From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #159 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, July 23 2000 Volume 02 : Number 159 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/comments7/16 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: College (formerly Guy Gavriel Kay Disease, formerly The DeLint , , , , Factor) ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/comments7/16 [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/comments7/16 ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: Forever Knight (was Re: b/redemption) [Dori ] Re: Forever Knight (was Re: b/redemption) [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/comments7/16 ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:31:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > David: I'm glad you shared your reaction to "Becoming"; feel free to > discuss any other ones as you see them. As in, "don't be scared off by polite comments from others gently implying that you're nuts"? > (The Scelsi joke about "I > Only..." made me laugh, of course. But what did you think of what I > see as a really clever episode?) I thought it showed both the strengths and the limitations of television. The strengths because it handled the situation as subtly as the format and the hour length would allow. The limitations because the situation, except for the addition of a Vampire Slayer who solves the protagonists' problems for them, is essentially identical to that of _The Owl Service_, a book which, by comparison, shows just how little subtlety and literary profundity television is capable of handling. > I still don't see the distinction you're making between the torture > scenes in "Becoming" and "Five by Five." But we've been over this > before. About as different in overtones/affect as two scenes presenting virtually identical circumstances could be, I thought. > Up until the last minute Buffy hoped to restore Angel's soul and > save him; but she agreed with Xander (as in the scene at Giles' in > "Passion"--have you seen that one?) that, failing soul restoration, > she was going to have to kill Angel. She did =not= know that Willow > was going to try the spell again from her hospital bed, because > Xander deliberately =did not tell her=. > > And, as others have said, by the time Angel's soul was restored, it > was too late: the gate to Hell was opening, and she had to "kill" > Angel (his blood was necessary to close it up again, we've never > been told why). As your second paragraph makes clear, the omission discussed in the first paragraph did not affect the plot at all, or the heartbreak of what Buffy had to do. There's no "if only" about Xander's action. Bad Angel might be able to disguise himself as Good Angel as part of his plot, but if Buffy is fooled into thinking that's what's going on, it's only for a moment. Thus, if we assume that Xander's and Willow's actions and timing were the same, but that Angel had not yet started the ritual, Xander's omission would still not have doomed Angel: Buffy would still have realized what had happened. Gayle noted its revelation of Xander's character, but his omission has no other significance. Your last parenthetical comment is the real kicker. I knew that - it was made clear as part of the plot that, once the demon awoke, he could only be stopped by sending Angel to hell with him - but the problem is that this requirement is arbitrary. The authorial thumb is cruelly setting its characters up. Everybody seems to think the end of "Becoming" is a tragedy, but I could without much trouble rewrite it so it would have been a _real_ tragedy: 1) Angel wouldn't have started the ritual yet, so that would be out of the picture except as a reason for Buffy to hurry (and this would be characteristic of Bad Angel, who loves to dawdle and toy with his victims); 2) Willow would be casting the spell and Xander would be not telling Buffy about it, as in the actual show; 3) Buffy, arriving and finding Good Angel there unexpectedly, would at first _think_ that he was Bad Angel _trying to fool her_ into thinking that he was Good Angel; 4) Tearfully but angrily (at what she thinks is Bad Angel's perfidity), she would cast him into Hell, not to stop the ritual but to keep him from starting it later; 5) Then, just after it was too late to reverse her action, she would realize that he really was Good Angel, and both would stare horror-stricken at the mistake she made. (This would require good acting from Boreanaz at this point, which he didn't actually show as Good Angel here, probably because he had to stand yearningly in the middle of a sfx vortex.) Now _that_ would be a tragedy of Shakespearean dimensions, rather like Othello killing Desdemona, and what would make it a real tragedy is that it would arise out of the actions and feelings of the characters, not out of an artificial plot device. With the above plot, Willow's spell would be enough to save Angel if Buffy had only known; in the actual episode, Willow is already too late, and Buffy has to damn Angel to save the