanation storywise.

Now as to the blood container issue, this really just burns my cookies, let me tell you. Every single show, movie, short, has a script supervisor, sometimes, more than one. Their sole job is to make sure the scenes match the script, that the continuity is preserved. That is what they are paid to do. And with shows like Buffy and Angel, they had a relatively small crew as well as using the same writers or directors. Whoever was approving the set design and properities list should have caught that first off. And if they didn't, the script supervisor should have. I mean, any normal person knows that animal blood does not come in packets. It would have been a very simple decision to remove packets completely from the set at the time of the properities run down.

I guess that the more that I pick apart the show, the more that I see not only bad writing but bad direction and crew mistakes. What is horrible is that I love this show dearly, I love this fandom. I guess that is what makes me a great fan as opposed to a good fan. I can get angry and point all these things out, but I still come back to the show and enjoy it.
samsomsamsom on December 30th, 2006 05:00 am (UTC)
I see what you're saying but on soaps, the characters you mentioned are long veterans of their shows, and valued, famous for their roles. The shows have a vested interest in protecting them. Cordy didn't have that importance with Joss or the writers at the time. She became inconvienent, so out she went.

And I've watched soaps off and on for years. On Santa Barbara, Eden and Cruz were soulmates, old skool yo, knew each other inside and out. They were Santa Barbara. Yet when Marcy Walker was leaving, instead of really digging deep for a gut wrenching story of loss, the writers contrived to give her a split personality, and she ran around causing trouble as Channing, all without the man who knew her best having a clue about what was wrong. On top of that, when Eden finally went over the cliff and disappeared, she reappeared in Santa Barbara with a wig and glasses, impersonating her third personality, Suzanne. Cruz still didn't recognize his wife, coming face to face with her several times. In one scene, she called him on his coming around, saying it was because she reminded him of his wife. He turned around and gave her a bottle of Eden's perfume and asked her to take her glasses off. He cried and tried to grab her because she looked so much like Eden, but he still didn't recognize the mother of his children. So soaps can dismantle a beloved character.

And yeah, I hate what they did to my girl, but I still consider myself a big ole' fangirl for the Buffyverse, and I still enjoy both shows.
Kelly: RAWR! Wesleyxlivvielockex on December 31st, 2006 03:35 pm (UTC)
The shows have a vested interest in protecting them. Cordy didn't have that importance with Joss or the writers at the time. She became inconvienent, so out she went.

This is very much true. And I do see the point you are making about veterns. But at the same time, I have seen other characters, maybe not veterns, that were handled well. Recently on AMC, Simone and Erin died, two characters that were not wildly popular nor fan faves. But neither of them went totally screwy and tried to end the world before they were written off. They were killed by a serial killer and they were both given proper funerals. The people of Pine Valley are still mourning them.

It boils down to one thing and one thing only, poor writing. Characterization, in any medium, should never never be ignored. And it should never be changed for a personal reason. Characters are characters and if a writer is unable to seperate their personal feelings in order to write that character as they were present previously, then they should not be writers.
samsom: Desk buddiessamsom on December 31st, 2006 04:49 pm (UTC)
It boils down to one thing and one thing only, poor writing

Totally agree with you! They were lazy, and watching s4, it showed. They sacrificed character for story, and I still have yet to find an essay or meta that explained s4 so that it made sense. It wasn't just Cordy, ConCord, the beast and Jasmine, the lame pissing contest between Wes and Gunn over Fred sucked too. No one connected that season, and the best character growth was afforded to a guest star - Faith.

I really have to look at individual moments and scenes in order to enjoy s4, because I can't make sense of the season as a whole. Angel's dream in Deep Down, how much he wanted to find Cordy, the sense that he would have hurt Connor very badly if Connor had anything to do with Cordy's disappearance, Angel's soul-losing dream about his perfect day, the fight between Faux!Cordy and Angel in his room over Connor, how hard he fought Skip when he was trying to find out what happened to Cordelia, the way he glanced at Cordy and the anguished yell as he rushed Jasmine, before her 'spell' took hold. There's more but time has dulled the memories to something fuzzy and bearable.

Most mediums do treat their characters with respect, but Joss is different. If it serves his vision of what 'we need', they'll die. Look at what he did to poor Tara - violently murdered at the height of her happiness and Willow gets a new love interest four months later. The only difference is Willow went crazy and tried to end the world in her grief. Wesley dies, Gunn is dying, and Lorne loses a major piece of his soul. Fred gets liquified. Buffy loses pretty much everything over the course of seven years, except her will to fight, and woobie Xander loses an eye standing up for Buffy. Giles loses Jenny first, and his relevence later on.

Being Joss's fans should come with a disclaimer, and an 800 number to call during those crisis moments - like the end of Rain of Fire.

Cordy was different because he didn't just kill her, her character was assasinated right along with her body.
Sarah: Cordelia/Angelboy_named_susie on December 30th, 2006 01:18 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I have to say that I will always bear a grudge against Joss for how he butchered Cordelia's character in seasons 4 and 5 of Ats. Like you, I didn't understand how Angel couldn't tell that Cordelia was different. And that whole Jasmine storyline was beyond terrible.

My other big gripe with BtVS and AtS is the inconsistency with how the vampire characters are treated. On AtS, there are several times when both Angel and Darla say that a vampire without a soul is incapable of love (a good example is when Darla is pregnant and realizes that once her child with a soul is born she won't be able to love it because she won't have his soul within her anymore). But yet, when it comes to BtVS and Spike, we are supposed to believe that Spike is capable of love, even though he doesn't have a soul (until season 7). I've never understood that inconsistency as to why unsouled Darla and Angelus are depicted as incapable of love, the reason being that they don't have souls, but when it comes to unsouled Spike, he's capable of love. The only thing I can figure out is that it's meant to appease all the crazy Spuffy shippers who insist that Spike really does love Buffy and is such a wonderful guy, but the inconsistency bugs me. Sorry for adding my own rant to yours. Couldn't help myself. :)
samsomsamsom on December 30th, 2006 03:32 pm (UTC)
Spike wasn't the only vampire shown to be capable of love. When the Judge touched Spike n' Dru in BtVS s2, he said they both stinked of humanity or something like that, implying that both of them were capable of love. And James & Elizabeth in Hearthrob were shown to be very much in love with each other, something that went on for a century and a half. Even Darla & Angelus were oddly devoted to each other, and there were times during Ats s2 where I thought Darla exhibited signs of love, like when she told Angel that God didn't want him but she still did, or the vulnerable look on her face when she sensed Angel during her demon recruitment. So despite the assertion that vampires don't love, I thought that they did, but it wasn't like how we see love. It was unhealthy and crossed the line into creepy and obssessive but it was still love.
Sarah: Anya glareboy_named_susie on December 31st, 2006 02:47 am (UTC)
I never really got the feeling that there was really love between Angelus and Darla. With Darla and Angelus, I always felt that Darla considered Angelus to be more like her plaything than anything else. She wanted someone good looking to run around killing and maiming with her, and Angel fit the bill until he was cursed, and then she quickly tossed him aside. After Darla was resurrected and she tried to get Angel back, it seemed to me that her motivation wasn't really out of love for Angel but to prove that what they had had together meant more than what he had shared with Buffy. That's why she was so angry when Angel didn't lose his soul after they had sex. Obviously, she had some sort of emotions involved there, but for me personally, I don't think I would call it love. More like anger that blond cheerleader could do something for Angel that she couldn't.

With Dru and Spike, there was definately emotional involvement, more so for Spike than Dru, as evidenced by how quickly she took up with Angelus in season two of BtVS. I find it more believable that Spike loved Dru than Buffy, but I'm still not sure I'd call it love. I think obsession is closer to what occurred there. And I still can't wrap my head around how unsouled and evil Spike started to become attracted to Buffy.

With Elizabeth and James, okay I'll buy that they were in love. But I think that just helps prove my point that they weren't consistent throughout BtVS and AtS about whether vampires are capable of love, with some like Darla and Angel insisting that they weren't and for me, demonstrating that through their actions, and then others like Elizabeth and James and Spike, insisting that they could and did love.
Kellyxlivvielockex on December 31st, 2006 03:47 pm (UTC)
I am really of the school that vampires (soulless for this discussion) cannot love. Any way, shape, or form. Yes, they can be obsessed with a person but that is not love. Love involves a sort of selfless act that something without a soul, without a conscience, is not capable of. To love someone, is to give all that you are to them. I just can't fathom something soulless being able to do that.