world, regardless of which Angel he is at the moment. With the above plot, Xander's omission becomes a truly tragic error. In the actual episode, it doesn't make any difference if Xander tells her or not: she figures Angel's identity out anyway, without any shock of surprise. And it doesn't even make any difference to the plot (though it does to her emotions) if Buffy knows or not: she has to damn Angel anyway. With the above plot, the tragedy is that she doesn't have to do it, but does so anyway through a series of errors including her own, and the evil of the ghost of Bad Angel lives on (by making Buffy suspicious) even after he's left the scene, and afterwards the characters can mourn the "if only" that they barely missed and _could easily have prevented_. In the actual episode, Buffy only has to damn Angel because of the totally artificial rule that it's the only way to stop the ritual, and as Willow started as fast as she could, no failure of hers contributed to the tragedy any more than Xander did. As you said, we've never been told why it was necessary to stop the ritual by casting Angel into Hell, a feature uncharacteristic of _Buffy_ spells, which leaves open the overwhelming likelihood that it was deemed necessary by the author in order to give Buffy and Angel a hard time. That's what I mean by "authorial thumb". It was something like the above scenario that I was expecting to occur, and I was greatly disappointed that it didn't. And with the weight placed on the Xander's omission scene, I could hardly believe that Buffy wasn't going to be at least briefly confused about which Angel she was facing. To have to knowingly damn her lover is tragic, but it doesn't rise to anywhere near the multi-facteted tragedy of the plot I outlined, and the reason she has to do it is completely random and imposed by the writer. It doesn't grow organically out of the characters. _Buffy_ is capable of better: the sequence of misunderstandings that complicate Buffy & Riley's relationship in the middle of the 4th season, starting with Riley not telling her about the Initiative and ending with his learning about the body-switch, is all excellent character-driven plot development. Even the breakup of Oz and Willow, though driven by plot devices, is well expressed in the characters. But now do you see why I was so disappointed with "Becoming"? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:40:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: College (formerly Guy Gavriel Kay Disease, formerly The DeLint , , , , Factor) Jennifer, you must have misunderstood me because I accidentally used the present tense ("I find my classes") instead of the past tense. I went to college at 18. My parents paid for it. Berni was in the same situation. I took a 5-hour-a-week job (at a small press publisher) in my sophomore through senior years - the first paying job I ever had - solely to earn a little extra pocket cash and get some work experience. I spent vast amounts of time - it astonishes me now - hanging out with friends and in bookstores, and writing for fanzines and apas. So I was one of those carefree young students you're talking about. (I did not, however, watch much tv, something I'd begun giving up at 13, and I already knew almost as much about classical music as I do today.) Nevertheless, despite my rich extracurricular life, I enjoyed my schoolwork, I was engrossed by and interested in many of my classes. So was Berni with hers. And most relevantly for the _Buffy_ discussion, even my bozo dorm-mates who couldn't wait to get out of class and refused to discuss intellectual topics outside of group study sessions FOUND THAT THEIR SCHOOLWORK IMPINGED ON THEIR LIVES. And _that_ is what has been almost entirely lacking on _Buffy_ since Walsh died, and was conspicuously not lacking before. Look at the role of school in the show before that point, both in high school and college. Willow is the grind, the one like me who actually enjoys it. See, I'm not some bizarre alien critter. Buffy, and Xander and Anya insofar as we see them in that role, is/are the more (stereo)typical type: not interested in class, not really wanting to do the work, but having to do so anyway and arrange the rest of their lives around it, and to think about it from time to time and even talking about it if only to complain of its burden. See Anya's "I'm flunking math" comment, and countless similar ones from Buffy. By the way, I didn't find grad school to be "serious shit", though some of my classmates did, and quickly dropped out. It was much like a continuation of college for me, both in my curricular and extracurricular life, and that's true of a lot of grad students I've known, particularly in the humanities. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:19:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/klhmemo: The deLint factor I just found my reference to the so-called deLint factor in the archives. May 7th, subject line "b/burroughs(william)". And I _did_ call it "Guy Gavriel Kay Disease." Hah! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:16:00 -0400 From: Dawn Friedman Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 At 08:31 AM 7/22/00 -0400, David wrote: >But now do you see why I was so disappointed with "Becoming"? I can see that it didn't do what you wished it would, and that you really really wish it had. But you can't expect everyone else to be disappointed, even if you explain in detail why it failed to be the tragedy of your dreams, because not everyone has the same dreams. You do know that not everyone thinks television is inevitably incapable of literary subtlety, right? Because some quite good writers go off to do television writing, now and then, and I'd hate to think of anyone being made unhappy over their choice of medium. I quite enjoy some of your posts, and I know you have great seniority, so I hope I don't seem disrespectful. But I do wonder, if you're so unimpressed, what you're doing on a Buffy discussion list. You're not actually hoping to persuade us all that the show isn't worthy of our time, are you? It doesn't seem likely, but some of your posts do sound rather as if you were -- as if your hoped-for result would be everyone's abandoning the list and going off to do something more literary. - --Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:43:56 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 David, your suggestion -- that Buffy didn't realize that Angel's soul was restored and "alas, a clueless Buffy slays him," as TV Guide misrendered it - -- would certainly have made the show much more predictable. Lots of people were speculating that that would happen (lots and lots and lots of people speculated that Angel might change back and Buffy wouldn't believe him, though her killing him seemed more of a long shot, given that he was a regular). No one predicted what actually would happen. Not even with Fox's promos announcing "And it will all end in a stunning moment that no one will expect" -- practically trumpeting the fact that there would be a surprise ending and daring us to guess it. But afterward I never saw anyone say that it would have been more powerful, dramatic and tragic had it happened the predictable way. Everyone I have ever seen comment on the ending of B2 was far more blown away by the tragedy of Buffy's knowing, chosen sacrifice. You are the first person I have ever seen express the opinion that the mistake would have been more dramatically powerful. I have a feeling that your not understanding what was happening blunted the impact for you, and learning what really happened in retrospect doesn't quite have the same effect. There was actually a moment in which Joss made us wonder if Buffy would let the world go to hell out of her love for Angel. Never have I watched a show that actually made me seriously wonder such a thing, even for a moment. But if you didn't know what was happening, that wouldn't have happened to you. One of the most powerful microseconds in all of Buffy is the instant in which she realizes what she has to do and makes her decision, even though one doesn't realize that is what is happening until a subsequent viewing; it happens just when the vortex starts to open and the tragic decision flashes through her eyes. But you'd miss the impact of that if you didn't know what was happening. And Angel's uncomprehending look of betrayal by someone he loved and trusted. How could you have had that if the situation was "I'm good again, Buffy! Believe me!" "You're lying! " She might have felt guilty afterward, but it is nothing compared to the guilt of knowingly betraying the innocent trust of someone you love. "Close your eyes." He trustingly does so and, with full awareness of what she is doing, she betrays his trust. (And the fact that she instantly knew without doubt that her Angel was back carries its own dramatic message.) Yeah, the magic rules are arbitrary and are handy dramatic shortcuts for the Buffy writers. All the time. In practically every episode. It is not uncharacteristic of Buffy at all. If you have never noticed it before, it is because the human drama so absorbs our attention, and the reason that the human drama =can= absorb our attention so thoroughly is that so little time is spent on the plot devices that set up that drama. The writers say, "The magic works this way," and poof, instant plot shortcut. B2 is no more arbitrary than the rest of the series. You may have stopped to think about it in this case because you =weren't= caught up in the drama, due to not understanding what was happening. In my opinion, the ending of B2 was one of the highest dramatic moments I have ever seen on the big or small screen, and was utterly perfect. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether the "mistake" scenario would have been an improvement. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:13:08 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 What Gayle said. To me, the fact that Buffy made a conscious decision to kill the person she loved most in the world is infinitely more tragic than if Buffy had simply not believed Angel was good and then killed him. YMMV, and obviously does. :) Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 2:43 PM Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 > David, your suggestion -- that Buffy didn't realize that Angel's soul was > restored and "alas, a clueless Buffy slays him," as TV Guide misrendered it > -- would certainly have made the show much more predictable. Lots of people > were speculating that that would happen (lots and lots and lots of people > speculated that Angel might change back and Buffy wouldn't believe him, > though her killing him seemed more of a long shot, given that he was a > regular). No one predicted what actually would happen. Not even with Fox's > promos announcing "And it will all end in a stunning moment that no one will > expect" -- practically trumpeting the fact that there would be a surprise > ending and daring us to guess it. > > But afterward I never saw anyone say that it would have been more powerful, > dramatic and tragic had it happened the predictable way. Everyone I have > ever seen comment on the ending of B2 was far more blown away by the tragedy > of Buffy's knowing, chosen sacrifice. You are the first person I have ever > seen express the opinion that the mistake would have been more dramatically > powerful. > > I have a feeling that your not understanding what was happening blunted > the impact for you, and learning what really happened in retrospect doesn't > quite have the same effect. There was actually a moment in which Joss made > us wonder if Buffy would let the world go to hell out of her love for Angel. > Never have I watched a show that actually made me seriously wonder such a > thing, even for a moment. But if you didn't know what was happening, that > wouldn't have happened to you. One of the most powerful microseconds in all > of Buffy is the instant in which she realizes what she has to do and makes > her decision, even though one doesn't realize that is what is happening until > a subsequent viewing; it happens just when the vortex starts to open and the > tragic decision flashes through her eyes. But you'd miss the impact of that > if you didn't know what was happening. > > And Angel's uncomprehending look of betrayal by someone he loved and > trusted. How could you have had that if the situation was "I'm good again, > Buffy! Believe me!" "You're lying! " She might have felt guilty > afterward, but it is nothing compared to the guilt of knowingly betraying the > innocent trust of someone you love. "Close your eyes." He trustingly does > so and, with full awareness of what she is doing, she betrays his trust. > (And the fact that she instantly knew without doubt that her Angel was back > carries its own dramatic message.) > > Yeah, the magic rules are arbitrary and are handy dramatic shortcuts for > the Buffy writers. All the time. In practically every episode. It is not > uncharacteristic of Buffy at all. If you have never noticed it before, it > is because the human drama so absorbs our attention, and the reason that the > human drama =can= absorb our attention so thoroughly is that so little time > is spent on the plot devices that set up that drama. The writers say, "The > magic works this way," and poof, instant plot shortcut. B2 is no more > arbitrary than the rest of the series. You may have stopped to think about > it in this case because you =weren't= caught up in the drama, due to not > understanding what was happening. > > In my opinion, the ending of B2 was one of the highest dramatic moments I > have ever seen on the big or small screen, and was utterly perfect. We'll > just have to agree to disagree on whether the "mistake" scenario would have > been an improvement. > > Gayle > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:03:22 -0400 From: Dori Subject: Re: Forever Knight (was Re: b/redemption) Gayle said: >Unfortunately I haven't seen FK enough or recently enough to remember all >the characters' names. Was Vachon the white-haired vampire? No, Vachon was the long-haired Spanish vampire--it occurs to me you may not have got to him yet. He appeared in the third season. He was involved with Tracy Vetter, the partner who replaced Schanke. - -- Dori cleindori@rica.net - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "I ADORE Joxer. He validates my inner geek and shows me and being sexy aren't mutually exclusive states." Alexa - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:17:09 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Forever Knight (was Re: b/redemption) In a message dated 7/22/00 8:06:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, cleindori@rica.net writes: << Unfortunately I haven't seen FK enough or recently enough to remember all >the characters' names. Was Vachon the white-haired vampire? No, Vachon was the long-haired Spanish vampire--it occurs to me you may not have got to him yet. He appeared in the third season. He was involved with Tracy Vetter, the partner who replaced Schanke. -- >> Oh yes, I remember him. He was cute. As I remember, kind of laid back as vampires go. I