I mean, look at how Angelus reacted when he was possessed with the spirit of the dead lovers. (God, I wish I knew my Buffy show titles better right now). He is trying to scrub that feeling of love off himself. I doubt this is going to be the same guy who, excuse me for pointing a fanfic example, would be taking Cordelia on a date. HUGE PET PEEVE.

So yes, obsession. We saw obsession in the shows. And I think we need to listen to the characters themselves. If Angel says he was incapable of love as Angelus, I think he knows himself better than some fangirl who is trying to justify a Buffy/Angelus romance.

But Spike and Dru, that is a whole other can of worms right there. Dru is crazy so her idea of love and what love is, totally different. Yes, she does say that they can love but not wisely but she is crazy. I would take what she says with no more grain of salt than any raving lunatic.

Spike, Spike is an odd creature. Because we do know that the demon that takes over a human when they are turned does retain the memories. And Spike was rather a romantic. It seems to me that tendencies that were present in a human only become amplified when they are turned. For instance, Liam was a man of excess, living for himself and his pleasure. Well, look at Angelus. Spike, was all sensitive and romantic. And I think that was probably amplified when he was turned. No, I don't think he was capable of love. But I do think he tried to be out of a basic personal need.

James and Elizabeth, again, taking a couple that was already in love and turning them only amplified feelings to the point of obsession. Sure, we have all seen the tragic love in real life, people killing lovers, etc, but James took it to a serious extreme with getting his heart cut out. That isn't love, again, that is obsession. His mate, the one he hunted with, he had been with the longest, was killed. I am not sure if that is love as much as it is self-preservation.

Animals who travel in social packs seem to "mourn" the loss of a pack member and they stay together, sometimes mate for life. Is that love? It depends on how much you want to anthrophomorphize animals. And basically, aren't vampires just that? Animals? I mean, to get metaphysical here, isn't a soul what seperates humans from animals, according to conventional logic?

(And I should add that I don't believe that but I am trying to make a point and thus, supporting that point with conventional, accepted logic. :) )
spikeNdru: Connorspikendru on December 31st, 2006 09:26 pm (UTC)
But then, how to explain Spike's desire to turn his mother so she wouldn't have to suffer the pain and eentual death of TB? Angelus killed his family to show his power over them and killed Dru's family to isolate her and drive her crazy, but Spike (in LMPTN) says, Think of it. No more sickness. No more dying. You'll never age another day. Let me do this for you . . . We'll be together forever.

And in Crush, prescient Drusilla says: But it's so funny. I knew ... before you did. I knew you loved the Slayer. The pixies in my head whispered it to me. Buffy replies, And whatever you think you're feeling, it's not love. You can't love without a soul. And Dru says, Oh, we can, you know. We can love quite well. If not wisely.


I don't think canon ever explained the differences in vampires, but I've heard fanon explanations that the strength of the demon that enters the person contributes to how much human emotion a vampire is able to retain.

As for the human blood, until he took over W&H and made the "No human blood or you'll be 'terminated'" rule, during the course of AtS, Angel seemed to drink both human (probably from a blood bank) and animal blood (from the containers) somewhat interchangeably. I definitely remember it being mentioned that Angel preferred O+ blood (and while Spike was chipped, he occasionally ordered O- blood at Willie's)

(Anonymous) on December 30th, 2006 04:39 pm (UTC)
The Rants
Yes, I am Mike. I am the evil one in this partnership between Livvie and myself.

She and I are so canon driven, it's not funny. We've even left sites due to the poor canon writing of others. Myself, I get totally turned off a show if the character is in a profession I've had personal experience in and its clear the writers know nothing of it. Same with a fanic. This is why so many authors scoff at fanic writing. I know a professional author and teacher who most would know if I put her name...but her big advice is...Write what you know about. Personally, before internet when fanfics were published on real paper in fan ran magazines the quality was better and some even made it into short story books because things could and would be rejected on poor canon and quality. But on the net seems the rules have changed.

Now on this other, yeah, the blood packets. Like Livvie said human comes in those but so does animal...if its going to a vet and I doubt he'd be able to get hold of that so easily and most is dog or cat and are in much smaller packets...not the pint size.

And my statement about actors having a say in their characters is so true. Actors have say in the character often corrects mistakes. The Star Trek crews were always giving input. The Star Wars actors gave input. Harrison Ford once said to George Lucas after reading a line for Han Solo, "George you can write this shit but you can't say it." George had enough respect for his actor to sit down with him and discuss how the character would talk and react. James Doohan, Scotty on Star Trek, totally refused to operate the transporter the way the director kept telling him to because it wasn't the way he'd been doing it for two years and he knew the fans would notice. Gene Roddenberry came in on Jimmy's side. From what I've heard of late, and I hate to pop bubbles, this wasn't allowed on the Buffy or Angel set. I even heard someone through a pissy fit when he found out a shot he wanted couldn't be done because...hey...for four years it was said vampires don't cast reflections so seeing Angel looking at himself in a mirror couldn't happen. Actually David Boreanaz said the difference between Bones and Buffy/Angel was like night and day. He couldn't believe series acting could be so fun and that he could have such an input with his character as he has had with Seeley, even down to the ties, outrageous boxers, socks, and shoes. Most of which actually comes from his own clothes and not studio wardrobe.

Okay, think I've gotten Livvie in enough trouble here, but that's my job. It's in our contract. Oh, and please, don't listen to the lastest net rumors that David and Emily are having an affair. It's about as true as the rumors put out that David and Sarah were...which they weren't. I need alot more proof then some publicity shots of them smiling together, which they are paid to do, or bogus tabloid shots to show they are having an affair.

Again, my rant is over and yes, I can be a real SOB, just ask Livvie.

Mike
samsom: bleedingheartsamsom on December 30th, 2006 07:31 pm (UTC)
Re: The Rants
Hi Mike!

We know Joss doesn't play well with others. Remember, the director and Donald Sutherland 'ruined the movie' by adding their own spin to things. I think James Marsters and SMG were about the only actors he listened to, for input. And Joss has said he doesn't put that much thought into continuity. He's good with dialogue, he creates good characters and painful plots that resonate with his fans, but the day to day thing probably just didn't matter to him. So putting blood in both bags and containers probably didn't concern him overall.

But DB saying what he does makes me understand why he had such a 'hey, it's just a job' attitude about Angel, why he said whatever the company line was at the time. He probably tried to give input and was shut down. Which doesn't excuse his rather manic take on Seeley Booth. During the first few eps, I seriously thought Booth had ADD, with the way he was jumping around and the funny facial expressions. Since then, he's found a balance.

As to the rumors about DB and Emily, I haven't heard them, but it seems like there's always going to be dreamy-eyed fifteen year old fangirls who attach too much to the interviews and pictures the show puts out. It's in both actors' best interest to appear like they do, but you'd have to be truly dillusioned to read more into it. RPS is something I don't find appealing for the most part, but it has its niche, and it can be good reading, but to go further than that and actually believe it? Not good, and an insult to DB's wife.
londonkds on December 31st, 2006 07:47 am (UTC)
Here through Sunnydale Daily:

Wasn't there an implication in Orpheus that the guilt eruption wasn't because he'd drunk human blood, but because he thought he'd subconsciously not saved the guy so that he could drink his blood?
Kelly: RAWR! Wesleyxlivvielockex on December 31st, 2006 03:30 pm (UTC)
I am not ignoring you or your comment, I am just going to rewatch Orpheus again because as to that implication, my mind is slightly fuzzy. :)
peasant_ on December 31st, 2006 09:08 am (UTC)
Here from the su_herald

In both BTVS and Angel we have seen Angel drinking both human and animal blood. I always assumed that he would drink human when he could get it from an ethically acceptable source - normally from a blood bank, presumably, and drank animal blood the rest of the time. We saw he had bagged human blood in his fridge as early as the BTVS episode Angel, and he knew all about the blood deliveries at the local hospital in The Dark Age. But we also saw him at the butchers getting pigs' blood in The Prom, and drinking butcher's blood when Buffy brought it for him in Homecoming.