don't have cable any more, so I'm not watching the show currently, and haven't seen it for a good long time (and most of the eps I did see I saw only once) so my memory is fuzzy on much of it. Nevertheless, to anyone who has Sci-Fi Channel (think FK's still going, right?) I recommend taking a look at FK for a glimpse of what Angel could have been, if it was as dark as it first promised and if the actor playing the title tormented vampire could really act. IMO Angel has FK beat in certain ways: more imaginative variety of plots, for one thing, due mainly to the endless variety of demons around in the Angel universe. (FK's central plots usually seemed to be mostly rather conventional cop plots with a vampire twist.) Angel also has a bit of a sense of humor, which FK lacked, and Angel has more variety in its tone, light to dark (though never =really= dark). Mainly, though, FK had a lead actor who could ACT. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 00:48:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 Dawn, I can't imagine what I said that led you to the conclusion that I don't like _Buffy_. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't watch it. It and _Angel_ are the only tv series I've watched regularly in 25 years. Am I not to be allowed to express slight partial disappointment in a given episode without being accused of being a party-pooper so extreme that I should consider leaving the list? Has my enthusiasm for "Hush" and "Restless", to name two, not come across? I know of one person on this list who's grumbled privately to such disappointed feelings in season 4 that they may not even watch season 5. I certainly do not feel that way, though I have expressed some disappointment in the story arc, as have several others. Nor did I say that tv is incapable of subtlety. Film and tv are their own media with their own virtues and defects different from those of print, and their own strengths and limitations. I said that "I Only ..." treated its topic with as much subtlety as the time and format allowed. It was only the fact that one of the best fantasy novels I know treated an identical theme that made the episode suffer by contrast. The inherent limitations of tv were brought forcibly to my attention. On other occasions they can be ignored. Print has inherent limitations too. I tried to word my comments on "Becoming" so as to express that they were my opinion (but really, who else's opinion would they be?). But what I thought would have been a better plot is not my personal dream of tragedy: I am not in fact a devotee of tragedy, and my preferred genre of drama is semi-serious ensemble comedy, something which many episodes of _Buffy_ are. I'm a little stunned by Gayle's statement that my plot outline was predictable: true, I'm not a great fiction writer and am not likely to have many original ideas, but in its whole the idea is only predictable in retrospect. It was, for instance, not too long beforehand that the idea came up that Angel's soul could be restored at all. And it would be pretty weird to suggest that it's a flaw in _King Lear_, say, that it's predictable that Lear would come to regret his impulsive actions, though it is. Nevertheless I have to say that Gayle is in her admirable incisive form in this comment, and that the fact that I momentarily missed some of the critical set-up may account for part of my disappointment. Still, from the moment that Willow first planned to undertake the restoration spell, Buffy was faced with the possibility that she'd have to kill Good Angel (because it was always a possibility that he'd have started the ritual already in Bad form), and she repeatedly said that she could do it if she had to, and then she had to, and she did it. So I can't really see how that's any less predictable, since it was telegraphed. This interpretation also makes Xander's and Willow's actions into something akin to red herrings - all that happens from Buffy's POV is that Xander distracts her from the fact that Willow is trying the spell again. Which, if Xander had said nothing, she might well have guessed. But she shows no surprise on finding Good Angel, so even that has no effect. And lastly, I still maintain that it is a flaw that this situation was only created because of an artificial provision in the ritual. It's an absolutely necessary feature to the dilemma: if the ritual could be stopped in any other way, the problem would never come up. The same thing is true of the 3rd season dilemma when Faith poisons Angel and it just happens that he has to drink the blood of a Slayer to recover. That one's a little better handled, in part because it's a possibility that Faith chose that poison for that reason (not guessing that she'd be Buffy's choice of sacrifice: I think Buffy's ruthlessness to some degree stunned Faith and is responsible for the ferocity of Faith's 4th-season dreams), but it's still a flaw. This show isn't perfect, but what is? And it's still pretty darn good. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #159 *****************************