I think he had problems after Orpheus because of the ethical dilemma of whether or not he deliberately let the shop boy die just so he could drink from him. He had problems after drinking from Buffy in Graduation Day and Kate in The Shroud of Ramon because he was not just drinking human blood but taking it from a living human.
Kellyxlivvielockex on December 31st, 2006 03:25 pm (UTC)
I always assumed that he would drink human when he could get it from an ethically acceptable source

But see, this is another place where my issues with the canon comes into play. IF Angel had no problem with drinking human blood from an acceptable source such as a blood bank,then why didn't he do that when he worked for Wolfram and Hart? Why didn't he say to his employees that they would have to drink blood bank blood on site so they wouldn't go out to kill humans? And why make such a big deal about the differences in the animal blood that Harmony brought him from what he was used to?

I am not saying that Angel NEVER drank human blood, what I am saying is that the show was inconsistent. Examples come up time and time again about his conflict of drinking FROM a human and from drinking human period (S5 of course). There is nothing stated implicitly in the canon that says Angel is down with the drinking human blood, when it comes from a blood bank. I am not sure it is safe to assume this is the case when Angel makes such a big deal to the contrary.

I guess again, it comes down to the issue that I have with it being poor writing and poor work on the job of the script supervisor. These two examples are hardly the only examples in canon of inconsistencies in the writing.

Hmmmm...I feel ANOTHER rant coming on. LOL
peasant_ on December 31st, 2006 03:43 pm (UTC)
Sorry, meant to answer that point and forgot in my original comment.

The point about Season 5 is that Angel is not just managing his own urges, he is trying to set an example for the other vampires in the office. In such a situation, rather as when dealing with alcoholics, it is easier to make an absolute rule of no human blood than leaving it fuzzy around the edges as to ethical sources. Besides, it was apparently easy for them to test for human blood in their systems - but it would be no good if every vamp who tested positive could just produce an old blood bag and claim they'd never been near a vein. Much simpler to just have the blanket rule.
peasant_ on December 31st, 2006 03:46 pm (UTC)
And why make such a big deal about the differences in the animal blood that Harmony brought him from what he was used to?

Why shouldn't otter happen to be tastier for a vamp (the fishiness, perhaps) we know they can taste the difference between pig and human blood so why not otter and other rodents?
Third Mousethirdblindmouse on January 26th, 2007 03:18 pm (UTC)
I always assumed that he would drink human when he could get it from an ethically acceptable source - normally from a blood bank, presumably, and drank animal blood the rest of the time.

Blood banks are an ethically acceptable source? Blood is precious. The reason they're always asking folk to give blood isn't because they have plenty already, and hey- take a pint while you're at it. In fact, in one of the early seasons Buffy and Angel save blood that is going to a hospital from vampires, showing that Angel is entirely aware that stealing human blood is wrong.
peasant_ on January 27th, 2007 05:27 am (UTC)
Blood banks are an ethically acceptable source?
Well, I'd have thought not, yet the fact remains we have several times seen Angel drink bagged blood that presumably came originally from a normal blood bank. (I can't think of any other source.) And on at least one occasion Spike had a bag of what looked like human blood which he had left in Giles' fridge. So somehow or other both Angel and the Scoobies could get hold of bagged blood in what they considered to be an ethical fashion.

My point about the blood delivery in The Dark Age was that whilst (with Buffy with him) Angel did agree to ensure that all the blood got to where it was intended for, he also cheerfully agreed that everyone knew when was delivery day - in other words there was clearly a well known supply system within Sunnydale for getting hold of that blood and distributing it to the vamp community. The human blood sold in Willy's Bar springs to mind as a possible instance. And Angel was clearly tapped into that system to some extent. Now exactly what that says about him and his involvement is open to speculation but my personal reading of that scene was that he didn't consider taking the blood as one of the worst crimes ever - indeed he seemed to be positively hinting that he might occasionally have a sip.
Third Mouse: Anya (huh!)thirdblindmouse on January 27th, 2007 12:59 pm (UTC)
Willy served human blood? It's an amusing thought, that the Sunnydale population was giving donations to keep its vampire population well-fed. Might save them a trip to the hospital in the first place.